DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVES ON SAFEGUARDING INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Document ITH/15/10.COM/14.a Decision 10.COM 14.a

1139. The Chairperson informed the Committee that the objective of the item was to examine three issues related to amendments to the Operational Directives and asked the Secretary of the Convention to present the first of these, item 14.a.

1140. The Secretary informed the meeting that the item followed on from the ninth session of the Committee in 2014, at which the Committee took note of the outcomes of the category VI expert meeting on safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development at the national level held in Istanbul, Turkey from 29 September to 1 October 2014 at which an initial set of draft Operational Directives was examined. The Committee decided to include this topic on the current agenda with a view to examining a new draft chapter of the Operational Directives as revised, in order to submit it for adoption to the General Assembly in June 2016.

1141. The annex of document 14.a consisted of a draft Chapter VI of the Operational Directives on safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development at the national level, building on a draft presented at the previous Committee session and reflecting a number of specific remarks and suggestions made by members of the Committee at that time, as well as recent developments in intergovernmental negotiations leading to the report Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development²³ on which draft Chapter VI of the Operational Directives was based. The report was the draft outcome document prepared for the United Nations Summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda, reflecting the indivisibility and interrelation of three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) while integrating protection of and respect for human rights as an overarching principle, and peace and security as a requirement.

1142. The Secretary said that since the ninth session of the Committee in 2014, the draft Chapter VI had been revised in several aspects:

a) it followed the sequence of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in September 2015 at the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development;

b) it underlined the need for cooperation with non-governmental organizations, experts in sustainable development and cultural brokers for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage and its integration into non-cultural policies (Paragraphs 170, 171 and 175);

c) it highlighted the importance of ethical considerations in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (Paragraph 171); and

d) it introduced the notion of equitable development, thereby taking into consideration similar work carried out within the framework of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paragraph 194).

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

e) The proposed draft Chapter VI of the Operational Directives demonstrated how safeguarding intangible cultural heritage is conducive to the improvement of the social and cultural wellbeing of communities, and to mobilisation of innovative and culturally appropriate responses to various development challenges, thereby complementing the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions²⁴.

1143. It also responded to the recommendations of the recent draft evaluation of the Internal Oversight Service of UNESCO’s work on Culture and Sustainable Development, by expanding considerations of gender equality (Paragraph 181) and the role of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in urban and rural sustainable development (Paragraph 170).

This draft chapter of the Operational Directives was hereby presented to the Committee for adoption, with the intention of submitting it for discussion and approval to the sixth session of the General Assembly in June 2016 in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention.

1144. The Chairperson thanked the Secretary for her presentation and opened the floor for discussion.

1145. The delegation of Turkey thanked the independent experts who took part in the category VI expert meeting in 2014, and the Secretariat for their remarkable efforts. Turkey pointed out that the second paragraph of the preamble and Article 2.1 of the Convention for the Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and the various articles accepted by the General Assembly of States Parties during the preceding sessions concerning the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund and the use of the emblem of the Convention under the Operational Directives, all drew attention to the significance of sustainable development in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. Turkey recalled that the 2013 International Conference on Intangible Cultural Heritage held in Chengdu recommended that States Parties and the international community should make efforts in that regard and reminded delegates that as an outcome of the Rio+20 Conference, the post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda, the decision of UNESCO’s Executive Board and the decisions of the Intergovernmental Committee, the Committee examined the possibility of amending the Operational Directives about sustainable development and decided during its eighth session in Baku in 2013 for a category VI expert meeting on safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development at the national level convened in Istanbul in 2014. At the ninth session of the Committee in 2014 it was decided to re-examine this draft during the tenth session and the Secretariat was required to suggest draft amendments. The Turkish delegation believed that the draft was an accurate reflection of those deliberations and that draft Chapter VI of the Operational Directives would help States Parties to identify links between sustainable development and intangible cultural heritage at the national level. Turkey agreed with the Secretariat that the proposed draft would help States Parties integrate the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in the implementation of national development policies and strategies and concluded by again thanking the experts and the Secretariat and declaring Turkey’s support for the draft decision as a whole, including the annex.

1146. The delegation of Brazil commended the Secretariat for its work in developing the draft amendment to the Operational Directives and agreed that the proposed annex reflected what the participating States had multilaterally agreed to when adopting the 2030 Agenda.

Brazil said that the proposed amendments are also in line with suggestions it made when States Parties amended the Operational Guidelines of the 1972 Convention, in Paris in November 2015. Regarding the explanatory document by the Secretariat, Brazil suggested that when presenting the draft amendment to the General Assembly of the States Parties to the 2003 Convention, the Secretariat should remove or minimize references to the

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002253/225383E.pdf

document Realizing the Future We Want for All²⁵ mentioned in paragraph 6, as this was an information document that had not been endorsed by UN Member States and, since the 2030 Agenda had been approved, Brazil considered it unnecessary to mention it.

1147. The delegation of Belgium expressed its satisfaction with the document prepared by the Secretariat for the Intergovernmental Committee and congratulated the Secretariat and the category VI expert working group on the quality of the document. The choice was made to use the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted recently at the UN Summit on Sustainable Development, which was modelled on economic, social and environmental dimensions although Belgium mentioned that it would have been equally legitimate to work within the model of the four pillars of sustainable development, namely economic, ecological, social and cultural. In the final sentence in paragraph 6 of the report, attention was given to the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions where there was also reference made to Article 13 of its Operational Guidelines on the integration of culture in sustainable development. Belgium felt that it would be an interesting and promising challenge for Member States that had ratified both Conventions to combine the future chapter of the Operational Directives of the 2003 Convention and Article 13 of the Operational Guidelines of the 2005 Convention.

1148. The delegation of Belgium continued that the report emphasized the challenges in integrating the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage into policy both inside and outside the cultural sector. Recent research has shown that cooperation with experts in sustainable development and cultural brokers are critical to success in many projects, plans and policies, and cultural brokerage, mediation and translation are crucial processes in this regard as was stressed on page three of the report. The importance of cultural brokerage and mediation were also emphasized in the 2013 evaluation of the 2003 Convention by the Internal Oversight Service. Belgium proposed a number of small amendments to the draft proposal, asking that where appropriate the word ‘groups’ should be added to ‘communities’

to be closer to the language of the Convention. Belgium also proposed systematic replacement of the adjective ‘traditional’ used in UNESCO’s 1989 Recommendation for Traditional Cultures and Folklore²⁶ by the language of the 2003 Convention that refers to

‘phenomena recognized by communities, groups and, if applicable, individuals as part of their intangible cultural heritage’²⁷. This emphasized the roles of communities, groups and individuals, a point also made in item 15.a on a model code of ethics. Belgium said it would discuss the smaller amendments when the document was being reviewed paragraph by paragraph and concluded by congratulating the Secretariat for its excellent work.

1149. The delegation of Latvia thanked the Secretariat for the draft Chapter VI of the Operational Directives and welcomed the wide diversity of clearly-presented issues in the main document, such as the significance of community involvement, including mentions regarding scientific studies and research methodologies, as Latvia acknowledged that various encouraging examples concerning this particular aspect are already existing in different countries. Latvia observed that the document proposed a twofold structure that firstly invited States Parties to foster scientific studies and research methodologies, and secondly to adopt appropriate legal, technical, administrative and financial measures. With this in mind, Latvia drew the attention of the Committee to paragraph 173 of the draft Chapter VI of the Operational Directives, believing it would be equally relevant to apply the same twofold structure to it and that, before encouraging States Parties to adopt the

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Post_2015_UNTTreport.pdf 26

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-url_id=13141&url_do=do_topic&url_section=201.html 27

http://www.un-documents.net/folklore.htm

appropriate legal, technical, administrative and financial measures for the protection of the various rights of communities, groups and individuals, to first encourage them to foster scientific studies and research methodologies aimed at understanding the different aspects and complexities connected to these rights. The delegation of Latvia believed that the content of this paragraph was intended to detail a paragraph already existing in the Operational Directives, namely paragraph 104 that dealt with issues of intellectual property and other rights and Latvia proposed to maintain the general wording of paragraph 104 in the draft Operational Directives. Latvia said its proposal respected the diversity of positions that States Parties might have on safeguarding intangible cultural heritage through intellectual property regimes and acknowledged the complexities of implementing such regimes.

1150. The delegation of the Republic of Korea welcomed the draft document and expressed its appreciation for the stakeholders’ inputs. Pointing out that culture can be a driver and an enabler of sustainable development, that culture was included as a cross-cutting issue in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and that intangible cultural heritage is an essential part of a culture, the Republic of Korea stated that the draft document helped to define the relationship between intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development and welcomed the discussion on sustainable development being effectively incorporated into countries’ policies on intangible cultural heritage. The Republic of Korea said having understood the decision made in a previous session, but found that the content of this document was more policy-oriented than technical and as the Operational Directives dealt mainly with technical issues, the Republic of Korea was unsure whether the entire document should be included as an independent chapter in the Operational Directives. The Republic of Korea’s viewpoint was that it would be better to keep the draft text as an annex rather than as an independent chapter and welcomed input on the subject from the Secretariat.

1151. The Chairperson invited the Secretary to respond to the Republic of Korea and Brazil.

1152. The Secretary first responded to the request by Brazil, clarifying that the document was presented in three main sections: the introduction by the Secretariat, the decision that will be taken by the Committee and the annex to be taken forward to the General Assembly for eventual adoption and integration within the Operational Directives. The Secretary said that amending the text of the Secretariat was not possible, as it had already been published, and that there were no references to any document sources in the proposed chapter or in the decision, and that while understanding Brazil’s point of view, the Secretary reassured the meeting that the introduction by the Secretariat had no legal status.

