EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF HUMANITY
Document ITH/15/10.COM/10.b+Add Decision 10.COM 10
549. The Chairperson welcomed all participants to the morning session of the third day, informing the room that the Bureau had met that morning for the second time. She said that the Bureau was pleased with progress achieved thus far thanks to the working methods adopted to request a debate or amendment of a specific draft decision by members of the Committee, which proved to be efficient during the examination of nominations. She said that the Bureau had received eight amendments and requests for debate which would be examined by the Committee during the day. The Chairperson then gave the floor to the Secretary of the Convention for some announcements.
550. The Secretary informed delegates that an information session on the Convention’s global capacity-building strategy would be held for Electoral Group III: Latin American and Caribbean States, between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. and that the Committee meeting was being widely followed on social media, including one well known celebrity figure from Colombia, Shakira, who had shared UNESCO’s post on the inscription of Traditional Vallenato music of the Greater Magdalena region with her 35 million followers.
[Applause]
551. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the previous day a total of 10 nominations had been examined: six nominations for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List resulting in five inscriptions and one non-inscription, and four nominations for inscription on the Representative List which resulted in three inscriptions and one referral. The day’s programme required the examination of 30 nominations to the Representative List plus two requests for international assistance; of the 30 nominations, more time would be required for eight of the nominations for which the Committee had received requests for debate or amendment. The Chairperson recalled that, during the debate, submitting States could only respond to a question posed by a member of the Committee, and it was not to be seen as an opportunity to highlight information not contained in the file. She appealed to members of the Committee to pose specific questions to submitting States to allow them to respond precisely to questions. She highlighted the time constraint factor and asked submitting States to keep their statements as brief as possible. The next nomination was submitted by Armenia and the floor was given to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body to present it.
552. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body presented the nomination on Kochari, traditional group dance [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.5] submitted by Armenia for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
553. The Evaluation Body considered the information in the nomination file was insufficient to determine whether the criteria had been met. For criterion R.1, the Body felt that the nomination did not clearly identify the nature and scope of the element, outline of the communities and groups concerned nor the modes of transmission in families and dance ensembles. For criterion R.2, the Body considered the file focused on Kochari itself, its communities and national identity in the home and among the diaspora, rather than on the visibility of the intangible cultural heritage in general or on awareness of its importance. For criterion R.3, the Body found the ongoing and proposed activities were mainly oriented towards promotion and not enough on the potential unintended consequences of inscription and even less about the viability of the specific variants of Kochari. The Body judged criterion R.4 to have a top-down structure and that proof of participation and consent of communities was insufficient, especially as it was limited to representatives residing in the capital city. According to the Body, criterion R.5 lacked information on inclusion of the element in an inventory, in particular regarding the participation of communities in identification and definition of the element and regular updating of an inventory.
554. The Evaluation Body recommended referring this file to the State Party for additional information on all criteria.
555. The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that the Secretariat had received an amendment by Greece on criterion R.1 and gave the floor to Greece to explain its amendment.
556. The delegation of Greece said that although the Evaluation Body’s recommendations were valuable it believed that in criterion R.1 at least, the file presented the merits of possible inscription. Greece felt that group dance is a culturally important marker of identity in Armenia being transmitted to younger generations through familial groups and gatherings and variety of formal and non-formal settings and organisations. Greece pointed out that in
this collective expression of the community there were no restrictions of age or sex or social status and that all people in a given community or event participated in the dance. It was performed everywhere in Armenia during holidays, pilgrimages and any sort of festive occasion, as well as in urban and rural communities and Greece was sure that the requirements of the Convention had been fulfilled for criterion R.1 at least and proposed an amendment.
557. The Chairperson thanked Greece for its proposed amendment to criterion R.1 and opened the floor to the members of the Committee to comment.
558. The delegation of Brazil thanked the Evaluation Body for its evaluation, but suggested that from the descriptions provided it felt that the element might constitute intangible cultural heritage as defined in Article 2 of the Convention. Brazil supported the amendment presented by Greece and addressed a specific question to the submitting State concerning criterion R.1: ‘How is the nominated element presented in the practising communities and groups, as well as the forms of transmission within families and dance ensembles?’
559. The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire said that the nomination appeared to it to demonstrate a popular practice transmitted within families to the younger generations and that the mode of transmission seemed clear. With regard to criterion R.5, the delegation requested the submitting State to clarify how the element appeared on the national inventory.
560. The delegation of Belgium expressed support for the proposal of Greece, agreeing that criterion R.1 was met in the dossier but wished to see the amendment proposed by Greece.
561. The Chairperson continued the debate while the technical problem of displaying the draft decision on the screen was being remedied, giving the floor to Ethiopia.
562. The delegation of Ethiopia mentioned the Evaluation Body’s reference to the submitting State’s top-down organisation as outlined in the nomination and asked the delegation of Armenia to clarify what was meant by ‘top-down organisation.’
