Legal and illegal export of cultural heritage artefacts from developing countries: Protection of cultural heritage in South Africa

Abstract Cultural heritage is an important part of the capital of developing countries that can be leveraged for sustainable development. However, it also needs protection as the rise in the illegal trade of cultural artefacts shows. South Africa as an example of a middle-income African country that seeks to promote cultural heritage for development. As part of the attempt to preserve cultural capital, the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) is tasked with the protection of cultural heritage that is of special cultural, historical, aesthetic or technical importance to the country, and is thus part of the “national estate”. SAHRA adjudicates applications for the permanent export of cultural artefacts, guided by national policy that defines the attributes of artefacts of national importance. There are also attempts to bypass SAHRA adjudication through illegal smuggling of important art and artefacts, which SAHRA also tracks through a database of artefacts reported stolen. This study analyses the way that SAHRA has applied the policy to make decisions about permanent export applications of cultural heritage artefacts, as well as the attributes of those artefacts reported stolen and thus lost to the national estate. Results showed that the SAHRA permit system seems to be providing effective protection for some of South Africa’s cultural heritage, but only 4% of applications were for art and artefacts representing black African cultures.


Introduction
The linkages between cultural heritage and economic development have increasingly become topics of sharp contention in the discourse of global development (Abouelmagd & Elrawy, 2022;Quang et al., 2022).Despite the efforts of UNESCO to raise the profile of the creative economy in "culturally sustainable development", it was not included as a specific goal in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and remains implicit.In addition to non-market benefits of cultural heritage, such as well-being, identity and social cohesion, the UNESCO Thematic Indicators for Culture provide a framework for countries to track and demonstrate the contribution of the creative economy to GDP, international trade, and employment.Numerous contributors suggest that cultural capital offers development opportunities through tourism, country branding, export markets and craft production.For example, Wiktor Mach (2019Mach ( , p. 1594) asserts that "a pragmatic use of heritage in development endeavours is a sign of greater inclusion of the Global South in international cultural governance".
However, artefacts of significant cultural heritage need to be protected and managed as part of the "national estate" that contributes to the enduring cultural capital of a country.Quang et al. (2022) describe how commodification of cultural heritage in Vietnam can be perceived by local residents as harmful to the meaning and authenticity of their spiritual cultural practices.Commodification of cultural heritage arises out of the increasing value of cultural artefacts and experiences, creating a market demand.It is not always a negative occurrence-cultural tourism in Vietnam is a valuable part of the economy and a cornerstone of government development policy.However, the authors advocate for a more inclusive approach that takes into account the views of indigenous communities.
Internationally, illicit trade in cultural artefacts increases in times of armed conflict, political or social instability, or serious economic downturn (Brodie et al., 2022).For example, illegal trade in cultural property in North and West Africa was found to be significantly expanded by economic hardship during conflict, corruption within heritage institutions and organised crime (Stanyard & Dhaouadi, 2020).This phenomenon is especially acute in the aftermath of the destruction of tourism revenues during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inevitably, the increasing recognition of the value of Africa's cultural heritage has led to the illegal sale of artefacts into international markets.Hardy and Chamberlain (2015) finds significant international evidence that art and other cultural heritage artefacts are increasingly stolen-toorder, and that it is a significant problem in some countries.Developing countries in particular, are vulnerable to the "transnational illicit antiquities trade" which is well organized and funded.Looters can target archeological sites, such as in a Nigerian site where diggers "strip-mine" the area, or through the targeting of less well-protected museums, as is documented in South Africa (Benson and Fouche, 2014).
The 2019 Interpol report (Assessing Crimes Against Cultural Property) showed that Africa experienced a sharp increase in offences reported.The countries who participated in the survey reported nearly 13,000 stolen objects in 2019.Inevitably this is very much a lower bound estimate given that many African countries did not participate.In terms of places where stolen cultural artefacts are sold, the most common channels for African countries were auction houses (29%) and antique shops (25%).The Interpol report shows that cultural objects stolen in African countries are most often trafficked to North America, Europe, East Asia, or other countries within Africa.Culturally sustainable development thus needs a careful balance between drawing on cultural capital to encourage trade and development while also protecting it.South Africa is an example of a middle-income African country where the creative economy is increasingly being recognised as an important contributor to social and economic development goals.As part of the attempt to preserve cultural capital, the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) is tasked with the protection of the "national estate".SAHRA adjudicates applications for the permanent export of cultural artefacts, guided by national policy that defines the attributes of artefacts of national importance.
There are attempts to bypass SAHRA adjudication through illegal smuggling of important art and artefacts, which SAHRA also track through a database of artefacts reported stolen.
This study analyses the way that SAHRA has applied the policy to make decisions about permanent export applications of cultural heritage artefacts, as well as the attributes of those artefacts reported stolen and thus lost to the national estate.In so doing it provides an exploratory analysis of SAHRA data to establish the data gaps and baseline information available to inform decision-making.
The paper is organised in the following manner: The next section reviews literature on the links between cultural capital and development, section three discusses the South African context, section 4 describes the source of the data and research methods, analysis of the data is presented and discussed in section 5. Section 6 provides concluding remarks.

