Document ITH/13/8.COM/13.c Decision 8.COM 13.c
1037. The Chairperson proceeded with the next item 13.c, noting that it had previously been discussed by the Committee and its working group with broad consensus on the issue. The Secretariat had also been asked to propose draft amendments to the Operational Directives that the Committee could recommend to the General Assembly for adoption.
1038. The Secretary remarked that it had been the subject of an agreement reached in the working group of the Committee a few months ago. The Secretary recalled that at its fourth session in 2012, the General Assembly requested the Committee to reflect on the procedure for extending inscription of an element already inscribed, i.e. an extended multinational nomination. The Committee decided to set up an intergovernmental working group on the right scale or scope of an element, which was held in Paris from 22 to 23 October 2012. During the working group, a general consensus emerged that the procedure for re-inscription on an extended basis, which was only available for multinational files, should also be available for elements present within a single State that wished to enlarge or reduce an element present on its territory. However, this could not be a simple administrative exercise as all concerned communities had to participate at all stages of the process and decide whether or not they wished to expand or reduce the element, particularly, as had often been repeated, there was a close link between the definition of an element and the definition of its communities. Thus, the proposed amendment annexed to Decision 8.COM 13.c document proposed in Chapter I.5 of the Operational Directives to delete paragraph 14 that referred to an extension only for multinational files, and proposed to add a new section (Chapter I.5bis) to inscribe an element on an extended or reduced basis, clarifying the procedure that is applicable to all inscriptions, whether proposed by a single State or jointly by multiple States. If the Committee decided to inscribe the elements submitted under the new nomination file, the new inscription would replace the original inscription, and if the Committee decided otherwise, the original inscription would remain intact. These additions were presented as new paragraphs 16 (a), (b) and (c), under Chapter I.5bis in order to avoid altering the numbering of the subsequent paragraphs.
1039. Noting the Committee’s readiness to proceed, the Chairperson turned to the adoption of the draft amendments to the Operational Directives for recommendation to the General Assembly. The Chairperson noted that there were two proposed amendments to the draft decision from Morocco and Czech Republic.
1040. The delegation of Morocco thanked the Secretariat for the document with which it agreed.
It simply wished to propose dividing paragraph 16(a) into two. The first part would refer to the extension, and the second part the reduction, adding that they were two distinct matters. The second paragraph would thus become 16 (d).
1041. The delegation of Czech Republic was of the understanding that all State Parties involved in a multinational nomination had to agree to the extension or reduction of the inscription, adding that it was equally important that the concerned communities agree, and was thus vital to include it in the paragraph.
1042. The delegation of Belgium fully supported the proposal by Morocco on the condition that
‘communities’ was replaced by ‘communities, groups and if applicable individuals’.
1043. The Chairperson thus presented the Committee with the revised version proposed on 16 (a) by the Czech Republic, and 16 (b) and 16 (c) by Morocco with the amendment by Belgium.
1044. The delegation of Spain wished to know whether a fourth paragraph would be included in which State Parties presenting a multinational nomination could present an individual nomination in the same cycle, if they were part of a multinational nomination.
1045. The Secretary wished to clarify whether Spain’s question referred to the extension procedure or the number of nomination files submitted per year.
1046. The delegation of Spain asked whether State Parties presenting a multinational nomination could also present a national nomination if they wished to do so in the same cycle. Given that the Operational Directives established priority to multinational nominations, the paragraph seemed to penalize the State that could not also have the possibility of having an individual nomination in the same cycle.
1047. The Secretary explained that the priority given to multinational nominations appeared before the revision of the 2012 Operational Directives and had since been deleted. Priority
was therefore no longer granted to multinational nominations even if the spirit of the Convention was very much in favour of them. The revised Operational Directives granted priority to non-represented States and least represented States, and to nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List. In the case of a multinational nomination, the Secretariat would examine whether among the submitting States there was at least one State with no nominations in the given cycle, in which case it would count for one nomination of this particular State. It was the case for Portugal in the Mediterranean diet extension this year.
For the other States, i.e. Spain and Morocco, they could have another nomination because the inscription would not count towards their quota. The multinational nomination by a State, in which it was its sole nomination in a given cycle, would therefore count as its national file, while other nomination files could be taken into account for the other submitting States of this multinational nomination.
1048. The delegation of Latvia sought clarification as to whether the paragraphs proposed by Morocco would replace the paragraph 16(a) as initially proposed.
1049. The Chairperson clarified that it would replace paragraph 16. With no further comments or objections the Chairperson pronounced adopted Decision 8.COM 13.c.
ITEM 13.e OF THE AGENDA :
INTEGRATING THE DEFINITION OF ‘EMERGENCY’ INTO THE OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVES AND ALIGNING THE DIFFERENT LINGUISTIC VERSIONS OF THE OPERATIONAL
DIRECTIVES
Document ITH/13/8.COM/13.e Decision 8.COM 13.e
1050. With pending issues in agenda items 9.b and 13.d, the Chairperson turned to agenda item 13.e.
1051. The Secretary recalled that the subject had come about during the last Bureau meeting on 28 October 2013 when it granted its first emergency assistance to Mali. The delegation of Brazil had wished that the definition of ‘emergency’, which currently figures into a decision of the Committee, would be included in the Operational Directives. The Secretariat also took the opportunity to propose slight changes to the grammatical discrepancies between the different language versions, so that the General Assembly could also approve these linguistic alignments at its next session.
1052. The Chairperson gave the floor to Brazil to clarify its amendment.
1053. The delegation of Brazil explained that its request sought to have more legal security for future emergency requests with a slight modification, that read, ‘an emergency shall be considered to exist when the State Party finds itself unable to overcome on its own any circumstance due to calamity, natural disaster, armed conflict, serious epidemic or any other natural or human event that has severe consequences for the intangible cultural heritage’, which would allow the State Party to decide whether it may overcome the emergency circumstances.
1054. The Chairperson felt that the amendment reflected the real situation.
1055. The delegation of Morocco found that the French version could be restricted to either facteur or événement.
1056. The Chairperson then turned to the adoption of the draft decision as a whole. With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson declared Decision 8.COM 13.e adopted.
[Friday, 6 December, afternoon session]
ITEM 9.b OF THE AGENDA (CONT.) :
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODY AND ADOPTION OF ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE
1057. The Chairperson started the day’s session with agenda item 9.b.
1058. The delegation of Belgium proposed Greece as a Member of the Subsidiary Body.
1059. The Chairperson thanked Belgium, and moved to the adoption of the draft decision as a whole. With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson declared Decision 8.COM 9.b adopted.
ITEM 13.d OF THE AGENDA :
DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVES ON THE PROCEDURE FOR