DRAFT PLAN FOR THE USE OF THE RESOURCES OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE FUND IN 2018–2019
168. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that it had successfully concluded agenda items 1-6. However, it had not managed to finish examining agenda items 7 and 8.a, as foreseen in the provisional timetable. The Bureau, having met in the morning for the first time, had revised the timetable published under ICH 12.COM on the dedicated website. The day’s session would begin with agenda item 7 before moving on to agenda items 8.a, 8.b and 8.c on the examination of the reports of the States Parties. The afternoon session would proceed with agenda items 9: Draft overall results framework for the Convention, item 10:
Draft amendments to the Operational Directives on periodic reporting, and item 11: Report of the Evaluation Body on its work in 2017. In addition, the Bureau proposed examining agenda item 13: Report of the informal ad hoc working group, followed by item 12:
Procedures to facilitate dialogue between the Evaluation Body and the submitting State(s).
Taking into consideration the heavy agenda, the Chairperson urged Members to be brief and to inform the Secretariat of any requests for debate or amendments to specific draft decisions concerning nominations. So far, the Bureau had received only two requests on a nomination to the Representative List. However, Members were free to take the floor on any decision if they so wished. The Chairperson invited the Secretary to make some announcements.
169. The Secretary reminded delegates who had received financial assistance to participate in the meeting to sign off with proof of travel to close the accounts. A roundtable on intangible cultural heritage and tertiary education organized by ICHCAP in collaboration with UNESCO would be held during lunch, which would be offered by ICHCAP prior to the event. The ICHNGO Forum would hold its regional working groups during the lunch break.
There was also a Mongolian National Instrument performance in the foyer.
170. The Chairperson then turned to the adoption of the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Paragraphs 1–4 were duly adopted.
171. The delegation of Mongolia thanked the Secretariat for the detailed report on the use of resources of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund for the last biennium, and for the explanation of the budget proposal for 2018–2019. The Secretariat had done an excellent job until now. With regard to the underutilization of the International Assistance mechanisms and the growing imbalance of the Fund, Mongolia fully welcomed the Secretariat’s proposal to create a dedicated team with two new fixed-term posts in order to fully activate the International Assistance mechanisms and effectively monitor and evaluate their implementation. The delegation believed that all the States Parties would agree that such an important subject as International Assistance required not only money but also the necessary human resources. Furthermore, concerning the two additional paragraphs proposed to the draft decision presented in document 7, it supported these additions as it understood the rise in requests for assistance to participate in Committee sessions, and it was aware that the Secretariat was working hard in preparation for those sessions.
172. The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire remarked that it was perhaps desirable to specify the period of the two fixed-term posts. Under French legislation, the notion of durée determinée or ‘fixed-term’ was well established, whereas this period covered 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019. Thus, the addition of ‘for the period’ or ‘for two years’ would clear up the timeframe issue.
173. The Secretary explained that the use of ‘fixed-term post’ employed UNESCO language, as these were UNESCO posts and were thus not subject to French legislation. All posts were to be reviewed every two years at the General Conference, so contracts were always for a
period of two years. The posts would be financed from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund and thus would be subject to the same language as the C/5, and consequently the same C/5 procedure. However, the posts would not take effect on 1 January 2018 because the General Assembly first had to approve this decision, which was therefore a recommendation to the General Assembly. After that, it would be necessary to establish the post and recruit the personnel. Nevertheless, it would be an ordinary UNESCO
‘extrabudgetary fixed-term’ post financed by the Fund. That being said, the Fund would be subject to review by the General Assembly every two years, as the Regular Programme is subject to review by Member States every two years.
174. The delegation of Algeria asked the Secretariat whether the two posts would be sufficient to carry out all the work planned by the Committee over the next two or four years. The delegation explained that it did not wish to have half-measures, and given the growing consensus in the room, wondered whether three positions would not be more appropriate.
175. The Secretary replied that in all honesty, the answer was no in that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section mainly relied on personnel under temporary contracts and not fixed posts.
In any case, the Secretariat was not sufficiently staffed, whether for statutory meetings or for the work currently undertaken, for which it depended increasingly on extrabudgetary resources, more so than on UNESCO posts. The Secretary further explained that these posts would help by focusing exclusively on the implementation of International Assistance.
However, regional officers were in direct contact with States Parties. These two posts would thus reinforce the work of the regional officers. In addition, the regional officers undertaking work related to NGO assessments, for example, often had multiple tasks. Thus, a third post would effectively free up the work carried out by staff in other non-defined posts. The Secretariat had sought two extra personnel who would focus specifically on this aspect, but this small team would not be able to perform all the tasks required for the implementation of International Assistance.