Cultural capital, development and heritage protection
To understand the cultural drivers for heritage protection and why heritage protection is important and integral to the unfolding of an economic development strategy it is necessary to preface and contextualise the study by exploring the nature of these concepts and the extent of their interplay in the extant literature.The creative economy is increasingly being recognised as a viable development option for both developed and developing countries (UNCTAD, 2022;Wiktor Mach, 2019).
The creative economy is critical for sustainable development.It can help diversify production, build competitive advantage, attract investment, support entrepreneurship and innovation, and promote cultural diversity and well-being (UNCTAD, 2022).This is linked to Throsby's definition of "cultural capital" as a way of "representing culture which enables both tangible and intangible manifestations of culture to be articulated as long-lasting stores of value and providers of benefits for both individuals and groups" (Throsby, 2001, p. 44).Like other forms of capital that make up part of resources of a country, cultural capital has both stock and flow values: investing in cultural capital can increase the stock, while neglecting it causes depreciation.
According to UNCTAD (2022), the creative economy accounts for 3.1% of global GDP and 6.2% of employment worldwide.2021 was designated the International Year of Creative Economy by a United Nations General Assembly resolution (74/198), which also acknowledged the alignment between the three broad dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, environmental) and the creative economy.
International interest in the role of the creative economy, and the cultural and creative industries, has been stimulated by initiatives such as the publication of the UNCTAD "Creative Economy" reports, and the declaration of the World Decade of Cultural Development, which "marked a turn in the approach to intangible cultural heritage, which was a response to many voices from the Global South" (Wiktor Mach, 2019)."Agenda 21" was a global call for the formal recognition of culture as a key part of sustainable development, which UNESCO (2015) strongly supported.However, despite the efforts of UNESCO to raise the profile of the creative economy in development, "culturally sustainable development" was not included as a specific goal.
Nevertheless, the "Thematic Indicators for Culture in the 2030 Agenda" (UNESCO, 2019) developed a method for demonstrating culture's role and contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).The recent UNCTAD Creative Economy Report (2022) outlines the many ways in which the creative economy can contribute to the SDGs: Goals 1 (no poverty), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure), 10 (reduced inequalities), 11 (sustainable cities), 12 (sustainable consumption and production patterns), 16 (peaceful and inclusive societies) and 17 (means of implementation and global partnerships).
Although widely cited, the SDGs are also not without their problems.Swain and Ranganathan (2021) point out that the evaluation of progress towards the SDGs is typically done one goal at a time, which discounts the complex interlinkages between them, including both trade-offs and positive synergies.They also argue that setting universal targets that do not take into account the context of region is not appropriate and may even be counter-productive to development.
Another challenge is that in developing country contexts constraints on the protection and promotion of cultural heritage for development include lack of infrastructure, marketing and export promotion, and institutional capacity and, for digital cultural services, access to the internet (Throsby, 2015).
Despite these constraints, the potential of the creative economy to contribute to development is increasingly being recognised in the Global South.In 2008, the African Union produced the Plan of Action on the Cultural and Creative Industries in Africa.The Plan has as its primary goal "to tap into the vast economic and social potential of African cultural and creative resources in the African global development process".
There is, however, currently a limited body of published research on the connections between cultural heritage protection and economic development in a South African context.One focus is on how cultural tourism can be utilised for local economic development, especially in rural areas (Butler and Ivanovic, 2016;Nkwanyana et al., 2016;Snowball & Courtney, 2010).The idea is that cultural heritage resources, such as important heritage sites like the Cradle of Humankind (Rogerson & Van der Merwe, 2016), or smaller sites linked together into heritage routes (Snowball & Courtney, 2010) can be leveraged as tourist attractions.If provided in an inclusive, pro-poor way, the increased spending of cultural tourists in a particular region can contribute to the economy, job creation and development (Ramaano, 2022).
There is a smaller but growing literature relating to museums and economic development.Again, the focus is on tourism and local economic development (Rogerson, 2020;Mangwane et al., 2019).However, there is also an acknowledgement that the potential of some local heritage assets are not being harnessed as well as they could be, though lack of marketing and/or the poor provision of infrastructure and other services (Drummond et al., 2021;Snowball & Courtney, 2010).