563. The delegation of Uruguay expressed its support for the amendment proposed by Greece for criterion R.1.
564. The delegation of Congo referred to Greece’s proposed amendment suggesting it was sufficient to enable acceptance of the file and requested that Armenia present further explanations.
565. The Chairperson thanked Congo and referred to the proposal by Greece on the screen.
Looking at criterion R.1 in relation to the amendment by Greece, the Chairperson first gave the floor to Armenia to respond to the two questions posed as the question by Ethiopia was more specifically addressed to the Evaluation Body.
566. The delegation of Armenia thanked Namibia for its hospitality and organisation of the meeting. The delegation had listened closely to the Evaluation Body’s presentation of work in which it was mentioned new working methods were being established that would set standards for its future work. It was mentioned that these new criteria were not applicable for evaluating earlier nominations, yet it seemed to Armenia that at least some of the new criteria and methods had been applied to its current nomination. On 2 November when the recommendation came out, Armenia carefully reviewed the five criteria and for at least for three criteria if felt that they responded to the recommendations of the Evaluation Body.
Armenia agreed with the Evaluation Body there was a possibility to improve the other two criteria but that while there was always the possibility of improving any document this wasn’t the task of the Committee. To avoid any possible misunderstandings or misinterpretations that might have been possible from the nomination file, the delegation
offered the floor to the Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia to clarify the questions.
567. The Chairperson pointed out that she would prefer interventions to be restricted to responses to the two questions asked, but gave the floor to the Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia as requested.
568. The Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia responded to the questions raised, the first of which was about criterion R.1 and practising communities and groups and forms of transmission within the families and dance ensembles. Under paragraph 1(ii) the contours of practising communities and groups were mentioned thus: ‘Today, the Kochari is the most widely spread dance in Armenia. There are also practitioners in the diaspora. People dance in villages, urban areas, almost at every holiday, family events and national festivals. In many villages (besides the well-known dancers) there are functioning children's and adult groups of song and dance that are considered as the main practitioners in local environment.’ ‘Kochari is one of the rare folk traditional dances which is especially popular amongst the youth.’ ‘The bearers are different compatriot unions functioning in various regions of Armenia, young, middle-aged and old individuals also involved in traditional dance groups, in the dancing programs of which Kochari has its steady position.’
‘In the urban environment, during different meetings of young people in the clubs and public places Kochari is danced as a celebrative culmination and epilogue of the joyful gatherings.’
The Deputy Minister referred to transmission in families and dance ensembles where it was mentioned under paragraph 1(ii) of the nomination: ‘The chain of transmission from generation to generation was never interrupted’, as well as under paragraph 1(iii): ‘The Kochari passes to the next generation mainly in families through the elder bearers. The young people learn at family events, weddings, celebrations, through formal and informal education in the traditional folk ensembles, cultural, art and aesthetic educational centres, as well as at professional educational institutions’. ‘The Armenian traditional dance ensembles carry out different educational projects where the teaching of Kochari and its variations is of high popularity [sic]’. After bringing particular examples, the following is mentioned under the same paragraph of the nomination: ‘Presently, Kochari is widely performed not only during regular celebrations, but it has also been included in the dancing programs of professional and amateur dance groups’. The Deputy Minister said that this was in response to the first question.
569. The second question was about how Kochari was included in the inventory with the Deputy Minister responding. Information concerning inscription of the element in the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage, confirmed by Decision No. 310 adopted in 2010 by the Government of the Republic of Armenia, was complete as all defined criteria had been met – localisation, contours, bearers, a brief historical review of the element, its vitality and description of cultural elements necessary for inscription on the List. In the fourth column of the List it was mentioned Kochari is practised in communities all over the territory of Armenia and in the seventh column, a brief historical description is given of community participation. The Deputy Minister continued regarding regular updating of the inventory it should be mentioned that neither in the Convention nor the legislation of the Republic of Armenia were deadlines or periodicity set up for updates of the inventory and that once an element was included on the List it was considered inscribed. Although updating inventory was mentioned in Article 12 of the Convention there was no need for periodic updates after the 2010 for nominations submitted in 2014. Moreover, information about the List, according to the same paragraph of the Convention, had to be submitted in the periodic report by States Parties on the implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted at the ninth session of the Intergovernmental Committee in 2014.
570. The Deputy Minister said the third question related to a comment on the fourth criterion about top-down organisation where the Armenian delegation would like to mention that there is...
571. The Chairperson interrupted the Deputy Minister, saying he had responded to the two questions posed, and that before he spoke further she would give the floor to the President of the Evaluation Body for comment.
572. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body thanked the delegation of Ethiopia for the question on the top-down process of preparing the nomination, recalling that the working methods used by previous bodies was to build a consensus of opinion among the 12 members of the Body. When the Body met in Paris, it was to pool the various views of its members towards agreement on recommendations for each criterion. The impression that emerged among members of the Body with regard to criterion R.4 after close examination of the consent documents was that of a top-down process.
573. The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that she had referred the question to him as the question from Ethiopia was ‘What does top-down organisation mentioned under criterion 4 mean?’ She gave back the floor to the Deputy Minister of Culture for his comment on issue.