176. The delegation of Cyprus proposed that posts be seconded by States Parties to assist the Secretariat. For example, this had been done by the Secretariat of the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention and had apparently worked very well, as they can be seconded for two or three years. Cyprus has already done so for this Convention.
177. The Secretary did not believe that this would work in this case. Although the Secretariat appreciated the secondments and the expertise with which they come, in this case the implementation of projects required knowledge of UNESCO’s procedures and administration, which would take two or three years to acquire. The Secretary explained that secondments were indeed very welcome and encouraged, but that some positions were administratively too complex and required different skill sets.
178. Having listened to the explanations, the delegation of Algeria wished to propose the creation of three posts to the General Assembly. It explained that the Secretariat’s presentation on the use of the Fund and its upward curve was worrying, while at the same time the Committee had heard many delegations speak about seeking extrabudgetary funds when the Convention’s own funds were not being fully utilized. Given the exceptional circumstances, and the decision to ultilize these funds on an exceptional basis for the creation of posts, the Committee should not seek half-measures, i.e. to employ two persons only to realize two years later that this was inadequate. Thus, instead of two posts, the delegation wished to propose three extrabudgetary posts, to be determined by the General Assembly. Given all the explanations, it believed that three posts were not too many.
179. The delegation of Austria remarked that although it appreciated the work of the Secretariat, no numbers or figures had been presented in terms of costs, and thus this decision seemed rather spontaneous.
180. The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire shared the same concerns in that it seemed premature to ask for three posts when the Committee could already begin with two posts and then see how this would evolve in the future.
181. The delegation of Algeria did not wish to argue against the general consensus, but on hearing the remark by the Côte d'Ivoire it felt that there was indeed some confusion. The delegation explained that these two or three posts would be established on an exceptional basis and would not necessarily be renewed; this decision dealt with a one-time problem with no expected future as such. This measure would not only reduce the pressure on the Fund by utilizing the funds, which would otherwise remain in the bank, but it would also provide additional resources to the Secretariat to allow it to do the job properly. Everyone agreed that a team of two was almost unmanageable, and thus it was a question of logic.
182. Thanking Algeria, the Chairperson found the consensus very encouraging in that everyone agreed that the Secretariat should be properly staffed in terms of International Assistance.
As a compromise, the Chairperson proposed stipulating in the decision the creation of two or three new extrabudgetary fixed-term posts.
183. The Secretary explained that two proposed options would require two budgets for presentation to the General Assembly, as the Committee was expected to agree on the budget for presentation to the General Assembly. Thus, the budget table would have to be revised. Alternatively, the Secretariat could prepare two budget options, if requested to do so, otherwise the current decision would be incorrect with respect to the budget proposed.
Thus, the option of two or three posts and their associated budgets was a technical issue.
184. The delegation of the Republic of Korea noted that it would be burdensome to prepare two separate budget proposals, and it also concurred with the sensible remarks made by Côte d’Ivoire. Noting that the need for two or three posts would depend on the amount and intensity of the work required, the delegation believed that the Committee should stick to the original proposal of two posts and see with time how much the workload would increase, and then make a decision based on that.
185. The delegation of Palestine supported the proposal for the option of two or three posts for submission to the General Assembly, despite the fact that it understood the Secretary’s concern regarding the preparation of two different budgets.
186. The Secretary could live with the two options, but the Secretariat would require the flexibility to prepare the two budgets in an Annex I and Annex I bis. With this in mind, paragraph 4 would have to be reopened, as it referred to Annex I.
187. The delegation of Algeria further explained that some delegations had wished to have two posts and see how this would affect the work in the future and perhaps adjust the situation accordingly. However, its understanding was that these two or three created positions would be on an exceptional basis, which would not be renewed, so a third post could not be added in the future. Thus, there was only one open opportunity to do it. Moreover, if the option of three new posts was retained, it did not preclude the decision taken by the General Assembly to which the proposal would be submitted. Thus, the General Assembly would decide whether to retain two posts. So for the moment the option remained just a proposal, as States Parties awaited more details at the General Assembly. This was why Algeria wished to have three posts to start with, until the General Assembly when new details would emerge.
188. The delegation of Turkey remarked that it was known that the Secretariat lacked staff and that these two additional posts would be covered by the bank interest generated from the Fund, i.e. 40 per cent of the expenditures related to the post during this exercise would be covered by the interest of the Fund, as presented in the report. The delegation thus wondered why the Secretariat had come to request two posts and not three, and wished to hear the reasoning behind this decision.
189. The Secretary was explicit in that the Secretariat’s needs would not be met as it was clearly understaffed. He explained that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section currently had twelve fixed-term posts and around eighteen people working on non-fixed posts, when in reality the Secretariat would need as many fixed posts. However, the Secretariat’s reasoning was to request a reasonable number of posts that was likely to be accepted. With
regard to the Fund, it was indeed generating interest. So initially the cost would be borne by the interest generated, followed by the capital when the interest was exhausted. To answer Turkey’s question, the real required number of staff would be around ten–fifteen posts.