Cultural policy and development in South Africa
South Africa is a middle-income developing country, with a culturally diverse population, reflected in its eleven officially recognised languages.Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, economic growth was slow-less than 1% in 2019 (SARB, 2022), and the official (narrow) definition of unemployment had reached nearly 30% (QLFS, 2020).South Africa is the second-largest economy in Africa with a per capita GDP in 2020 of US $5,655, which is more than twice that of Nigeria (US $2,097), which is the largest African economy overall (World Bank, 2021).However, South Africa has a very uneven distribution of income (Gini coefficient of 0.63) and high levels of poverty, particularly amongst women, people living in rural areas, and black Africans (Statistics, 2017).
In the post-apartheid era, cultural policy in South Africa was focused on preserving and promoting black African art and culture to redress the imbalances of the past.Policy aims were almost exclusively non-market, related to increasing access to culture, especially for poorer black African communities, and providing resources to artistic producers across a wide range of genres and languages (DAC, 1996).However, the economic as well as the social values of culture have increasingly come to be recognised.In 2011, the Department of Arts and Culture established the "Mzansi's Golden Economy" (MGE) programme (Mzansi is the isiZulu word for "south" and is used as a nickname for South Africa).The aim of the MGE programme was to provide funding and support to cultural and creative producers who sought to grow their enterprises and could demonstrate their contribution to job creation, the development of skills, and economic growth (DAC, 2014).
In the recent development of South Africa's Re-imagined Industrial Strategy (dtic, 2019), the creative economy was identified as one of the seven priority sectors, and the development of a sectoral Master Plan for the Creative Industries in under way.The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (dtic) motivated the inclusion of the creative economy as a priority sector by pointing to its potential for job creation, skills development, building social cohesion, and links to the tourism industry and enhancing South Africa's international reputation (dtic, 2019).
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lockdowns imposed to reduce its spread, had a very negative effect on the economy, and (as in many countries) the cultural and creative industries in particular (Snowball & Gouws, 2022).Real GDP growth recovered to 1.9% in the first quarter of 2022 (SARB, 2022), but while the creative economy is also showing some signs of improvement, a survey of CCIs showed that most respondents only expected their business to recover fully by the end of 2023 (Snowball & Gouws, 2022).Nevertheless, the sector has shown itself to be resilient: when the economy is growing, the creative economy tends to grow even more quickly, and international exports of cultural goods have also recovered remarkably fast (SACO, 2022).
A recent Cultural and Creative Industries Mapping Study, conducted by the South African Cultural Observatory (2022), used the UNESCO (2019) Thematic Indicators for Culture to report into some of the SDGs (Figure 1).Findings showed that, in 2020, despite the negative impact of COVID-19, the cultural and creative industries contributed 3% of South Africa's GDP, and accounted for 6% of employment and 0.4% of exports.

The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA)
SAHRA was founded under the National Heritage Resources Act (1999), which put in place a system for the management of national heritage resources and defined the "National Estate".The Act covers a wide range of heritage, including built heritage, archeological sites, maritime heritage (including shipwrecks), grave sites, public spaces, cultural artefacts (including a wide variety of historical documents, fine arts and crafts) and intangible heritage.This last is referred to as "living heritage" and includes "intangible aspects of inherited culture" such as traditions, oral histories, performance, rituals, technical skills and indigenous knowledge systems.
SAHRA is mandated to compile and maintain an inventory of cultural heritage that is deemed part of the National Estate in order to contribute to the protection, promotion and public appreciation of cultural heritage (SAHRA, 2021).As of the end of 2020, the National Estate had 49,787 recorded sites and 56,455 objects (SAHRA, 2021).While only a small percentage of the objects have currently been classified, Figure 2 gives some indication of the categories that are being used (the "Chenhall" classification system).
According to the Act, an object is part of the National Estate if it has "special value" in terms of the dimensions set out in Table 1.

