Cross-cutting, global themes and issues; criteria for inscription

381. The Rapporteur turned to cross-cutting, and global issues raised during the evaluation process and their connection to specific criteria of the mechanisms under evaluation during the reporting cycle. Thanks to the evaluation of all mechanisms by a single body instead of the previous two, commonalities and specificities of the Convention’s different mechanisms and criteria were clear, particularly regarding the relationship between the Urgent Safeguarding List and the Representative List. Responses to criterion R.2 (at the heart of the Representative List) often appeared inward-looking, focusing on the benefits of inscription in parallel with a trend to assert rather than demonstrate. The Evaluation Body proposed to clarify in the draft decision that response to criterion R.2 is supposed to refer to information explained in greater detail in other sections of the nomination file while addressing the possible consequences of inscription regarding the List’s overall purpose.

382. Regarding the Urgent Safeguarding List, a well-elaborated safeguarding plan which responded to specific, clearly identified threats possible to mitigate or overcome (in contrast to general issues such as migration or modernisation) was crucial. The Evaluation Body had encountered difficulty with safeguarding plans already being implemented at the time of evaluation. Although commendable for a State Party not to delay safeguarding regardless of the timing of inscription, it presented an issue for the Evaluation Body concerning lack of

post inscription planning, which suggested the Committee clarify that safeguarding plans and measures include a time period following inscription.

383. An adequate definition for a ‘community’ continued to be a major theme of discussion for the Evaluation Body given that participation of communities, groups and/or individuals was a criterion for the three mechanisms it had to evaluate. When communities are not well-defined, it is not surprising that their widest possible participation cannot be easily demonstrated. Defining the internal composition and contours of communities was also important for satisfying other criteria for the mechanisms.

384. Several highly visible aspects of this topic were discussed, namely:

 consistency in the definition of community throughout the nomination files;

 the agency of the community concerned, for instance as regards the issue of de- and re-contextualisation, the historical perspective and relationship between the enactment of an element and tangible objects associated with it;

 the importance of delineating contours of the involved community and its internal dynamics;

 the rationale for selecting only one part of the community concerned or, conversely, involving communities across the whole population of a submitting State;

 bottom-up approaches to safeguarding; and

 free, prior and in particular, informed consent of communities concerned to nomination of the element as formulated in the file for national and multinational nominations.

385. There were four paragraphs in the draft decision related to community involvement where the Evaluation Body introduced some new emphases or suggestions: two in relation to multinational submissions; one addressing consent demonstrating community participation;

and one referring to adequate and consistent descriptions of the scope and contour of communities, groups and/or the individuals concerned.

386. The Evaluation Body also encouraged States Parties to be particularly attentive to acknowledging sensitivities of all communities within their territory when elaborating nominations that were distinctly national in their outlook to encourage dialogue among communities.

387. On the significant number of nominations involving oral traditions, in its respective draft decisions the Evaluation Body invited States Parties to ensure the translation of lyrics and verses to foster mutual respect and dialogue beyond language and national boundaries.

388. Concerning nominations that included the use of live animals in traditional games, citing one example in the current cycle which while possibly acceptable at local or national level might generate negative reaction at international level, the Evaluation Body referred to Decision 9.COM 10 and the position of the previous Subsidiary Body.

389. The Rapporteur continued with the subject of inappropriate vocabulary and expressions unfavourable to dialogue, which the Evaluation Body had frequently encountered in the current cycle. Despite reminders to avoid such language, for example the term

‘authenticity’, the Evaluation Body focused on nuance and implied meaning from which the term ‘inappropriate vocabulary’ in some cases seemed to underestimate the problem. Often it is a question of mind set implying negation of some basic principles of the Convention such as static conception of the element versus its constant recreation, primacy given to past forms, functions and meanings versus the living heritage of today, or disempowerment of communities through the top-down design of safeguarding measures versus their agency. In such cases, the Evaluation Body was of the opinion that submitting States need

to be more explicitly reminded to adhere to the ideas, principles and objectives of the Convention and address such misconceptions in the respective draft decisions. In a few cases, ‘authenticity’ pertained to the community’s sense of identity and continuity, which for the Evaluation Body seemed more reasonable. The Evaluation Body suggested to the Committee and future Evaluation Bodies to continue reflecting on inappropriate vocabulary in particular, looking at who employs such terms, how, in what context and with what implications.

