Decision 10.COM 10
994. The Chairperson greeted the members of the Committee and continued by saying that thanks to the extended session the previous evening, Items 10.b and 10.c had been successfully concluded, and examination and adoption of Draft decision 10.COM 10 would now be addressed. The timetables had been adjusted, starting the day’s session with Item 10 and then continuing with Item 11. The Chairperson informed that the Committee would only be able to establish the Evaluation Body for the 2016 cycle with information on the renewal of the accredited non-governmental organisations and this is why Item 16 would be treated before examining Item 12. The morning session would conclude with the examination and adoption of Item 13. The afternoon session would be devoted to examinations of draft amendments to the Operational Directives and three related items on the agenda treated: Items 14.a, 14.b and 14.c.
995. The Chairperson proceeded to examine Draft decision 10.COM 10. The Rapporteur of the Evaluation Body had reported the previous day on the working methods and procedures of the Body, and presented common and specific comments and recommendations on all three mechanisms examined. The result of those observations was the proposed Draft decision 10.COM 10, which addressed a number of issues discussed over the past two days during debates of individual files.
996. The Chairperson asked the members of the Committee whether there were any general considerations they felt were not reflected in the draft decision proposed, that should be included, informing that Turkey and Belgium had proposed amendments to the Secretariat and would take the floor to explain them.
997. The delegation of Turkey, referring to paragraph 16 of the draft decision, wished to insert
‘in their varied contexts’ after ‘traditions’.’ Turkey commented that as the Convention was working with living cultures that were often transnational with many communities and many variations, reference could not be made to single elements that didn’t indicate possible variance of and among communities. Turkey wished to add those few words to help future examinations by the Evaluation Body and the work of the Committee, as Turkey felt that the Committee should accept multinational nominations involving varying contexts of elements.
Secondly, Turkey said that NGOs were of course very important to the Convention and reminded delegates that the Convention mentioned the need for research institutes and expertise, and that if the Committee would accept it, in paragraph 20.b) to insert ‘and if necessary, research institutes and centres of expertise’ after ‘groups and relevant non-governmental organisations’.
998. The delegation of Belgium said it wished to comply with the official wording of the Convention, suggesting the insertion of ‘or groups’ after ‘among communities’ in paragraph 17 and a new paragraph 22 about inventories reflecting earlier discussions on the files of Columbia and Bulgaria.
999. The delegation of Belgium (change of speaker) asserted that it would like to make several amendments. It first addressed the proposed paragraph 22, referring to the previous day’s discussion on the Evaluation Body’s review of Italy’s submission. Belgium wished to propose that if a file had been referred while the criteria had been satisfied on the basis of the information in the original file, then a positive evaluation would not automatically be
considered in future examination of the resubmitted file, especially where safeguarding plans required updating as it was logical that safeguarding measures should be updated and the consent of communities, groups and individuals be secured. That is the philosophy behind new paragraph 22.
1000. The delegation of Belgium (different speaker) wished to add a sentence and change the wording of paragraph 22 to: ‘Further decides that, if a file has been referred, a criterion having been satisfied, on the basis of the information contained in the original file, will not automatically be so considered in the future examination of the resubmitted file; in this regard(s), particular attention should be paid to updating the information regarding criteria U.3 and U.4 and criteria R.3 and R.4.’ Belgium also inserted a new paragraph 21, reading:
‘Decides that criterion R.5/U.5 will not be considered satisfied if the relevant extracts of inventories do not respect the above-mentioned guiding principles. The information contained in this extract should be considered as information included in the nomination file and therefore cannot be taken into account for evaluation’.
1001. The delegation of Belgium (different speaker) also wished to reaffirm the need for submitting States to take greater care when completing files, such as putting answers to questions in the appropriate sections, so they can be analysed by the Evaluation Body and members of the Committee. Belgium requested the insertion of a new paragraph 17, to read: ‘Reaffirms the necessity to elaborate nominations with greater care by giving the required answers to the questions included in the appropriate sections’.
1002. The Chairperson asked for further comments and additions before the examination of the draft decision. There were no requests from the floor and the meeting proceeded with the adoption of the decision paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 to 11 were adopted without comments. Paragraph 12 had a small amendment by Belgium to insert ‘groups or, if applicable, individuals concerned’, which was adopted without objection. Paragraphs 13 to 15 were adopted without objection. Paragraph 16 was adopted as amendmented by Turkey, with no objection. Paragraph 17 was the subject of an amendment proposed by Belgium, where the Secretary of the Convention wished to take the floor.
1003. The Secretary reminded the Committee that in Decision 7.COM 11, the Committee had drafted a paragraph that addressed much the same question worded slightly differently.
She wondered whether the Committee wished to move towards greater flexibility by virtue of the amendment or whether the Decision already taken should merely be recalled. She read Decision 7.COM 11 paragraph 17, aloud: ‘Decides that information placed in inappropriate sections of the nomination cannot be taken into consideration, and invites States Parties to ensure that information is provided in its proper place.’ The Secretary wished to know whether the Belgian amendment aimed at reaffirming Decision 7.COM 11, in which case perhaps it should be worded in exactly the same way.