Table 1. Value dimensions of the national estate in South Africa
(a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history; (b) its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage; (c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage; (d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa's natural or cultural places or objects; (e) its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group; (f) its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period; (g) its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; (h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa; and (i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa" (Government Gazette, 1999, p. 14).
For the international sale (permanent export) of certain kinds of heritage objects that have been in the country for more than 50 years, the seller is required to apply for a permit from SAHRA.If objects are deemed to be part of the "National Estate", that is, they are of national historical and cultural significance, then export permits may not be granted.This applies to objects in both public and private collections.As SAHRA 1 puts it: [Cultural objects] become meaningful when we know how and why they were made, who used them and how they may have influenced, or been influenced by individuals and communities.Irrespective of whether these heritage objects are in public or private ownership, they form part of what is defined as the National Estate.
In 2019, an updated definition of Identified Type of Objects that are Protected was published (Government Gazette, 2019), adding some additional attributes of cultural objects that may make them part of the National Estate: "-extraordinary, rare or unique in South Africa; • the prototype, first production unit, first of a type, a variation of a type; an example of a type modified to suit South African conditions; an example of a type designed in South Africa; • an example of a type wholly intended for use or suited to South Africa, regardless of origin; an example of a type, whether South African in origin or not, which is rare or scarce in South Africa, or the last of a type or only example thereof; • a heritage object of national and international significance; • associated with, made or conceived by a particular person, whether famous or not, in the South African context; • associated with an event, whether famous or not in the South African context" (Government Gazette, 2019, p. 21).
The additional emphasis is particularly on rarity, uniqueness, and scarcity, as well as international significance and associations with historical events or people.Each case is managed by a SAHRA case officer, and where required, various experts are called on to evaluate permit applications.

Description of heritage artefacts in the SAHRA databases
Heritage artefacts for which permanent export permits were applied for included a wide range of types (see Figure 3) and periods (see Tables 2 and 3).The most common type of permit application was for fine art paintings by well-known South African artists.(Source: SAHRIS data, own analysis) Some works are by South African artists, but do not show South African subjects.For example, "Malay Girl" (oil on canvas, signed and dated 1946) by Irma Stern (1849-1966).Stern's family were originally from Germany, but she was born in South Africa, and lived and worked as an artist in Cape Town."Malay Girl" draws it subject matter from her trips to Zanzibar.Stern's work commands high prices at auction, both in South Africa and internationally.George Pemba  is of South African origin and was born and educated in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa.His (Source: SAHRIS data, own analysis) work is recognized as some of the earliest in the social realism mode and is sold for high prices at auction."Portrait of a Boy" (1956) shows a portrait of a young African boy in a white shirt.
The next most common export permit application category was swords, firearms and other weapons.These often include antique firearms from the Boer War period, many of UK origin, which are being sold to collectors in other countries.For example, the export permit application for two Martini-Henry rifles, first used by the British army from 1871.
Occasionally, artefacts of African origin are included in the database, such as a permit granted to exports 14 pairs of Zulu "earplugs" (dated from c1940), but this is rare with most applications being for artefacts related to white South African cultural heritage, or that were originally of European and UK origin.
Paintings were also the most common heritage artefacts in the database of those reported stolen, although mostly by less well-known artists (see Table 4).This is followed by stolen ornamental items such as collectable porcelain and ceramic items (platters, vases etc.) and small   sculptures, such as a Sydney Khumalo bronze sculpture entitled "Mourning Woman" stolen from the Johannesburg Art Gallery in 2014.
Another common artefact category for theft reports is antique coins and war medals such as a corporate coin collection stolen in Johannesburg in 2013, and the theft of 6 Boer War medals from an Eastern Cape province museum in 2015.Images of stolen items are not often available.

Data and research methods
SAHRA adjudicates applications for the permanent export of cultural artefacts, guided by national policy that defines the attributes of artefacts of national importance.There are also attempts to bypass SAHRA adjudication through illegal smuggling of important art and artefacts, which SAHRA also tracks through a database of artefacts reported stolen.
Using both unique databases the analysis explores both the illegal sale of artefacts reported stolen and the applications for permits for the legal sale of heritage into international markets.The aim is to analyse the way that SAHRA has applied the policy to make decisions about permanent export applications of cultural heritage artefacts, as well as the attributes of those artefacts reported stolen and thus lost to the national estate.The paper seeks to contribute to discussions on how the value of national heritage is determined, and on how effective current policy is in protecting it, in the case of South Africa.

SAHRA has a detailed online, open-access database called the South African Heritage Resources
Information System (SAHRIS) that tracks heritage sites and objects.This database contains both quantitative data and qualitative information and a mixed approach to the analysis that combines descriptive analysis, including visualization, of the quantitative data with thematic analysis of the qualitative information has been adopted.This database includes a list of heritage objects for which export permits have been applied. 2 Entries for each object include information such as the date of the application, a description of the object, location data, and the permit application decision (approved, pending, declined, or under appeal).For the purposes of this research, only cultural artefacts for which a final permit decision had been made (approved or declined) were included, which resulted in a database of 259 cases, spanning the years 2006-2021.Permits related to temporary exports or loans, scientific samples (such stone fragments and meteorites), and burial sites and human remains were excluded.
The database also lists art and heritage objects reported stolen 3 including sculptures, paintings, coins, vases, and commemorative medals (255 observations).However, while the permit applications database includes all permit applications and decisions in the study period, the list of objects reported stolen only includes those where the theft was voluntarily reported to SAHRA and is thus a lower-bound estimate.As Brodie et al. (2022) point out, however, the majority of heritage crime figures are "dark figures of crime" in that most heritage crime is unreported and not included in official statistics.In a study of the factors that encourage or discourage South Africans to report crime, Mbewu et al. (2021) found that a perceived lack of loyalty of the police to citizens was the most discouraging factor.Agreement with the statement that "If my house was burglarized and I report, the police would not take it seriously enough to investigate" was the most important determinant in explaining discouraging factors.Residents of upper middle-class areas were also more discouraged to report crime than those living in other areas.Hardy and Chamberlain (2015) concurs that private databases of stolen art and antiquities are incomplete by nature, and that some countries (including South Africa) lack any official government databases of stolen cultural artefacts.
For each list (permit applications and objects reported stolen) a database was constructed, including information date of application or report, the type of object, whether it was originally of South African or foreign origin, the age of the object, whether the applicant was an individual or represented a firm, and whether the permit was granted or not.Comparative summary statistics and visualisation were used to analyse the data.
With advice from an industry expert, a scoring system to determine the importance of artists (where identified) in the two databases was developed.Artists were rated from 1 (highly important) to 4 (little or no information) based on their reputation and selling price: (1) Highly important, either one of the top 12 selling artists in South Africa or taught at schools; works often command prices of more than R1 million. 4 (2) Fairly important, nationally recognised; works usually sell for between R20,000-R200,000 (depending on the attributes of the pieces being sold).
(3) Not very well-known or acclaimed, but have some cultural significance and online presence; works usually sell for between R2,000-R60,000.
(4) Not well-known, and little to no information available online; works sell for very low prices (where a record exists).
For artworks that were not of South African origin, they were ranked as 1 if they were globally recognised and important, and from 2 to 4 in relation to the global market and in relation to South African artworks (Table 5).
For export permits that were granted, no further information is provided, but for declined permits, a letter stating the key reasons for the decision is available.Thematic analysis was used to analyse the most frequently cited reasons for declining the permit, and these are compared to the "list of types" of objects that make up the National Estate as listed in the Government Gazette (1999Gazette ( , 2019)).