574. The Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia mentioned that all accompanying letters were from NGOs registered in the capital city of Yerevan, where half of the population of Armenia now lives and that these NGOs implemented their projects in the regions and villages of the Republic of Armenia. He said it was important to note that neither the Convention nor the questions in the nomination required the involvement of organisations residing outside the capital and that the accompanying letters written by the educational and scientific organisations revealed that the field of study of the above-mentioned organisations was primarily on the culture of the regions and villages of the Republic of Armenia.
575. The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister of Culture saying that Greece’s proposed amendment was specifically for criterion R.1 and that she would turn to the Committee to establish whether there was broad agreement for it then gave the floor to Belgium.
576. The delegation of Belgium asked for the amendment to be shown on the screen and proposed different wording for the first sentence to remain closer to the definition in Article 2 of the Convention by saying that ‘Kochari group dance actually provides a sense of identity’
which would apply also to the diaspora, which was emphasized in the file. Belgium asked to delete ‘is an important marker of identity in Armenia’ and to replace it with ‘provides a sense of identity’, which would be the wording as in Article 2 in the Convention.
577. The Chairperson asked Belgium where they would prefer the full stop to be in the first sentence, to which Belgium answered after the word ‘identity’.
578. The Chairperson thanked Belgium and asked Greece for its opinion on the proposed amendment by Belgium, which Greece said it agreed. The Chairperson asked members of the Committee supporting the amendment proposed by Greece as amended by Belgium to show their nameplates. Sixteen name plates were counted out of the 23 members of the Committee, indicating that the amendment had broad support from the Committee. The floor was given to Latvia.
579. The delegation of Latvia said that if the proposed amendment was going to be accepted, it would first like to see it on the screen. Coming back to the observations proposed by the Evaluation Body and in order to be more consistent with the proposed evaluation, Latvia suggested putting a full stop after the words ‘rural communities’ and deleting the text at the
end of this amendment as the major difficulty expressed by the Evaluation Body was the scope of the element and the definition of communities and groups.
580. The Chairperson thanked Latvia and having asked if there were any objections to the proposed amendment, gave Côte d’Ivoire the floor.
581. The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire said it had no objection but wished to point out that to comply with Article 2 of the Convention, the wording should be ‘urban and rural’, not ‘urban or rural’.
582. The Chairperson thanked Côte d’Ivoire for the clarification replacing ‘or’ with ‘and’ and gave the floor to Belgium, which pointed out that the English version should read
‘performed during holidays’ not ‘in during’.
583. The Chairperson thanked Belgium and moved to adopt the paragraph as amended. There were no objections and paragraph 1 was adopted. The nomination was, therefore, referred to the submitting State for additional information and resubmission to the Committee for examination during a following cycle. The Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.5 as amended to refer the nomination of Kochari, traditional group dance to the State Party for additional information. She then offered the floor to Armenia.
584. The delegation of Armenia thanked the delegations that had supported the amendment and the members of the Committee for their consideration of the draft decision, adding that regardless of the statutes of the inscription Armenia was already carrying out relevant safeguarding measures and teaching the element in secondary schools in Armenia.
585. The Chairperson thanked Armenia for its positive comment and introduced the next file from Austria, giving the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.
586. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination on Classical horsemanship and the High School of the Spanish Riding School Vienna submitted by Austria [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.6] for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
587. The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination met all the criteria. Under criterion R.1, the Body found the nomination demonstrated that the proposed element continues a long relationship between urban and rural centres for breeding and riding, providing a sense of identity and continuity to groups involved in its practice and transmission. Under criterion R.2, the Body believed the nomination showed that inscription of the element was likely to raise awareness of the importance of intangible cultural heritage, including a close relationship between humans and animals as well as respect for cultural and biological diversity while contributing to intercultural dialogue. Under criterion R.3, the Body thought the nomination clearly described past and present efforts for safeguarding the element and proposed measures to strengthen its transmission and promotion. Under criterion R.4, the Body found the nomination had proven that groups of the Spanish Riding School Vienna and other relevant institutions participated in the nomination process and provided their free, prior and informed consent. Under criterion R.5, the Body believed the nomination
587. The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination met all the criteria. Under criterion R.1, the Body found the nomination demonstrated that the proposed element continues a long relationship between urban and rural centres for breeding and riding, providing a sense of identity and continuity to groups involved in its practice and transmission. Under criterion R.2, the Body believed the nomination showed that inscription of the element was likely to raise awareness of the importance of intangible cultural heritage, including a close relationship between humans and animals as well as respect for cultural and biological diversity while contributing to intercultural dialogue. Under criterion R.3, the Body thought the nomination clearly described past and present efforts for safeguarding the element and proposed measures to strengthen its transmission and promotion. Under criterion R.4, the Body found the nomination had proven that groups of the Spanish Riding School Vienna and other relevant institutions participated in the nomination process and provided their free, prior and informed consent. Under criterion R.5, the Body believed the nomination