D. Geographical location and range of the element25
2. Contribution to ensuring visibility and awareness and
For Criterion R.2, the States shall demonstrate that ‘Inscription of the element will contribute to ensuring visibility and awareness of the significance of the intangible cultural heritage and to encouraging dialogue, thus reflecting cultural diversity worldwide and testifying to human creativity’.
This criterion will only be considered to be satisfied if the nomination demonstrates how the possible inscription will contribute to ensuring visibility and awareness of the significance of the intangible cultural heritage in general, and not only of the inscribed element itself, and to encouraging dialogue which respects cultural diversity.
(i) How can inscription of the element on the Representative List contribute to the visibility of the intangible cultural heritage in general and raise awareness of its importance at the local, national and international levels?
Not fewer than 100 or more than 150 words
(ii) How can inscription encourage dialogue among communities, groups and individuals?
Not fewer than 100 or more than 150 words
(iii) How can inscription promote respect for cultural diversity and human creativity?
Not fewer than 100 or more than 150 words
71. Criterion R.2 distinguishes between the Representative List and the Urgent Safeguarding List in line with their complementary but different purposes. Indeed, criterion R.2 encapsulates the fundamental purposes of the Representative List as set out in Article 16 of the Convention: ‘to ensure better visibility of the intangible cultural heritage and awareness of its significance, and to encourage dialogue which respects cultural diversity’.
72. Nevertheless, submitting States have often encountered difficulties in focussing their responses in this section on the information that the Committee and Subsidiary Body are seeking, as requested in the ICH-02 form. Responding to these recurrent shortcomings, the
130 . Document 9.COM 9, Document 6.COM 8.
131 . Document 9.COM 10.
Committee thus decided in 2013 ‘that criterion R.2 will only be considered to be satisfied if the nomination demonstrates how the possible inscription will contribute to ensuring visibility and awareness of the significance of the intangible cultural heritage in general, and not only of the inscribed element itself, and to encouraging dialogue which respects cultural diversity’.132
73. Justifying these successive decisions, the Subsidiary Body had noted that ‘nominations often speak only about how possible inscription of a nominated element will bring greater visibility to that element, and not how inscription will bring greater visibility to intangible cultural heritage in general and greater awareness of its significance. […] it is self-evident that inscription of an element on the Representative List will increase the visibility of the element itself. However, the Subsidiary Body joined its predecessors in seeking to be convinced, within the nomination, that the submitting State had given thought to the contribution that inscription of a given element could make to the larger purposes of the Representative List, and not simply to the element’s own popularity or renown’.133 Moreover, in 2014 the Body noted ‘a frequent lack of argumentation regarding the contribution of the inscription to human creativity and dialogue. If the question was discussed, it was often in the form of assertions or simply echoes of the language of the Convention’. It recalled that ‘justification needs to be included when replying to the corresponding section of the form in order to fully satisfy criterion R.2 […and that] mutual respect and dialogue cannot well be promoted by nominations emphasizing conflicts or combats [and] it therefore invites States Parties to reflect clearly through all the nomination the contribution of inscription to promoting dialogue which respects cultural diversity’.134 The three parts of section 2 are therefore essential for demonstrating that an element’s possible inscription will serve the purposes of the List itself.
3. SAFEGUARDING MEASURES
For Criterion R.3, the States shall demonstrate that ‘safeguarding measures are elaborated that may protect and promote the element’.
74. Criterion R.3 for the Representative List is the other case that differs from the corresponding criterion (U.3) for the Urgent Safeguarding List. As anticipated in 2007, at the time the inscription criteria were first presented to the Committee, ‘The Representative List is likely to include many elements or manifestations of intangible heritage that, at the time of nomination, are healthy and vibrant, enjoying full viability. It may also include elements that are in need of some form of safeguarding at the time of nomination.’ In contrast to the more stringent safeguarding plan required for the Urgent Safeguarding List, experts proposed that for the Representative List submitting States should describe ‘how the nominating State(s) Party(ies) will seek to ensure that the element maintains or even strengthens its current condition, as well as how the element will be promoted and given visibility, so as to contribute to the goals of the Representative List’.135 In 2014, the General Assembly reiterated the different character of the two lists in this regard by emphasizing the distinction between the ‘safeguarding plan’ that is to figure into a nomination for the Urgent
132 . Decision 8.COM 8; cf. Decision 7.COM 11.
133 . Document 7.COM 11.
134 . Document 9.COM 10.
135 . Document 1.EXT.COM 6.