Analysis of the applications for artefact permanent export and stolen
The most common items for which permit applications are made are paintings, followed by militaria.In the reported stolen category paintings are still the most common, followed by ornamental items and coins (Figure 4).
For permit applications 70% are for objects of South African origin (Table 3).For objects reported stolen nearly half were of foreign origin.This indicates some growth in interest in South African art and craft objets d'art.86% of the permits were applied for by companies of various kinds and only 14% were submitted by individuals (Table 4).In terms of success rate, 97% of applications by companies and 94% of applications by individuals were successful.Interestingly, a much bigger percentage of applications by companies (74.4%) were for artefacts of South African origin than applications from individuals (48.6% of SA origin), although the small number of applications by individuals (34) makes this analysis less reliable.Somewhat surprisingly, there are very few applications for export permits for black South African cultural artefacts or artists: only 11 of the 259 export permit applications made during the study period (4%) were for artefacts representing black African cultures, or by black African painters.
Permit applications for art and antiquities were most common for those produced in the 20 th century.Although there is much missing data in the stolen objects database, the 1900s is also the most common era in this category.22% of permit applications and 28% of objects reported stolen were from the 1500s to 1800s (Table 4).
The applications for the permanent export of cultural artefacts seem to be concentrated from a particular group of auction houses and galleries (Table 6).The top three companies/businesses (Bonhams, Julia Meintjes Curating Services, and Classic Arms) make up 67% of all the applications in the study period.Since most international sales of high-value artefacts for which permits are required would be conducted through such institutions, this is to be expected.However, the three largest South African auction houses (Strauss & Co., Stephan Welz & Co., and Aspire Art) appear very infrequently in the study period.This may be because they have traditionally focused on domestic sales, for which no permit is needed, but as interest in African art and artists increases in international markets applications from local auction houses may become more prevalent.
For permit applications in the data period, there appears to be a structural break: up to 2016, the average number of cultural artefact export applications per year was much higher than in more recent periods (average number of applications 2010-2016: 29; average for 2017-2021: 18) (Figure 5).Given the relatively low number of applications, such patterns may be due to specific events.For example, in September 2015, the international art auction house, Bonhams, held a large sale of South African art. 5 Currently, SAHRA regulations stipulate that permit applications cannot be pre-emptive, in the sense that South African auction houses cannot apply for permits until it is certain that the object has been sold to an international buyer.Once sold, the permit application could be made by the new owner, the auction house, or the shipping company on behalf of the new owner.The large Bonhams sale in September 2015 is thus almost certainly what increased the number of subsequent applications for permanent export permits in this period.
For objects reported stolen, 42% were part of groups of objects stolen in the same event, and the peak in 2013 is partly due to one case of the theft of 34 medals and coins that were stolen from a corporate collection in Johannesburg.Another factor affecting the volume of objects reported stolen captured in the database over time was an agreement of cooperation between "Artinsure 6 " and SAHRA in 2015, which allowed the bulk import of objects reported stolen into the SAHRA database.An ongoing SAHRA project is to negotiate other such agreements, especially with museums, who at present do not automatically report thefts to SAHRA.Despite this, 56% of the reported thefts in the SAHRA database were from public museums or galleries, rather than private collections, which speaks to the vulnerability of public heritage institutions.
To compare the importance of artists whose work was stolen versus where permit applications were made, a ranking system was applied in those cases where the artist or maker could be identified: 142 cases of objects reported stolen, and 177 cases of permit applications."Importance" rankings were based on both the reputation of the artist, as well as recent selling prices for their work (Table 6).A minority of both entries in both databases were for art or artefacts that were not originally from South Africa (22% of entries in the stolen objects list, and 24% of export applications).
As expected, a much higher proportion of applications for permanent export permits were related to "highly important" artists (66%) than for objects reported stolen (22%).There were no export permit applications that were ranked as low importance or where little or no information was available online.This may be because (i) it would be more difficult to sell stolen works of well-known artists without provenance (unless they were stolen to order); (ii) better known, high value works may be better protected and thus more difficult to steal; and/or (iii) because artefacts that may be regarded as part of the "national estate" (and would thus need an export permit) are more likely to be by important artists whose work is well known and attracts higher prices.
However, given the low percentage of artefacts in the Export permit database by black African artists, or related to black African cultures, this last point may also be an indication of bias in the understanding of what "valuable" cultural heritage is.The way in which the "national estate" is defined should result in a wide variety of historical African artefacts which are of cultural and historical importance, even if not produced by well-known artists, or which can command high market prices.