However, given the current financial situation in UNESCO this was not realistic. Thus, the Secretariat had decided to request a more reasonable number of posts with this innovative approach to budgeting for them.
190. After hearing the explanation from the Secretariat, the Chairperson withdrew his amendment on the understanding that Algeria would also withdraw.
191. The delegation of Algeria believed that it was mandatory to have the Secretariat working in a proper manner. However, it was clear that the Secretariat was understaffed and was asking to create more posts, as there was no possibility to do it without further help. Thus, for Algeria, three posts would be a minimum and not an unreasonable request. In any case, this proposal would be put to the General Assembly.
192. Having listened to the Secretary’s explanation, the delegation of Saint Lucia noted that the Secretariat was being reasonable in requesting two posts when obviously there was a consensus that they needed the Committee’s support for the additional personnel. The delegation felt that the Committee could agree to be even more reasonable and support the Secretary with three members of staff. It therefore supported Algeria’s amendment.
193. The delegation of Cyprus also wished to support the proposal by Algeria for three posts, knowing that the General Assembly would have to decide on the number of posts created.
In addition, the posts were for a fixed-term period, and therefore there would be no point in returning to the decision in the future.
194. The delegation of Turkey echoed the previous speakers in supporting Algeria’s justified proposal. The Convention was almost universal with more States Parties coming on board, which meant a greater workload for the Secretariat. Meanwhile the Fund was under-utilized so there was already justification for the General Assembly to approve this proposal. It thus supported the option of three posts.
195. The delegation of Austria thanked the Secretariat for the explanation, and of course it understood that staff were needed, particularly for statutory obligations. However, a budget line 1.1 would be created under International Assistance, where the posts would provide exclusive support for International Assistance, but the Committee did not have the relevant budget on which to make a decision. The delegation therefore suggested postponing this decision until the relevant budget had been prepared.
196. The Secretary fully appreciated the support and understanding. However, the Committee had already adopted paragraph 4 with the set amount under budget line 1.1 corresponding to the costs of two posts. The budget was now in place, but in the case of three posts, the Secretariat would require some flexibility on that budget to allow for three posts, otherwise it would be impossible to create three posts from the budget earmarked for two posts. This was therefore a technical issue and the Committee needed to find a wording that would provide the Secretariat with some flexibility within the two budget options of line 1.1. The Secretary suggested one option, which was to reopen paragraph 4 and present the Committee with the two options under budget line 1.1. The other option – because this would need to be submitted to the General Assembly – would perhaps be to delegate the two options to the Bureau in order to save time. After a long pause, the Secretary came up with another suggestion, which was to introduce a third column in Annex I that would indicate a percentage of the Fund corresponding to three posts (at the moment 1.1 represented 5.4 per cent of the Fund for two posts). The Secretariat would present the figure to the Committee so that it could then decide, for which paragraph 4 would need to be reopened.
197. The delegation of Algeria asked the Secretariat whether it could adopt a new paragraph that ‘took note’ of paragraph 4 as it stood, with the adoption of a new paragraph requesting the consideration of opening another post?
198. The Secretary suggested suspending the adoption of the decision to allow the Secretariat to prepare the documents that would enable the Committee to adopt the corresponding budget.
199. The delegation of the Philippines agreed with the Secretariat’s proposal to allow for some time to make the necessary modifications, and to suspend the discussion for the moment.
200. The delegation of Senegal concurred with the Secretariat to return to the proposal.
201. The delegation of Hungary noted the withdrawn proposal by the Chairperson, as well as the growing consensus to request three posts, which was supported by Algeria, Saint Lucia, Turkey, Côte d’Ivoire and Cyprus, adding that it simplified the task to have only one option on the table. Hungary thus supported the option of three posts.
202. The Chairperson thanked Hungary, adding that he had wished to suggest the same, noting that the majority view was for three posts. The Chairperson suspended the item.
203. The delegation of Ethiopia strongly concurred with Hungary’s remarks, and with the Chairperson withdrawing his proposal; it would be easier to allow the Secretariat to prepare the draft decision based on three posts.
204. The Chairperson proposed suspending the debate on this item until the afternoon session with the understanding that three posts would be created. He then turned to the set of sub-items under agenda item 8 on the examination of reports submitted by States Parties, beginning with agenda item 8a: Reports of States Parties on the use of International Assistance from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund, which took stock of the implementation of the Convention on the ground.
[Suspension of agenda item 7]
ITEM 8.a OF THE AGENDA
REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES ON THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM