Exploring Coastal Access in South Africa: A Historical Perspective

Abstract

(1) Background: Coastal spaces have been highly contested terrains in South Africa, dating from the colonial period to the present time. Inclusive documentation of the history of coastal access in South Africa is inadequate. The current paper aims to explore the history of coastal access in South Africa, dating back to precolonial times until the present. (2) Methods: this research includes the review of documents in order to understand the phenomenon. Documents ranging from pre-colonial times to the present regarding access to the coast in South Africa were explored. (3) Results: the alienation of the African majority from coastal access in South Africa has been systematically executed through various legislations. Although 1994 (democratic era) ushered in a political change, coastal spaces in South Africa still reflect historical racial divide, with former Caucasian areas well-endowed with facilities whilst others are still underdeveloped. The lack of access to coastal resources remains a challenge to many previously disadvantaged communities, owing to South Africa’s history of Apartheid. Apartheid spatial planning remains a factor that undermines equitable access to the coast. (4) Conclusions: Our conclusions show that, although the Native Land Act of 1913 was abolished, the failure to implement meaningful land redress continues to perpetuate Apartheid spatial order. Furthermore, a drastic shift in spatial planning and socio-economic development must be implemented to address the imbalances of the past. Although the Integrated Coastal Management Act (2008) is a progressive legislation, capacity and boldness is needed to implement the expropriation of coastal land for public interest. South African jurisprudence also needs to deal with the perceived unequal regard for private property rights and public property rights.

1. Introduction

The South African coastline stretches for some 3000 km from the Orange River at the Namibian border in the west to Kosi Bay near the Mozambique border in the east. The coastline defines the area where the land meets the sea/ocean. It is the line that divides these two types of geographical topographies. The ability to enjoy natural resources has a significant impact on people’s life and their well-being. Historically, the coast provided services to people through estuarine and marine ecosystems, such as marine products, raw material, recreation, cultural and spiritual services. Access to the shoreline in South Africa, as with other areas of environmental and socioeconomic management, has been uniquely shaped by the historical spatial-political planning of the Apartheid, which is a policy whereby people were separated based on race during the 1940s [1]. This historic spatial-political planning of the Apartheid has shaped the current disproportionate access and development along the coast [2]. This paper explores this history with specific attention to coastal access in order to document the phenomenon. Various studies have been conducted regarding historical aspects of environmental management, such as the history of coastal conservation [3], history of coastal management in South Africa [2], and history of coastal tourism in the City of Adana [4]. However, studies that focus on the historical aspects of coastal access in South Africa remain inadequate. This study focuses on the coastal zone, especially the coastal public property that is the common property of the people of South Africa. The aim of this paper is to document the history of access in South Africa and thus broaden understandings about structural challenges.

2. Materials and Methods

The current study was conducted using document analysis. Published articles, unpublished reports, and strategic government documents that are significant to the history of coastal access in South Africa were critically reviewed. The approach adopted in this paper was to start with a review of often-cited papers pertinent to the history of coastal access in South Africa. The limitation was that there is inadequate reviewed work published on the history of public coastal access in South Africa. Google Scholar and Academia were used as search engines to identify additional papers applicable to the main theme of the history of people’s access to the coast in South Africa. In terms of unpublished literature, the focus was on reviewing technical and government-based reports appropriate to this paper. These were obtained from relevant government departments, such as Environmental Affairs and Fisheries. Articles from various print media, such as newspapers and magazines, were also used. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Categories were generated through content analysis that informed the discussions and conclusions.