Thematic analysis of reasons for permit applications being declined
An analysis of the decisions to decline permanent export permits showed that they were clearly made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the attributes of the specific artefact (Figure 6).This is evident in that some artefacts of the same type, or by the same artist, were granted export permits, while others were not.
The most commonly cited reason for export permits not being granted is related to the original list of types: "its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa's history", often linked to the object's uniqueness or rarity both internationally or (as in the updated 2019 list of types) in a South African context.For example, an export permit application for "Four Tsonga Headrests" was declined on the grounds that they formed part of an important collection of Tsonga cultural history, and that the headrests themselves are unique, a rare representative of "styles and conventions" of a particular period, and have aesthetic value ("beautiful execution"): "This is a small early collection of headrests reflecting a certain antiquity and the existing styles and conventions of almost a century ago.Each example is carved in a unique style with beautiful execution, no two are the same.These four headrests are extremely rare, no longer made, and very difficult to locate today".
Another frequently cited reason is the object's "potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa's natural or cultural heritage" (64%).For example, Blinkwater Kloof, by Thomas Baines (1852), was declined on the grounds of the historical importance of what it shows (the Eighth Frontier War between the British and the Xhosa), and also the way it which it depicts the subjects, even though it may not be of outstanding aesthetic value: As part of the war effort, the British increasingly used hyperbolic inflammatory language to describe and vilify their Xhosa opponents in order to sway public opinion among colonists and the British public alike.It is interesting to note that, despite this narrative, Baines' depiction of the Xhosa during this period was largely sympathetic, and did not conform to the incendiary account being espoused by the British armed forces and print media at that time . . .Whilst the painting in question is not aesthetically and technically one of Baines' better works, this period was a highly significant period for Thomas Baines himself, as it formed an integral part of his early years, which set the groundwork for his later travels and explorations.
The next most frequently cited reasons for determining that an object is part of the National Estate are the object's "importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics" and "its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement" of the period (43%).
The aesthetic and technical achievement reasoning is often related to a "strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa", especially in the case of fine art, where the career stage or best work of a particular artist is sometimes cited as a reason (29%).
For example, an export permit for Gerard Sekoto's painting "In the Beer Hall" was refused on the grounds of its "outstanding significance by reason of its close association with South African history or culture, its aesthetic qualities, or its value in the study of the arts or sciences".
Permits for other works by Sekoto were granted in the study period, but this particular painting was regarded as of "outstanding significance" because of the period of the artist's work ("the artwork in question one of Sekoto's earliest sales of his work") and because of the historical importance of its subject: "His works portrayed the lives of black South Africans living in these areas, and showed them in a vibrant and sympathetic style and contrasted their lives with the many tensions of living in those areas, and of the lived experiences of those he painted.In this regard his work of this period transcends mere artistic expression, but also gives a glimpse into the historical record of the lives of his subjects, and his response to them.His work represents some of the earliest works painted by a black South African artist which represented the lives of black South Africans in a sympathetic light".
A minority of cases cited special association of the object with a particular person, community or group in South African history, and there was only one case that related to the history of slavery in South Africa.
From the updated (2019) list of types, the designation of an object as an exemplar of a particular type "wholly intended for use or suited to South Africa, regardless of origin; an example of a type, whether South African in origin or not, which is rare or scarce in South Africa, or the last of a type or only example thereof" was sometimes invoked.For example, a permit application to export an Old Cape "Yellowwood and Stinkwood Cupboard" was declined due to its rarity, technical accomplishments and as an example of a particular type: It is a beautiful example of a Neo-Classical cupboard with the straight lines of this period predominant.The spade feet and diamond-shaped inlay around the keyholes portray the style period, because for the rest it is very similar to the Regency period . . .As there are so few jonkvrouskaste, this one adds substantially to our knowledge of this type of Old Cape furniture.
A few cases cited the object's "international significance" and association "with an event, whether famous or not in the South African context."