Safeguarding List and the ‘safeguarding measures’ that are to figure into a nomination for the Representative List.136
3.A. PAST AND CURRENT EFFORTS TO SAFEGUARD THE ELEMENT
(i) How is the viability of the element being ensured by the concerned communities, groups or, if applicable, individuals? What past and current initiatives have they taken in this regard?
Not fewer than 150 or more than 250 words Tick one or more boxes to identify the safeguarding measures that have been and are currently being taken by the communities, groups or individuals concerned:
transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education identification, documentation, research
preservation, protection promotion, enhancement revitalization
(ii) How have the concerned States Parties safeguarded the element? Specify external or internal constraints, such as limited resources. What are its past and current efforts in this regard?
Not fewer than 150 or more than 250 words
Tick one or more boxes to identify the safeguarding measures that have been and are currently being taken by the State(s) Party(ies) with regard to the element:
transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education identification, documentation, research
preservation, protection promotion, enhancement revitalization
75. Section 3.a of the ICH-02 form asks the submitting State to describe the measures to ensure the viability of the element already undertaken by the communities, groups or individuals and by the State itself. As with the Urgent Safeguarding List, the Committee and its evaluating bodies expect that a nomination to the Representative List ‘cannot be the first step to be taken by a State Party, but should indeed be part of a longer safeguarding process’.137 To the regret of the Consultative Body, ‘some 2012 nominations showed little prior attention to safeguarding, either by the communities or by the State Party, and proposed possible inscription as the first step that might then, it was hoped, initiate a larger safeguarding effort’.138
136 . Resolution 5.GA 5.1.
137 . Document 7.COM 7.
138 . Document 7.COM 7.
WILL AND COMMITMENT TO SAFEGUARD
76. This section therefore asks the State to demonstrate that the planned safeguarding efforts have a solid foundation and that the community, group or individuals, together with the State, have already shown their engagement and resolve to safeguard the heritage. The Consultative Body has emphasized that ‘the will and commitment of the different stakeholders should be evident in the nomination and demonstrated, at a minimum, by their previous safeguarding efforts’.139 The explanation of their recent safeguarding efforts here thus complements future commitments that might figure into the expressions of their free, prior and informed consent in section 4.b below.
77. The Consultative Body’s remarks about the Urgent Safeguarding List are equally true for the Representative List: States Parties should ‘consolidate their efforts to implement the Convention at the national level so that nominations and inscriptions are integrated into a comprehensive system of safeguarding. When the Committee inscribes an element on the Urgent Safeguarding List, this cannot be an end in itself but should mark a new chapter in an on-going engagement of the State Party to ensure the safeguarding of the element’.140
3.B. SAFEGUARDING MEASURES PROPOSED
This section should identify and describe safeguarding measures that will be implemented, especially those intended to protect and promote the element. The safeguarding measures should be described in terms of concrete engagements of the States Parties and communities and not only in terms of possibilities and potentialities.
(i) What measures are proposed to help to ensure that the element’s viability is not jeopardized in the future, especially as an unintended result of inscription and the resulting visibility and public attention?
Not fewer than 500 or more than 750 words
78. The Committee and the Subsidiary Body have emphasized that criterion R.3 aims to ensure that inscription of an element on the Representative List constitutes a positive contribution to its on-going viability and does not have unforeseen negative consequences, as explained in paragraph 61 above. They therefore wish to see that the submitting State has given careful and thorough attention to the possible consequences – whether positive or negative – of the inscription. As explained by the 2012 Subsidiary Body, ‘at the time the Committee was drawing up the criteria for inscription on the Representative List, experts emphasized that the enhanced visibility that would likely ensue in the wake of inscription might also sometimes bring with it certain risks, and the safeguarding measures elaborated for Representative List nominations should address how to mitigate any such negative impacts, however unintended they might be. The Body encourage[d] States Parties to anticipate such potential risks and to elaborate protective measures so that the positive benefits of inscription will not be diminished by harmful side effects’.141
139 . Document 7.COM 8.
140 . Document 6.COM 8.
141 . Document 7.COM 11; cf. Document 6.COM 13.