3. Review of Historical Data Regarding Coastal Access in South Africa

3.1. Access to the Coast during the Pre-Colonial Era

Historically, the Khoisan and Black Africans are recognized as the two indigenous groups that occupied the South African landscape far before the official recording of history [5]. The Khoisan settled on the west coast of South Africa, whilst the coast on the eastern side was mainly occupied by the Xhosas and Zulus [6]. Figure 1 shows the coastal map of South Africa that generally reflect a colonial spatial order where many African communities were alienated from coastal spaces. The coastal regions of the South-Western Cape were heavily occupied by pastoralists known as the Khoikhoi [7]. Before the settlers’ arrival, history records that the San people were living in peace along the coast enjoying crayfish, mussels, perlemoen, and seals as their basic foods, and the archaeological evidence of the fish bones found in the coastal caves inhabited by the San shows that they were skillful fishermen [8]. The Khoisan could also collect ample marine resources, such as mussels and crayfish, as well as veldkos (berries or corms) [9]. Archaeological evidence depicts Southern Africa as an area where native people initially started to use the oceans for their livelihood [10]. Since ancient times, the ocean has been used for livelihoods, food, recreation, and healing as well as being places of ancestral worship for indigenous people [11]. As far back as two million years ago, the coast was a place of survival, recreation, and dwelling for people, and this is shown by the discovery of certain tools and middens along the west coast [10]. Owing to their nomadic nature, these groups had the liberty to move and access coastal resources for their pleasure and livelihood. The pre-colonial era presents a period in history where indigenous people of South Africa had open access to coastal resources.

3.2. Access to the Coast during the Colonial Era

This period depicts the beginning of a well-orchestrated isolation of indigenous people from the South African coast. As the Caucasian settlers arrived in 1652 to the Cape of Good Hope, the subsequent invasion of land and dislocation of indigenous people began in South Africa [13]. Within 50 to 100 years of European colonization, the marine hunter-gatherer way of life along the south and west coasts had practically vanished [9]. During this time, society’s relation and the environment were disrupted, legacies that are still evident today [14]. The confiscation of the coastal land by Dutch farmers was the first encounter that exploded between the Dutch and the Khoisan [15]. In 1658, the first action of forced relocation in South Africa was initiated by Jan van Riebeeck when he informed the Khoisan that they should leave the west of the Salt and Liesbeek rivers [16]. The Khoisan viewed the Dutch settlers as competition for the available grazing land and as intruders who were restricting their movement. On the other side, Europeans viewed the Khoisan as inferior and a source of cheap labor [15]. The largest part of the Western Cape was under Dutch authority towards the end of the 16th century and Caucasian farmers were given most of the land as freehold. Ultimately, this forced most of the Khoisan to move north where the land was desolate and not fertile. Significantly, the coast represents the first historical point of conflict between the Caucasian settlers and the African indigenous people of South Africa. During this period, the restriction and dislocation of indigenous people to coastal resources also escalated. Various pieces of segregation legislation were used as mechanisms through which movement along the coast and access to coastal resources were limited. For instance, in 1809, the British government passed the Hottentot proclamation to control and limit the mobility of the labor force. In 1894, the Glen Grey Act (Act No. 25) was promulgated, and it created separate areas for Black people, while simultaneously directing their economic activities [17]. Due to these concerted discrimination measures, the indigenous people lost their coastal land to the Europeans. Moreover, they lost their ability to move along the coast. In 1879, the Native Location Act was also promulgated and built a firm groundwork for the Native Land Act of 1913. The Apartheid was entrenched in this Act and, consequently, beach Apartheid and territorial segregation formalized the restrictions on Black land ownership [18].

Beaches and other exclusive areas, such as the coastline, were not spared from the discrimination laws during the colonial time [19]. Although beach discrimination was formally practiced in South Africa throughout the last century, stringent policy measures were adopted during the Apartheid government. Local authorities were empowered by the Reservation of Separate Amenities Amendment Act of 1960 to implement beach discrimination. Furthermore, this policy gave authority to persons in charge of public properties, which also included the seashore, to preserve those spaces for certain racial groups [19]. Even walking on the beach demarcated for the “Whites Only” was a punishable crime in South Africa [20]. Over and above dividing the country into Caucasian and non-Caucasian groups, people could only attain property rights in their areas [21]. Discriminatory practices, such as denying equality for land based on race, also posed serious economic, environmental and social consequences for Black Africans.