Discussion and concluding remarks
To effectively leverage cultural capital for development, cultural heritage needs to be protected else critical elements in the creative economy (Wiktor Mach, 2019) directed to development are degraded or undermined.Museum theft and the perception of being present in museum locations where potential violent crime may take place in the pursuit of theft (triggered by newspaper storylines) would seem an awkward obstacle to otherwise effective museum (tourist) marketing initiatives, as outlined in Drummond et al. (2021) and Snowball and Courtney (2010).
South Africa is a developing economy that has recognised the potential of the creative economy for economic growth, employment, and development.Public funding and public policy are increasingly directed toward this sector, which has shown potential despite the set-back caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.To support this work the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) is mandated to maintain an inventory of the National Estate, and to protect it by preventing the international sale of artefacts "of national importance".This paper has analysed applications for permits for the permanent export of cultural artefacts between 2006 and 2021, as well as a partial register of heritage objects reported stolen to SAHRA between 2000 and 2019.
While not directly comparable, the permit applications and stolen objects databases do show some similarities: the most common artefacts in both databases are fine arts, most frequently produced in the 1900s.Permit applications are mostly (70%) for objects of South African origin, as are 51% of objects reported stolen, indicating an international demand for South African artefacts.Further support for this argument is found in the type of permit applicant: 38% of all applications in the study period were made by the international art auctioneers, Bonhams.However, 89% of applications were made by the top five most common applicants, which suggests that the permit application system is not as widely used as it could be.
An analysis of the importance of artists represented in both databases (in terms of fame and market value) showed that a much higher proportion of applications for permanent export permits were related to "highly important" artists (66%) than for objects reported stolen (22%).The textual analysis of the reasons given for the small percentage of permit applications that were declined also showed that there is good alignment with the legislation defining the National Estate, and that it is being carefully applied on a case-by-case basis.In this regard, the SAHRA permit system seems to be providing effective protection for at least some of South Africa's most highly valued cultural heritage.
However, the analysis revealed two areas of concern: despite a data-sharing agreement with a private insurer (Artinsure), 56% of artefacts in the reported stolen database were taken from public museums and galleries.These institutions may become increasingly vulnerable if international demand for South African cultural artefacts is maintained.
Another concern in permit applications is the relative absence of black South African art and artefacts: only 11 of the 259 export permit applications made during the study period (4%) were for artefacts representing black African cultures, or by black African painters.
This could be for several reasons: despite the increasing interest in, and importance assigned to, culture in development in Global South countries, there is still a Western hegemony of "authorised heritage discourse" (Wiktor Mach, 2019), which privileges some kinds of cultural heritage above others.This may be part of the explanation of for the lack of permit applications for African cultural heritage artefacts (despite their obvious inclusion in the Gazetted "list of types" of what makes up the national estate).That is, it may be that South Africans have not (yet) developed an Africanised heritage discourse that is generally acknowledged and accepted, and which includes African-origin art and artefacts -a form of unconscious bias in the way of thinking about cultural heritage and its value.Throsby (2015, p. 371) also points out that much cultural heritage in developing country contexts is intangible, related to "traditional knowledge, skills, practices and narratives".Although there has been some progress on the recognition of intangible heritage as part of the value of cultural capital, particularly in the Global South, it remains difficult to manage and conserve in a practical sense.UNESCO has acknowledged the importance of intangible cultural heritage, and although mentioned in SAHRA policy, it has not filtered into practice.UNESCO does have a "Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity 7 ", which was strongly motivated for by developing countries, as part of a "rejection of the Eurocentric concept of heritage" that started in the 1980s and 1990s (Wiktor Mach, 2019Mach, , p. 1600)).Although many African countries have added to the list, at the time of writing, South Africa is not among them.
To conclude, as African countries, like South Africa, increasingly recognise the value and importance of their cultural heritage for development, and international interest in African art increases, institutions that can effectively protect this part of cultural capital are becoming more important.The SAHRA system of permit applications for the permanent export of objects that may be part of the "national estate" has been shown to be relatively successful in that it is guided by a comprehensive and detailed policy defining what "valuable" cultural artefacts are, and is diligently and consistently applied to decision-making.However, to be more effective, and to do a better job of protecting black African cultural capital, two additional policy interventions are needed.Firstly, SAHRA needs to be empowered to establish more data-sharing partnerships with heritage institutions (public and private museums, galleries and auction houses, private insurers etc.) and law enforcement agencies dealing with heritage (police, customs officials etc.).This would improve their databases, and reduce the loss of African cultural heritage which, it is likely, is being exported without a permit, or stolen but not reported.As pointed out by Brodie et al. (2022) and Benson and Prinsloo (2013), a lack of reporting and knowledge about how illegal trade in cultural artefacts is occurring reduces effective policy-making and enforcement.
The current system also needs to be supplemented by a systematic approach to the management and protection of intangible cultural heritage.This area may also be important in managing future developments, such as the increasing dematerialising of cultural goods (UNCTAD, 2022).The recent controversial sale of a digital NFT (non-fungible token) of Nelson Mandela's arrest warrant for R1.9 million 8 is a case in point.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The contribution of the South African creative economy to the SDGs.(Source: SACO, 2022)

Figure
Figure 2. Classification of the type of objects within the South African National Estate.(Source: SAHRA Inventory of the National Estate, 2021)

Figure
Figure 3. Examples of artefacts for which export permits were applied forMalay Girl (Irma Stern) "Portrait of a Boy" (George Pemba) Martini-Henry Rifles an example of a pair of Zulu "earplugs".Source: SAHRA Permit Database

Figure
Figure 5. Number of permit applications and objects reported stolen by date.(Source:SAHRIS data, own analysis)

Table 2 . Type of objects: Permit applications and objects reported stolen
Note: (Source: SAHRIS data, own analysis)