1153. Answering the Republic of Korea, the Secretary advised that it was the responsibility of the members of the Committee to decide on such issues rather than the Secretariat and that the Secretariat had responded to Committee requests at the 8.COM and 9.COM sessions to draft the chapter. The Secretariat was assisted by twelve experts, some of whom were sitting on the Committee, to assist with the drafting of the document, which was produced at the request of the Committee. An annex to the Operational Directives has never been created and the Secretary did not know to what extent the annex might have a less valid legal status than the main document, but that this was up to the Committee to decide.

1154. The delegation of Brazil requested clarification on its earlier request and repeated its plea to omit the reference to the UN Task Team Report Realizing the Future We Want for All when presenting the document to the General Assembly, as the specific document referred to the four pillars of sustainable development which was not approved in the 2030 Agenda and which Brazil did not agree with, which is why Brazil asked if it was possible to only mention the document that was approved.

1155. The Chairperson said that the Secretariat had received three series of amendments to the proposed Chapter VI of the Operational Directives from the delegations of Belgium, Brazil and Latvia and asked the Committee to examine the annex paragraph by paragraph.

1156. The Chairperson began with a proposed new paragraph 170, from Brazil: ‘The provisions of this chapter should be interpreted in line with the UN Charter, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ and asked if there were any objections.

1157. The delegation of Latvia asked the delegation of Brazil about its reference to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, wondering what the legal connection to this particular document was for the States Parties of the 2003 Convention and whether it was equally binding to them, in order to make this very direct connection of interpretation of the content of those documents.

1158. The delegation of Brazil said it proposed this amendment as the annex contained diverse references to concepts provided in the UN Charter, the UNFCC document and the 2030 Agenda and in order to avoid the possibility of these concepts being interpreted differently, Brazil preferred to make a reference to documents which have previously been multilaterally agreed. It was just a reference for interpretation, as for example the document dealt with sustainable development – which was not defined in the annex – and Brazil thus proposed to refer to an existing definition.

1159. The delegation of Belgium understood the proposal by Brazil, but felt that maybe it should be moved to the draft decision and become a Committee decision as hopefully the Operational Directives would remain for a long time and other documents might follow so that, when deciding on specific interpretations within the document, the decision could be referenced.

1160. The Chairperson confirmed that the delegation of Brazil indicated its approval for moving the proposed paragraph 170 to the draft decision.

1161. The Chairperson asked for objections to the original paragraph 170; there were none and it was adopted. There were no objections to paragraphs 171, sub-paragraphs 171 (a) or 171 (b), or to sub-paragraph 171 (c), which were all adopted. The Chairperson opened the floor for objections to sub-paragraph 171 (d) including the proposed amendment by Belgium to insert ‘sustainable development experts and cultural brokers for the appropriate integration of the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage into plans, policies and programmes, including outside the cultural sector.’

1162. The delegation of the Republic of Korea asked for clarification of the wording used in Belgium’s amendment, specifically the term ‘cultural brokers’ as the Republic of Korea was unsure whether this was commonly used in the language of intangible cultural heritage, 1163. The Chairperson asked Belgium to clarify the expression ‘cultural brokers’.

1164. The delegation of Belgium said that the concept was mentioned in the report and the IOS report and that in heritage studies it was a term used to describe the roles of mediators and culture brokers, a concept well known in public folklore in the United States of America and now used in development theory in many countries. Belgium felt that it was a useful concept to introduce as it had significant potential and would be a useful addition to the vocabulary and working methods of the Convention, which was why Belgium proposed to introduce it.

1165. The Chairperson confirmed that the Republic of Korea accepted the explanation and paragraph 171 (d) as amended by Belgium was adopted.

1166. The Chairperson moved to paragraph 172 to which Belgium wished to add ‘economic and cultural impact assessment processes’. There were no objections to the proposed amendment by Belgium, and paragraph 172 was adopted as amended.

1167. There were no amendments to the introduction of paragraph 173 and it was adopted. Two amendments by Latvia were introduced, with revised sub-paragraph 173 (a) reading: ‘foster scientific studies and research methodologies, including those conducted by the communities themselves, aimed at understanding the diversity of issues linked to protection of various rights of the communities, groups and individuals, connected to the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage’.

1168. The delegation of Turkey had one comment, suggesting that ‘if applicable’ could be added before ‘individuals’.

1169. The Chairperson asked Latvia whether it had any objection to this amendment by Turkey.

1170. The delegation of Latvia responded that in its draft submission it was adhering to language used in the other sub-paragraphs, including the following one concerning the rights of communities, groups and individuals. Latvia said it would prefer to retain the first version if that was acceptable to Turkey.

1171. The delegation of Belgium agreed with Turkey that it would be useful to adhere to the language of the Convention relating to intangible cultural heritage but that in this instance it had a broader connotation relating to ‘rights’ and that, although it was usually preferable to use the same intangible cultural heritage terminology, it would be better to not use ‘if

Dans le document The session was conducted in the two working languages of the Committee: English and French (Page 166-178)