When the Pact government came into power in 1924, it pursued the elimination of Black African’s abilities to access land and further create a standardized Black administration system throughout the country. In 1927, J.B.M Hertzog (then Minister of Native Affairs) created the Black Administration Act (Act No. 38 of 1927). This Act became one of the primary mechanisms for the forceful removal of Africans in certain places [22]. Section 5 (1b) of the Act contained powers for ensuring effective implementation of these forced removals. Included in these forced removals was the dislodgment of the natives from their ancestral land along the coast. For instance, between the 1890s and the 1930s, the state removed the Black communities from the coastal areas in the Eastern Cape, while Caucasian people established hotels, such as Haven, and holiday cottages in the same areas [23]. In early 1893, the British government seized areas, such as Dwesa–Cwebe coastal land on both sides of the river, dispossessing indigenous communities of their land [24]. Similarly, this period was marked by the perpetual removal of indigenous communities of South Africa from their coastal land.

3.3. Access to the Coast during Apartheid

The formalization of Apartheid in 1948 gave way to the formal isolation of people from natural resources, such as coastal resources. By the middle and late 20th century, denial of access to marine and coastal resources to certain racial groups was in full force in South Africa [10]. Within the first two decades, the National Party government ensured that many laws were promulgated in support of the Apartheid ideology of racially segregated spaces [25]. Apartheid ensured that the environmental resources were secured for the benefit of the select community of the Caucasian minority. Apartheid promoted environmental scarceness for Africans and subsequently created a scene for societal conflicts [26]. Under the Apartheid government, access rights to coastal and marine resources were largely denied to black South Africans. For instance, very large Caucasian-owned fishing enterprises controlled about 90% of the country’s fish resources worth an estimated ZAR 2 billion a year [27].

In 1935, the Sea Shore Act was passed as the first legislation dedicated to coastal management in South Africa [28]. Because of this law, Black people were prohibited from settling near the high watermark of the coast and from using the marine resources to which they have the historical access right [29]. However, the Sea Shore Act declared the Queen of England as the owner of the seashore and the sea within the territorial waters of South Africa. To address this problem, in 1972, the Minister of Agriculture amended this Act by giving control of the beaches to local and provincial authorities [18]. The Sea-Shore Act (1935) was a typical example of the destruction of public rights in the coastal zone [30]. In terms of this Act, Africans became the most ostracized race whereby the best-developed beaches were allocated to the Europeans with the inscription ‘whites only’ [31]. The beaches allocated to Europeans had better facilities, were nearer to the city and easily accessible, whereas beaches for non-Europeans were either underdeveloped for recreational use or absolute treacherous [19]. Safety for African beaches was completely disregarded during the Apartheid, as they were highly underdeveloped and inappropriately located. In 1965, beaches allocated to Africans in the Cape were considerably far from their homes, lacking in facilities and services [32]. In Natal, by 1988, 90% of the shoreline was set aside wholly for Caucasians [10]. Contrarily, Blacks, who made up 46% of the population, were allocated only 650 m of beach [32]. Chiba reverberated in a poem about beach Apartheid ‘that Muizenberg beach with its shocking blue sea/sundrenched/but denied to me’ [33].