POSSIBLE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF INSCRIPTION
79. Nominations have not always given sufficient attention to such possible unintended effects.
The 2013 Subsidiary Body, for example, ‘was surprised when encountering safeguarding measures that aim at safeguarding an element but do not take into account the increased visibility that the element will obtain through activities related to marketing that are not integrated into the safeguarding plan. In this same light, the Body recalls, as have its predecessors, that what is also at question here is safeguarding measures adequate to maintain the element’s viability particularly in the wake of inscription and to defend it against possible unintended consequences of such inscription’.142 For its part, the Committee took note of the long-term ‘need to monitor and assess the consequences, both intended and unintended, of an element’s inscription on the Representative List and invite[d] States Parties to take full advantage of their periodic reports to provide updated, detailed information about safeguarding measures and their impacts’.143
SPECIFIC MEASURES FOR EACH ELEMENT
80. The Committee and Subsidiary Body are not expecting that the safeguarding measures for a Representative List nomination will have the same rigour and scope as the safeguarding plan required for an Urgent Safeguarding List nomination. But what are they looking for?
Most importantly, the safeguarding measures should respond to the specific situation of the element proposed for inscription. With regard to individual nominations, for instance, the Committee has decided ‘that each element requires its own specific safeguarding measures guided by the community and responsive to its needs and that generic measures common to multiple nominations cannot suffice’144 and in another case ‘that safeguarding must be built on specific measures fully integrating the participation of the community and that a safeguarding plan for a given element does not necessarily meet the safeguarding needs of another element, even if the elements are similar in nature’.145 Although the Convention values the importance of exchanging experience among countries and communities concerning best safeguarding practices, the Consultative Body has emphasized that there can be no question of simply grafting successful measures from one situation to another. It pointed, for instance, ‘to the necessity to propose specific measures that address specific threats, rather than generic measures aimed at generic threats’.146 The Subsidiary Body similarly emphasized that ‘specific safeguarding measures relevant for the element should be described and not general ones’ and called for States ‘to demonstrate that measures specific to each element meet the needs of the element concerned’.147
81. In 2014, while the Committee request States Parties to provide more information on customary restrictions on access to specific aspects of intangible cultural heritage,148 it also appreciated ‘the progressive inclusion of innovative safeguarding measures respecting customary practices governing access to aspects of the intangible cultural heritage’ and congratulated States Parties ‘for increasingly including multiple stakeholders and transversal
142 . Document 8.COM 8.
143 . Decision 8.COM 8.
144 . Decision 8.COM 7.a.2.
145 . Decision 8.COM 7.a.3.
146 . Document 8.COM 7.a.
147 . Document 5.COM 6.
148 Decision 9.COM 9.a.
approaches in their safeguarding plans’.149 For instance, the Subsidiary Body welcomed
‘some cases where the State had introduced legal actions not only for safeguarding the element itself, but also to protect the natural environment associated to it. It was also appreciated when the State developed integrated intersectoral approaches to safeguarding the element by combining for example, environmental and cultural aspects in the safeguarding policies’. Also, the Body positively noted ‘several nominations that proposed extensive safeguarding measures including the creation of a national committee on intangible cultural heritage incorporating a wide range of players, and was particularly pleased to see representatives of the media included in at least one case’.150
SAFEGUARDING THE ENTIRE ELEMENT
82. The Committee and its bodies also look for a broad set of safeguarding measures that respond to the element in its entirety rather than only partially. The Subsidiary Body, for instance, ‘insisted that the safeguarding measures be well conceived to cover the entire element and not just certain aspects thereof. The Body encountered cases where safeguarding measures dealt primarily with traditional craftsmanship, for example, when the element that was described was far broader and its other components were not the focus of any safeguarding measures’.151 In the same sense, the Consultative Body encouraged taking an inclusive view of safeguarding needs, stressing that ‘safeguarding strategies should demonstrate that capacity-building and knowledge transfer towards the communities are part and parcel of such measures so that the communities concerned can take ownership of the safeguarding process and continue it, even after the experts, government officials or non-governmental organizations have left. Safeguarding strategies should also include mobilization, awareness-raising and educational activities involving youth’.152
STRENGTHENING TRANSMISSION
83. Safeguarding measures frequently focus on strengthening transmission, appropriately so since elements often face interruptions or disruptions in the traditional channels and means of transmission. The Consultative Body, for instance, encouraged ‘submitting States to consider safeguarding measures that can increase the likelihood that children and youth today can live in a world in which they continue to enjoy the heritage of their parents and grandparents, and in which they can in turn transmit that heritage to their own children and grandchildren’.153 The Body has nevertheless emphasized the importance of finding an appropriate balance between reinforcing traditional modes of transmission and supplementing them with new modes, as noted above. In 2014 and 2013, for instance, it explained that ‘while the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage requires transmission from one generation to another, such transmission should necessarily be done in context and communities should not be dispossessed of their own transmission processes’.154 Similarly, the Body has pointed to the need to ‘balance efforts aimed at strengthening the knowledge and skills of young members of the practising communities, with other efforts
149 . Decision 9.COM 10.