390. Several nominations that provoked discussion by the Evaluation Body concerned the involvement of children. Beyond individual file recommendations, it invited the Committee and future Evaluation Bodies to continue reflecting on the role of children in elements with added economic value or that incorporated hazards as in the case of craftsmanship and some performing arts.

391. The Rapporteur mentioned inventorying, namely criteria U.5 and R.5 which received significant attention from the Evaluation Body in the current cycle thanks to a new provision requiring a submitting Party to provide a relevant extract of the inventory(ies) (according to the Decision 8.COM 7.a and Decision 8.COM 8). From insight gained through comparison of inventory extracts and nomination files, as well as existing observations and recommendations from aides-mémoires, the Evaluation Body suggested a minimum standard for inclusion of an element in an inventory which formed an important part of draft decision 10.COM 10.

392. The Rapporteur concluded by hoping she had provided an accurate and comprehensive overview of the work of the Evaluation Body, thanking the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body and its members for their support.

393. The Chairperson thanked the Rapporteur saying she had raised relevant issues which should inform the debate of the Committee and welcomed the list of speakers for a general debate on the Evaluation Body’s report.

394. The delegation of Latvia appreciated the diversity of nominations being evaluated and expressed satisfaction that among the files submitted, the Evaluation Body had proposed several as model nominations. As this had been the Evaluation Body’s first cycle since undertaking its responsibilities, Latvia said that although the Evaluation Body had been established on an experimental basis as a single evaluation body comparing the interpretation and application of criteria against various established mechanisms, including both international lists, they believed the exercise had been fruitful. Latvia congratulated the Evaluation Body for reaching consensus on all nominations and for their efforts in maintaining consistency regarding the Committee’s decisions, especially on resubmitted nominations. Latvia concluded by saying that extension of referral decisions for nominations where technical, as well as substantial information details were missing, should continue.

Regarding draft decisions proposed against the criteria, Latvia said the Evaluation Body was permitted to make decisions that had been well thought through but felt that certain decisions were probably slightly overly-critical, for example the interpretation of safeguarding measures proposed for different nominations, namely Criterion 3 in both Lists.

They also wished to highlight in the report of the Evaluation Body the attention given to inventories regarding Criterion 5 and suggested that some clarity might still be missing, for example in interpretation of ‘relevant extract’ concerning annexes to be provided. In this regard, it supported the proposal of a guideline on inventories for States Parties that would be helpful for upcoming nominations. Latvia thanked the Evaluation Body for their work and the Secretariat for assisting in the complex task of evaluation. Acknowledging the extensive evaluation undertaken, Latvia stated it intended to support the draft decisions proposed, excluding aspects they would raise namely nominations proposed for the Urgent Safeguarding List.

395. The delegation of Belgium congratulated the Evaluation Body on their thorough, systematic and consistent analysis, as well as the accredited NGOs and experts that had worked on the files. Belgium also regretted there was no proposal for the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices and hoped this would not be the case in the future. It noted the recommendation on page 5, paragraph 19 about working methods, especially the principle that decisions should be based on information in the file not the merit of the element or project, and that no additional information would be considered except that available on the corresponding UNESCO web page. On page 6, paragraph 22 there were remarks on evaluation consistency within and across files with reference made to the inventory extract – the principle being that if information in the extract contradicted that of the nomination file, it could not be ignored. Belgium argued an extract could work for or against a file and disagreed with paragraph 65 on page 17 where the Evaluation Body opined the Committee could not consider information from an inventory or inventory extract, as it believed this information could be an incentive for the production of more detailed inventories. Belgium said that on page 9, paragraph 34 the reference to being consistent in defining what community is was a point it had always made. It said community is about communities, groups and where appropriate, individuals and while Belgium understood this was the case for the context of a nomination file, it would request a full and clear definition of the concept of community for the Convention as a whole that was as open as possible to allow for other interpretations and include local, closed and homogeneous communities. Belgium agreed with paragraph 35 that a monolithic conception of community should be avoided saying they would like, for instance, to refer to the notion of heritage community as presented in the Convention of the Council of Europe on the value of cultural heritage for society where the notion is broad and conceptualised as a network.