1004. The delegation of Belgium thanked the Secretary, saying it agreed that it was a very good idea to copy the formulation as expressed in Decision 7.COM 11 paragraphs 17 and to reaffirm what had been established by that decision.
1005. The Chairperson asked for a short delay while the Belgian amendment was replaced with what was stipulated in Decision 7.COM 11. And she then read aloud new paragraph 17:
‘Reaffirms the necessity to elaborate nominations with utmost care and as emphasised in Decision 7.COM 11 that the information placed in inappropriate sections of the nomination cannot be taken into consideration, and invites States Parties to ensure that information is provided in its proper place.’ The Chairperson asked whether there were any comments on the new paragraph 17 in its current formulation, and Ethiopia asked for and was given the floor.
1006. The delegation of Ethiopia said it understood that the paragraph was obviously aimed to bring nomination files into a standard framework. Ethiopia wished to raise the point that there were maybe a hundred countries with thousands of different languages and that all nominations were being written and submitted in either English or French in respective sections of the file. Ethiopia wished Belgium to clarify what was really meant by inserting the paragraph. In Ethiopia, there were about 80 languages spoken and that people without French or English should not be judged on the clarity and quality of their submissions in the nominations. Nominations should be judged on their essence, and discussed and embraced in response to the value they were judged to bring. Ethiopia said it had trouble accepting the spirit of the ‘mechanical’ assessments they were observing and thought it would lead nowhere as it drove people to be too mechanical – focusing on trying to understand the languages of the Convention and giving more priority to the precision of their inputs – when the evaluation could do better to focus on the essence and real value of the people making the nomination. Ethiopia thought that the nomination files being brought to the Committee sessions were probably from people who might not even understand the language being used, and wanted to know from Belgium what the spirit of its paragraph was.
1007. The Chairperson: thanked Ethiopia, saying that before giving the floor to Belgium, her own understanding of the paragraph was about where particular types of information were being inserted in the nomination files, and asked Belgium to clarify its amendment in response to Ethiopia’s question.
1008. The delegation of Belgium observed that the Chairperson had just expressed what it wished to say – being a question of transparency when dealing with complex files which have to be evaluated on a number of criteria and, by putting requested information in the correct place. This way, the Evaluation Body and members of the Committee who study the files would find the information more easily so it was merely a question of transparency and efficiency.
1009. The delegation of Brazil said it was uncomfortable with Belgium’s amendment because the forms sometimes did not provide sufficient space and some of the criteria related to one another. As one could not provide information on one criterion and not the other, for example regarding communities, the information would appear in different sections of the form. Also, when the Evaluation Body evaluated a nomination, it was obliged to use only the information it had, which was what was written in the files. Brazil understood regarding the issue of transparency that it would be better if all information required could be fitted within specific sections of the nomination form, but felt that even if the information was presented in not exactly the precise sections of the form, and if everything was present in the file, then the restriction might be viewed as being too harsh.
1010. The Chairperson thanked Brazil, adding that she thought the issue was important and it was good that these kinds of questions were raised and clarified.
1011. The delegation of Ethiopia was grateful for the input from Brazil, wondering why the Committee should evaluate a nomination when the Evaluation Body was going to analyse things mechanically on a one to one basis. Ethiopia felt that if the Committee was to evaluate nominations, it had to have fully-fledged flexibility allowing it to understand the spirit of the file. Ethiopia understood that the Evaluation Body was obliged to follow its established guidelines but that the Committee should be allowed flexibility to deal with explanations about nominations from States Parties, for which Ethiopia would like the Committee to have absolute power. Ethiopia said that, without adopting the paragraph under discussion, there were adequate guidelines for the operation of the Evaluation Body, but that the Committee should not need that level of guidance to operate. Ethiopia told the Committee that, if the paragraph was adopted, it would lead the Committee to procedural
conclusions to which no State Party would dare object, so that in effect there was limited rationale for the discussions of the Committee meetings.
1012. The delegation of Greece, having listened carefully to Ethiopia and Brazil, began by responding to the last point made by the delegation of Ethiopia about absolute power, saying that the Committee had been delegated power by the General Assembly and did not in fact have absolute power; it had a limited power to examine files and to elaborate guidelines to ensure that the mechanisms of the Convention ran smoothly. One of the guidelines found to be valuable was the one being discussed and it was not a matter of limiting flexibility, or about limiting the freedom of expression of those who filled in the nomination files. However, if they expressed themselves in places that resulted in the Committee and Evaluation Body being unable to find the appropriate information, it made the nomination less useful. Greece said that evaluations were complicated and information had to be located where it could be easily found – a simple requirement that had nothing to do with curtailing of powers and everything to do with things running more smoothly when properly applied. Greece, therefore, fully supported the reinstatement of the point of Belgium in the decision.