150 . Document 9.COM 10.
151 . Document 8.COM 8.
152 . Document 6.COM 8.
153 . Document 6.COM 7.
154 . Document 9.COM 9.a, Document 8.COM 7.
aimed at creating a broader public awareness of the significance of the intangible cultural heritage concerned. Both are important, and neither alone is sufficient’.155
84. Finding the proper balance among safeguarding measures is not always easy. Continuing its remarks on transmission, the 2013 Body recalled that ‘efficiency should not necessarily be sought at the expense of the meaning that communities give to their intangible cultural heritage. The Consultative Body therefore regrets that in a number of files the survival of intangible cultural heritage appeared to be sought through measures external to the community – often related to commercialization – that might be able to perpetuate the practice in some form, but not the sense of belonging and identity that it provides to its community’.156
85. In the same vein, the Subsidiary Body reminded submitting States that ‘safeguarding measures should be concrete, precise and detailed; their primary focus should be on transmission rather than on museological approaches that tend to freeze the element. When introducing research as a safeguarding measure, it should be linked and associated with the transmission process and aimed at ensuring the viability of the heritage […], not presented as research for its own sake’.157
EVOLUTION OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE
86. Safeguarding plans often include measures to intensify the production of crafts, create new opportunities for performance, increase the attendance at public events or generate income for tradition-bearers. Such measures may be targeted at the community and its members or at outsiders, including tourists. The evaluation bodies have recognized that such processes are often part of the evolution of intangible cultural heritage. The 2013 Subsidiary Body, for instance, ‘recalled that the enactments of intangible cultural heritage often evolve into theatricalized or choreographed forms as part of their normal development. The Body emphasize[d], however, the imperative to safeguard the social functions so that the element continues to provide a sense of belonging and continuity to the communities concerned. The Body caution[ed] against possible de-contextualization when performances are oriented for commercial purposes, overwhelming their character as intangible cultural heritage. Once again, the question is that of striking the right balance’.158
155 . Document 6.COM 7.
156 . Document 8.COM 7.
157 . Document 9.COM 10.
158 . Document 9.COM 9, Document 8.COM 8.
MITIGATING POSSIBLE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF INCOME-GENERATING ACTIVITIES 87. The Committee and its evaluation bodies have given great attention to the challenge of
ensuring that if such measures are integrated into a safeguarding plan, they do not threaten the community’s ‘sense of identity and continuity’ mentioned in the Convention’s definition of intangible cultural heritage. For instance, for one nomination the Committee felt the need to invite the State Party ‘to take measures to adequately manage commercialization, to mitigate its possible negative impacts and to avoid de-contextualization of the element for the purpose of tourism’.159 More generally, the Subsidiary Body ‘expresse[d] its concern for those nominations that overemphasize activities related to tourism, particularly with regard to safeguarding measures, while fully recognizing the contribution that tourism can make to development both in industrialized countries and developing countries.160 The Body consider[ed] that tourism-related activities cannot constitute safeguarding measures unless preventive measures against possible negative effect of tourism are also included, as was the case for several nominations’.161 Summing up, the Consultative Body recalled ‘that measures such as income generation, remuneration to tradition-bearers or expansion of audiences can only be considered as safeguarding measures if they are aimed, from their
ensuring that if such measures are integrated into a safeguarding plan, they do not threaten the community’s ‘sense of identity and continuity’ mentioned in the Convention’s definition of intangible cultural heritage. For instance, for one nomination the Committee felt the need to invite the State Party ‘to take measures to adequately manage commercialization, to mitigate its possible negative impacts and to avoid de-contextualization of the element for the purpose of tourism’.159 More generally, the Subsidiary Body ‘expresse[d] its concern for those nominations that overemphasize activities related to tourism, particularly with regard to safeguarding measures, while fully recognizing the contribution that tourism can make to development both in industrialized countries and developing countries.160 The Body consider[ed] that tourism-related activities cannot constitute safeguarding measures unless preventive measures against possible negative effect of tourism are also included, as was the case for several nominations’.161 Summing up, the Consultative Body recalled ‘that measures such as income generation, remuneration to tradition-bearers or expansion of audiences can only be considered as safeguarding measures if they are aimed, from their