In 1950, the Apartheid government passed The Group Areas Act to ensure Caucasian people were exclusively located on the seaside and other prime lands [34]. In 1953, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act was passed and caused administrative complications in the coastal areas. For example, according to Section 2 (1) of this Act, “Any person who is in charge of or has control of any public premises or any public vehicle, whether as owner or lessee or whether under his office or otherwise, or any person acting under his control or direction may, whenever he deems it expedient and in such manner or by such means as he may consider most convenient for informing all persons concerned, set apart or reserve such premises or such vehicle or any portion of such premises or such vehicle or any counter, bench, seat or other amenity or contrivance in or on such premises or vehicle, for the exclusive use of persons belonging to a particular race or class” [35]. This Act also ushered in isolated facilities, such as toilets, beaches, and parks, for different race groups. This Act failed to define beach occupation and consequently, the implementation of beach segregation was delayed until a definition could be resolved and subsequently enforced by law [25]. Another problem for the Apartheid authorities was that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953 could not authorize local governments to effect beach segregation [31]. Although local authorities could preserve public premises for the exclusive use of persons of a particular race, the term ‘land’ only included the land above the high watermark [36]. To address such shortcomings, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953 was amended in 1960 with the definition clause that the land includes the sea and sea shore [32]. The amendment resolved the problem of definition and the direction was clear towards the full implementation of coastal segregation in South Africa. Other than separating people along racial lines, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953 also pushed African people away from the pristine coastline, effectively disempowering and discouraging their ability to enjoy and benefit from coastal resources. These efforts were also designed to collapse African’s self-reliance and determination and force them to become cheap labor in mines and farms. Apartheid authorities carried a series of evictions and created labor reserves with high population concentrations, and growth rates that were against the natural population increase or voluntary migration [37].

In 1988, the Apartheid government promulgated the Sea Fisheries Act that ushered in the system of individual transferable quota (ITQ) in the fishing industry of South Africa, and this system was suggested by the Diemont Commission, which the then President ordered in 1985 [38]. The key features of this system were the privatization of marine resources, enormous profit margins, and maximizing proficiency [39]. It was clear that ITQ was predominantly concerned with advancing economic gains rather than protection, community well-being, or impartiality [40]. Through this system, the bulk of fishing rights was accorded to a few individuals. In achieving the objectives of this system, social equity and small-scale family-based units had to be destroyed as the growth of the larger, capitalist enterprises emerged. Through the Sea Fisheries Act, small-scale fisheries were severely affected and Black communities were confined mainly into cheap labor within the fishing business [41].

In 1989, the Environmental Conservation Act (ECA) was passed to take care of all environmental issues in South Africa [42]. However, this policy did not advocate for the equitable use of natural resources, including advancing a people-centered rather than a resource-centered approach. Previously disadvantaged communities experienced most of the negative effects of environmental degradation due to bad planning and racially motivated urban designs during the Apartheid [43]. Since ECA was developed under the Apartheid, the equitable beneficiation of natural resources failed to advance, despite its good intentions. As such, the 1970s represent an era whereby coastal management in South Africa was disjointed and uncoordinated, and more attention was given to promote a singular purpose and for the exclusive beneficiation of environmental resources [44]. The Apartheid government continued with the colonial act of evicting people from their land. For instance, in Ngqushwa in the Eastern Cape, Amazizi and Ama Gqunukhwebe communities were forcibly removed from their ancestral land along the Fish River and Mpekweni [45]. This period again was associated with the displacement and restriction of indigenous communities of South Africa to access coastal resources/spaces.

3.4. Access to the Coast during a Democratic Period

The post-Apartheid period, from 1994, ushered a new dawn in the political space of South Africa. During this period, old Apartheid and colonial laws were abolished and new progressive laws were passed. In 1989, shortly after taking on the presidency, President F.W. de Klerk ordered the abolishment of the beach Apartheid [46]. He achieved this through the repeal of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953. Arguably, many South Africans do not view President de Klerk as a pioneer for ending beach Apartheid [46]. The credit for ending beach Apartheid belongs to the concerted efforts of resistance that civic organizations exerted against the Apartheid [46]. Non-European groups who were supported by political activists continuously ignored Apartheid laws and invaded beaches reserved for Caucasians only [47]. Consequently, Apartheid authorities started to feel the pressure, and discrimination laws started to crumble. The constitution of South Africa was passed in 1996, foregrounded on the principles of equality, fairness, justice, to mention a few. Premised on Section 24 of the Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act 107 was passed in 1998. This Act aims to advance premised equitable access to natural resources based on the principle of public trust doctrine. According to the public trust doctrine, natural resources are regarded as public goods and people’s common heritage. To eliminate the exclusive use of coastal resources, the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICM Act) was passed in 2008. This act views the coast as a national asset that belongs to all citizens of the Republic of South Africa. To improve public access to the seashore, Section 11 of the ICM Act declares the “coastal public property” as a zone that is owned wholly by the citizens of South Africa [48].