1013. The delegation of Hungary wished to emphasize that Hungary was much in favour of what was said by Brazil because it was of course important to prepare the files carefully but felt that the point concerning information not being in the right place should not be considered as it was too hard to define criteria against the questions and answers. Hungary understood that this was a decision that had been taken in the past and believed that it was not necessarily a good decision, and that it should perhaps be reconstructed to reflect Ethiopia’s point of view. Hungary concluded by saying that it agreed that the files had to be carefully prepared, but was not in favour of a nomination not being considered if information was placed in the wrong part of the file.
1014. The delegation of Algeria thanked the Chairperson, agreeing with the Ethiopian and Brazilian delegates that the nomination files had to be drafted carefully and Algeria knew how complex it was to develop a file for UNESCO. Files were submitted to the Evaluation Body for evaluation and to the Committee for decision, and it was good that the Evaluation Body had a clearly-defined methodology to deal with the files. However, Algeria said it was the Committee that was really the last resort that should have some flexibility when deciding whether or not to inscribe an intangible cultural heritage element on a given list. Algeria said it might have added something to the amendment proposed by Belgium to the effect that information was taken into consideration by the Evaluation Body and that the Committee should have the flexibility to make a final decision.
1015. The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire said that its delegation had already mentioned that as the Committee met to review nomination files following evaluation by experts of the Evaluation Body, there had to be a good reason for it and that was because the Committee had an added level of flexibility. Côte d’Ivoire agreed with the amendment of Belgium and also with Algeria, saying that once the Evaluation Body had completed its evaluation, the Committee should then have the flexibility to decide whether the required information was indeed included in the file.
1016. The delegation of Kyrgyzstan said that it supported the philosophy and spirit behind the interventions of Brazil and Ethiopia but that any evaluating body would be dealing with human beings and human input, which could be wrong from both sides – from the State submitting the nomination or the Body doing the evaluating – which was why there were general guidelines clear on what States should or should not do and that if these were relied upon, should be sufficient.
1017. The delegation of Tunisia said it fully understood that it was necessary to organise information, but that it had to be taken into consideration that some files had to deal with
complex realities within the intangible cultural heritage field in general, which was why there was often some overlap between the various sections. Tunisia felt that this meant that the approach should not be too formal and show some flexibility so that the spirit of the element could be seen as a whole.
1018. The delegation of Belgium thanked its colleagues and members of the Committee for their comments, saying that what was important was that in no way did Belgium intend to limit the terms of reference of the Committee. On the contrary, Belgium was trying to facilitate the work of the Committee. Given amount of information submitted the Committee, the Committee received recommendations of the Evaluation Body concerning nomination files, therefore information had to be presented in a prescribed way to make the work easier and limit the Committee’s responsibility in that regard. As many members of the Committee did not seem to support the amendment, Belgium was prepared to withdraw the entire paragraph.
1019. The delegation of Hungary agreed with Belgium but reminded the Committee that unfortunately, Decision 7.COM 11 required information to be placed in appropriate sections of the nomination file. Hungary felt perhaps this decision was wrong and that States did not appear to be in favour of Belgium’s proposed paragraph.
1020. The Chairperson wished to give the floor to the Secretariat to explain, as a number of issues were coming up. The Chairperson said she understood that the information might be in the file but in the wrong place and wondered what happened after that. Brazil was talking about not enough space in the form. Ethiopia was talking about the language issue and the flexibility of the Committee. And then while discussing the nominations the day before, the Committee also talked about no new information should be admitted when in session. The Chairperson called on the Secretary to clarify the issues before proceeding to the next round of speakers.
1021. The Secretary reminded the Committee of the background to the decision, which went back to the seventh session of the Committee in 2012 when Estonia was Chairperson of the first Subsidiary Body. The first Subsidiary Body, evaluating nominations, was faced with the same dilemma of evaluating them against a set of five criteria, all of which had to be met to be considered acceptable for inscription. There was initial agreement on having the five criteria, which meant having five sections in the form which one by one would be evaluated to determine whether each criterion had been fulfilled. To evaluate whether a criterion had been fulfilled, each section in the form would be evaluated with respect to its criterion and then a decision would be taken on whether or not the criterion had been fulfilled.
1022. The Secretary said that the problem began when assessing the first criterion, when one asked oneself whether to take into account everything presented in the nomination or only what had been filled in corresponding to a specific criterion. Unfortunately, sometimes information was elsewhere in the form than where it should have been or there were contradictions between one criterion and another. There are no differences between the rules guiding the assessments made by the Committee, or by the Evaluation Body. She pointed out that it was no accident that certain members such as Greece, that had worked in the Evaluation Body, understood that the work of the Evaluation Body was made more difficult by having to look through the entire nomination to evaluate each criterion.
1023. The Secretary mentioned the issue of language, saying that the work of drafting the
1023. The Secretary mentioned the issue of language, saying that the work of drafting the