396. The delegation of Belgium lastly mentioned paragraph 38 referring to social and economic challenges. The Evaluation Body had noticed a strategy of submitting States to avoid discussion of tourism – a point Belgium felt should be addressed. Belgium believed States Parties should not avoid the word ‘tourism’ or touristic dimensions in safeguarding plans, and that tourism should be treated as sustainable development.

397. The delegation of the Republic of Korea expressed appreciation for the tremendous job undertaken by the Evaluation Body, supported the new Evaluation Body which they believed had been consistent with those before it and commended it for its expert recommendations in various fields of intangible cultural heritage. The delegation said it was impressed with the level and quality of explanations and recommendations saying it believed the Evaluation Body could develop to create more concrete and detailed criteria to assist States Parties in preparing their nominations.

398. The delegation of Turkey congratulated the Evaluation Body on its exemplary work saying that its competence had become more independent, consistent and objective, and that this was the first time the Committee had an occasion to examine files submitted for the Lists and international assistance for an amount greater than US$25,000 via a single reporting body. Turkey said that having read the report of the Evaluation Body, confirmed that it had been a good idea to have all submitted files examined by a single body, and that while Turkey generally agreed with the report despite aspects requiring minor changes, the Turkish delegation was aware that the evaluation of the files was a difficult and sensitive task. Turkey had experienced a similar situation during the examination of files submitted for the Representative List that were examined by the Subsidiary Body, of which Turkey was a member and, therefore, understood the difficulties encountered during evaluation of the nomination files. Turkey once again congratulated the Evaluation Body on its work for the Convention.

399. The delegation of Kyrgyzstan expressed its gratitude to all members of the Evaluation Body for their thorough analytical work. Regarding the point mentioned about the use of live animals in traditional practices, it reminded the Committee about heated discussions on the

subject from a year ago and asked for more explanation on the point of live animals being used in some aspects of intangible cultural heritage. It added while recognition of the use of animals could be unacceptable at certain levels it could also be part of inscriptions on UNESCO Lists.

400. The delegation of Tunisia thanked the Evaluation Body for the quality of its report, which had gone well beyond simple description to looking at methodological difficulties and even theoretical ones. Tunisia wondered to what extent the absence of a specific definition of

‘community’ had influenced the evaluation of certain elements in the nominations.

401. The delegation of Brazil expressed its appreciation for the work conducted by the Evaluation Body during its first evaluation. Concerning inventorying, Brazil said it was aware that each country had its own methods and suggested that recommendations should be made on more general lines. Brazil did not believe that there should be a unique inventorying methodology and regretted that during the current cycle it would not have the opportunity to analyse a nomination for the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, to which Brazil attached great importance.

402. The Chairperson thanked Brazil and having come to the end of the list of Committee speakers asked if any observers had a comment or question, noting that the NGO

‘Traditions for Tomorrow’ wished to take the floor.

403. The representative of the NGO Traditions for Tomorrow thanked the Chairperson and congratulated the Evaluation Body for its work. It said the Body’s analysis of the nominations showed how much progress had been made on the Convention. Similar to comments made by some States Parties, the delegation regretted there had been no proposals for the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices. Elements on the Urgent Safeguarding List were for humanity but were nonetheless local elements concerning communities – essentially groups and in some instances, individuals. Best safeguarding practices referred to in Article 18 of the Convention provide examples for all States Parties to the Convention and communities who are bearers of intangible cultural heritage, while also reflecting work done by NGOs often at the heart of the process and who in this way assist the protection of intangible cultural heritage. The representative said it hoped that at forthcoming sessions of the Committee there would be proposals for inscription on the register of Best Safeguarding Practices.