4. Discussion

Historical facts, such as archeological evidence, indicate that before the arrival of the settlers in South Africa, indigenous people had an open access to coastal resources. Both the colonial and Apartheid government had one thing in common, that is; the marginalization of Black people in South Africa. This is evident through the use of segregation laws, and as such, Black people were alienated from coastal resources. To this end, denial of access to coastal spaces that originally belonged to Africans was at the core of Apartheid policies which perpetuated high underdevelopment among Black communities.

As shown in

Table 1. Summary of legislations that influenced public coastal access in South Africa.

Year	Legislation	Objective
1809	Hottentot Proclamation	To control and limit mobility of labor force
1879	Native Location Act	To promote racial segregation
1894	Glen Grey Act	To create separate areas for Black people and directing their economic activities
1913	Native Land Act	To restrict Black people from buying and accessing land
1927	Black Administration Act	To ensure forceful removal of Africans from certain places including the coast
1935	The Sea Shore Act	Prohibiting Black people from settling near the high watermark of the coast and from using marine resources
1950	The Group Areas Act	Ensured that Caucasian people were exclusively located on the seaside and other prime lands
1960	Reservation of Separate Amenities Amendment Act	To implement beach discrimination and other forms of discrimination
1988	The Sea Shore Act	Ensured alienation of small-scale fisheries through the privatization of marine resources
1989	Environmental Conservation Act	To manage natural resources through a resource-centered approach and perpetuated racial exclusions
1998	National Environmental Management Act	To ensure equitable access to natural resources
2008	Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICM Act)	To address imbalances of the past pertaining to coastal resources

, from 1809, when the Hottentot proclamation was passed, to 2008 (ICM Act), legislation influenced the coastal landscape dynamics of South Africa. Consequently, the current South African coastal setting still reflects the imprint and legacy of those legislations, especially the 1913 Native land Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Amendment Act of 1960. In 1994, the Apartheid was formally abolished in South Africa and the new democratic government was established. During this time, Apartheid signs and symbols were removed and Apartheid laws, such as the Group Areas Act (1950), were also abolished. A new policy regime with democratic values, such as equality, justice, and fairness, began. However, due to the deep history of racial divisions and the lethargic pace of transformation in South Africa, access to coastal resources by previously disadvantaged communities remains a challenge. This was highlighted intensely in May 2015 by the appearance of a newspaper headline: “Outcry Over Beach Apartheid Sign” [49]. The ‘offensive’ sign at Laguna Beach in Durban with the words ‘African Bathing Beach’ served as a painful reminder of the era of coastal discrimination during the Apartheid period [49]. Although democracy was won in 1994, some freedoms, such as coastal equity, have not yet realized. In South Africa, social inequalities are entrenched in all spheres of social life, as a product of the systemic exclusion of Blacks under colonialism and the Apartheid [50]. In the past, the crossing of color lines on the beach was an act of defiance, with protestors facing fines or run-ins with the police [51]. The Apartheid economic and social disparities between South Africa’s racial populations are present today, and many public spaces, such as national parks, quaint holiday towns, and pristine beaches, remain the playground of upwardly mobile, mainly Caucasian South Africans [51]. Beaches are no longer separated, but their enjoyment is still limited to South Africa’s other great divider: the economy [52]. As early as the 1980s, beach Apartheid began to weaken due to strong political pressure from resistance groups in South Africa. Looking for a new basis for exclusion, some Caucasian communities on the peninsula decided to put up barriers and charge fees, shifting the standard from race to class [53]. A similar approach was used in America in the 1960s whereby predominantly Caucasian suburbs and towns in the northeast, for example, designated their public beaches for residents only, or charged exorbitant access fees for non-residents, or barred non-residents from parking near the shore, all designed to keep minority populations in neighboring cities out [54]. Similarly, in Namibia, people feel excluded from their coast by mines and in some cases even national parks, such as the Skeleton Coast National Park, as well as by private developments that are making it increasingly difficult for urban poor communities to enjoy their coastline [55].

Although Black people visit the beach in tens of thousands only during the festive season, unfortunately, some Caucasian individuals have taken to social media to express their misery with this open beach phenomenon since it removes their historic privileges [52]. Most sun lovers still flock to the beaches assigned to them during the Apartheid by the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, even though this Act was scrapped in 1990, but unofficial segregation still persists in many South African spaces [56]. Ferial Haffajee posed this question: when will our coasts and cities have housing for all, so that Black people are not still temporary beach sojourners, there on a few days a year and who still have to take the expensive and long trips to swim where they like? [56] Present property ownership and spatial planning in South Africa perpetuate the legacy of coastal Apartheid [57]. The effects of Apartheid planning are still evident today, with some races predominantly occupying certain areas [2]. For example, the property owners of Clifton, one of the world’s most expensive “bungalows”, have sealed up access, thus, hindering people’s accessibility to the public beaches [56].

Although the Apartheid has ended, however, its spatial planning still exists in many parts of South Africa, and this has a direct bearing on the implementation of the ICM Act regarding equitable access to the coast [10]. Structural and institutional racism is active and well in all aspects of our society in South Africa [58]. The situation is worsened by the Caucasians’ inability to acknowledge the injustices of the past [58]. A case in point is that of the well-known Durban estate agent, Penny Sparrow, who posted a picture of the crowded Durban beachfront on New Year’s Day and referred to those celebrating the New Year ‘as monkeys’, reflecting a perpetuation of racial intolerance on coastal spaces [59]. Moreover, this shows that, though beaches are no longer separated by law, people are still divided by race. The social engineering plan carried out by successive Nationalist governments from the late 1940s to the late 1980s succeeded in creating exclusive territories for each of the racial groups, which proved difficult to dismantle during the post-Apartheid period [2]. As correctly suggested by a South African scholar, Erasmus, sharing space does not end racism [60].

Apartheid legacy, such as unequal distribution of property ownership, undermines objectives of the Integrated Coastal Management Act, such as equitable access to coastal resources. With more land on private hands, achieving coastal equity remains a challenge. Approximately 70% of coastal land is in private hands and only 30% is public [61]. The situation is worsened by the inability of the Department of Public Works to clarify the status of general land ownership in South Africa due to an inadequate record of state-owned land parcels [62]. Although the ICM Act of 2008 makes provisions for coastal public property, lack of clarity concerning land parcels under the State custodianship is likely to affect the determination of this area. There is therefore a need to resolve a land question in South Africa in order to achieve equity in coastal resources. The owners of private properties continue to exclusively benefit from coastal resources through their properties whereas the general public experiences limitations. The Department of Environmental Affairs has developed strategies, such as the national coastal management program and national coastal access strategy. However, these strategies do not provide practical steps for addressing the spatial legacy of Apartheid, the privatization of the coast, and balancing coastal development with conservation rights [61]. The spatial legacy of the Apartheid presents a constant problem in the efforts of achieving equitable access to coastal resources in South Africa. Apartheid mechanisms, such as betterment schemes, the Sea Shore Act of 1935, and the Sea Fisheries Act of 1988 to mention some of them, created long-lasting problems in the coastal landscape of South Africa. Subsequently, these racial policies have affected people’s ability to access coastal in South Africa.