404. The Chairperson thanked ‘Traditions for Tomorrow’ and as there were no further observer requests for the floor asked the Rapporteur of the Evaluation Body to address the issues raised by Belgium on inventories (the same question was asked by Brazil); the definition of the notion of ‘community’ raised by Belgium and Turkey; Brazil’s question regarding tourism and Kyrgyzstan’s query on the use of animals in the nominations.

405. In taking the floor, the Rapporteur replied to Belgium and Brazil on inventorying saying it was the first time a comparison could be made between information in the nomination files and extracts from inventories at national level. She said the Evaluation Body had relied heavily on the aides-mémoires and found that when comparing all the free basic information, was unsure how to proceed. Each State Party is supposed to develop an inventory in line with its specific situation, however, this had led to uncertainties regarding format and type of content to be included; at the same time, members of the Body had limited experience on how to approach things when not in possession of adequate information, such as having just an element’s name. The Convention clearly states that an inventory’s primary aim is to help safeguard an element, which begs the question how the mere name of an element might help. To achieve consistency when comparing files, a modus operandi was developed from discussions at the Body’s three meetings, while not going much further than the existing texts, drawing on information decided upon by the Committee and from the nomination forms.

406. Regarding the definition of ‘community’ raised by Belgium and Tunisia, the Convention does not provide this for good reason – a point that members of the Evaluation accepted unanimously despite applications where a ‘community’ is poorly-defined leading to difficulty for evaluators. The concept of community lies at the heart of the Convention; in one area of an application a community is described in one way and a different community, in another.

The Evaluation Body believed that ‘community’ should be consistently defined although within a single nomination file it did not require a global definition of what ‘community’

meant.

407. Lastly, responding to the query on the use of animals in intangible cultural heritage practices the Rapporteur said that the Evaluation Body followed the recommendations of previous Bodies and the Committee as their position was to not pre-judge which practices might be acceptable. She added that when proposing an element for international inscription, State Parties should take into account differences in sensitivities and expand on possible controversial aspects in their nomination files.

408. The Chairperson thanked the Rapporteur for her responses, and gave the floor to Ethiopia.

409. The delegation of Ethiopia congratulated the State Party of Namibia for its excellent organisation of the Committee session and warm welcome and extended its appreciation to the Chairperson and Secretariat for their diligent guidance during the meeting. It also expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Evaluation Body, saying that compared to the past the drafts showed how the work was improving. At the same time, it asked the Body to explain what level of effort had been made to obtain greater understanding of the local contexts of respective elements, as it was in principle, supposed to be the remit of the States Parties and had even noted recommendations to modify names of elements in some evaluations.

410. The Rapporteur assured Ethiopia that the Evaluation Body had taken the issue of local contexts into consideration during its evaluations given the Convention was about nurturing diversity of heritage worldwide. She reiterated that the basic principle had been to analyse the information provided that was based on explanations of local contexts, social functions and cultural meanings of cultural elements, which made it easier to understand the issues involved. As for names of elements, the Rapporteur said that the Committee had requested the Secretariat to solve any possible issues regarding this. The Rapporteur said community

410. The Rapporteur assured Ethiopia that the Evaluation Body had taken the issue of local contexts into consideration during its evaluations given the Convention was about nurturing diversity of heritage worldwide. She reiterated that the basic principle had been to analyse the information provided that was based on explanations of local contexts, social functions and cultural meanings of cultural elements, which made it easier to understand the issues involved. As for names of elements, the Rapporteur said that the Committee had requested the Secretariat to solve any possible issues regarding this. The Rapporteur said community