The ICM Act (2008) was passed to address the historical injustices of the past. Key to this Act is Section 11, which deals with ownership, and Section 13, which focuses on access to the coastal public property. According to this Act, the ownership of the coastal public property rests with the citizens of the Republic and the coastal public property must be held in trust by the State on behalf of the citizens of the Republic. Section 13 guarantees equitable access to coastal resources. However, despite the ICM Act’s progressive intentions, communities continue to be denied access to coastal resources. The Apartheid government ensured inequality of land ownership, with more land concentrated on the possession of the Caucasian minority. Section 25 of the Constitution, which deals with property, protects private properties. In most instances, the land adjacent to the coast in South Africa is in private hands. Even though the ICM Act ascertains ownership and access to the coastal public property, private properties become a barrier. Furthermore, economic constraints also undermine the good intentions of the ICM Act. Since the Apartheid also located people away from the coast, the distance factor is also a challenge.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The objective of this paper was to explore the history of coastal access in South Africa in order to document the phenomenon. This study has succeeded in tracking and documenting the role of legislation since the colonial era in influencing public coastal access in South Africa. The exclusion of Black communities from accessing coastal resources was a systematic process that was driven by various legislations. Some of those laws were abolished, but their legacy continues to perpetuate racial and economic divides. One of those laws is the Native Land Act of 1913, which led to the current Apartheid spatial planning, where many Black people are still concentrated in rural areas, whereas Caucasian people live mainly in urban areas endowed with a developed coastal infrastructure.

Undoubtedly, the Apartheid government engraved an imprint of discrimination in many spaces, including the South African coast. The Apartheid was abolished in 1994 in South Africa; however, socio-economic and spatial Apartheid remains alive and present, and manifests itself through high levels of inequalities. Progressive steps have been made since 1994 through the enacting of the Integrated Coastal Management Act of 2008. This Act aimed at addressing the imbalances of the past, such as the exclusive use of coastal resources. The ICM Act intended to achieve this by conferring the ownership of the coastal public property in the hands of the citizens of RSA. However, gaining access to the coast remains a challenge because several private properties in South Africa are positioned immediately behind this area. To solve this challenge, the government needs to implement the expropriation of land for public use beyond mere rhetoric. Although the Native Land Act of 1913 was abolished, the South African landscape still reflects the architecture of the Apartheid. Through this act, the African majority were removed from their ancestral land and placed in ‘reserves’. Consequently, many Africans in rural areas and townships still live in the Apartheid spatial order. To address this problem, the government should ensure that the new housing schemes are repositioned next to coastal facilities, subject to compliance with environmental regulations. Furthermore, the expropriation of coastal land as suggested by Section 9 (1) of the Integrated Coastal Management Act should be implemented. Land and property ownership patterns need to be changed through legal and political means as well as improving the socio-economic status of the previously disadvantaged South Africans. Although access to the coast is no longer denied through a piece of legislation, affordability and accessibility remain the biggest stumbling blocks. To address this challenge, government investments and infrastructure spending should be designed specifically to reverse the imbalances of the past. The Apartheid also removed Black people access to amenities. Therefore, new coastal towns and infrastructure should be developed in line with South Africa’s economic growth path. The notion of developing people in places where they are located also perpetuates the Apartheid spatial planning. The human settlement in South Africa was a predetermined phenomenon of the Apartheid. Government spending through local economic and rural development seems to perpetuate the Apartheid spatial design. There is a need to reimagine town planning beyond the colonial and neo-colonial setup. Property law was also used to advance the Apartheid through a Western notion of individual ownership. Consequently, communities in South Africa are denied access to the coast using the concept of trespass to property. South African jurisprudence needs to address the unequal treatment of private property rights and public property rights, as the coast remains a common good. It is worth noting that the main limitation of the study was the lack of scientific information available that relate to the history of public coastal access in South Africa. We hope this study makes a meaningful contribution towards bridging the information gap. Future studies can be conducted to focus on the history of coastal access, focusing on specific coastal resources, such as sand mining, fishing, estuarine resources, etc.