Document: ITH/17/12.COM/11.a Rev.
Files: 6 nominations
372. The Chairperson turned to the first sub-item 11.a and the examination of six nominations for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List submitted by Botswana, Mongolia, Morocco, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, together with one multinational file by Colombia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. As a reminder, the Chairperson projected the inscription criteria onto the screen. He then turned to the first examination, on Dikopelo folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela in Kgatleng District, and its draft decision 11.a.1 submitted by Botswana, inviting the Secretary to present some clarification regarding this file.
373. The Secretary explained that the Evaluation Body had initially recommended a referral on the basis of criterion U.3, particularly as ‘the file does not include a budget, mention of the available funding or a precise timetable; these are considered as indispensable requirements for the safeguarding plan for an element in need of urgent safeguarding’.
However, following the publication of the document on 27 October 2017, Botswana contacted the Secretariat to point out that it had in fact submitted the information mentioned. After checking the file, the Secretariat realized that the submitting State had indeed sent the budget and timetable for the safeguarding plan at the time of initial submission in March 2016. However, as this document was submitted separately and in separate emails, the Secretariat had not taken note of this information. As the information was not integrated into the official nomination Form ICH-01, it was not transmitted to the Evaluation Body and was thus not evaluated. Noting the regrettable oversight, the Evaluation Body was asked in November 2017 to review the file in light of the information
provided and considered that it addressed the concerns raised in its initial recommendation.
The twelve Members had reached consensus on a new draft decision, recommending that the Committee inscribe the element concerned on the Urgent Safeguarding List. The Secretary apologized to the submitting State for this unfortunate oversight, while thanking the members of the Evaluation Body for their prompt reaction.
374. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body turned to the nomination, ‘Dikopelo folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela in Kgatleng District’ [draft decision 12.COM 11.a.1] submitted by Botswana. Dikopelo involves vocal singing and dancing in a patterned choreography without musical instruments, and is in need of urgent safeguarding, primarily as a result of migration from farmlands to villages, as well as modern entertainment practices, which threaten its viability. The community and the practitioners are nonetheless committed to safeguarding the element. From the information included in the file, the nomination satisfied the following criteria: i) U.1: The element is clearly described in terms of its practice, the bearers involved, its transmission and its cultural relevance for the community, including an explanation of its historical development and contemporary needs. The practice provides an avenue for rural communities to forge solidarity and share common values that can be shared by a wider community, including their well-wishers; ii) U.2: The endangered status of the element is fully substantiated by the threats identified in its social and economic contexts, including the migration of young people, a lack of cultural spaces and opportunities to practise the element, the popularity of various forms of modern music, misapropriation by some modern artists, among others; iii) U.3: Developed with the active participation of communities, the safeguarding plan includes measures addressing threats to the element, and it incorporates a diversity of safeguarding initiatives, such as research and documentation activities aimed at raising the awareness of the public, the development of educational materials and promotional activities through various media, which are expected to increase the visibility of the element at the national and international levels; iv) U.4: The active participation of the communities was ensured throughout the nomination process, who expressed concerns about the future viability of the element, and associations of bearers, institutions and traditional and formal authorities also provided their consent;
and v) U.5: Since 2010, the element has been registered in the intangible cultural heritage inventory in Kgatleng District, which is regularly updated and managed by the Phuthadikobo Museum and the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Culture. Evidence of the participation of the communities concerned was also provided. The Evaluation Body therefore recommended the inscription of Dikopelo folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela in Kgatleng District on the Urgent Safeguarding List.
375. The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body for the detailed explanation of the different issues, noting no forthcoming comments or objections. The Chairperson declared Decision 12.COM 11.a.1 adopted to inscribe ‘Dikopelo folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela in Kgatleng District’ on the Urgent Safeguarding List.
376. The delegation of Botswana applauded the Committee for receiving and making a thorough assessment of its nomination file submitted for the first time in 2012. A lot of effort had been made to close all the identified gaps in the file and in March 2016 it had been resubmitted for inscription for the third time. The time and effort taken by the community to close the gaps had given Botswana an opportunity to grow in terms of compiling a successful nomination file. Botswana was delighted to receive the adopted decision to inscribe the element of the Dikopelo folk music of Bakgatla ba Kgafela in Kgatleng District and was committed to the implementation of the safeguarding plan, as well as the submission of periodic reports. The decision to inscribe the element had motivated Botswana to continue using UNESCO to safeguard its diverse intangible cultural heritage.
[A short film on the element was projected]
377. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body turned to the next nomination, ‘Colombian-Venezuelan llano work songs’ [draft decision 12.COM 11.a.2] submitted by Colombia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Llano work songs consist of tunes sung individually a
capella on the themes of herding and milking. The songs are repositories of the individual and collective stories of the llaneros. The practice nonetheless faces numerous threats to its viability, such as the modification of the social, cultural and natural sites of the songs and alterations to the demographic composition of llanero society. Safeguarding efforts include a pedagogical strategy for bearers and young people, training for schoolteachers and festivals. The Evaluation Body considered that the following criteria were met: i) U.1: The element constitutes a practice of intangible cultural heritage of the communities concerned and unites them, and the highly expressive songs help to accustom cattle to the presence of humans, mainly during the milking process; ii) U.2: A comprehensive analysis of the different threats was provided: the government’s legislation; oil and gas extraction; large-scale irrigation, the exploitation of bio-fuels; the delimitation of properties with barbed wire;
the construction of road networks; migration to urban areas, among others; and the use of new media forms and technologies substituting the human voice were also perceived as threats; iii) U.3: A five-year plan is structured around knowledge, revitalization and the transmission of the llano songs, and also includes joint actions between the two countries where practitioners can benefit from an exchange of experiences, showing the commitment of the communities and institutions involved; iv) U.4: The fruitful synergies between the efforts of communities, associations and the respective institutions are evident, and diverse and numerous expressions of consent encompass creative written testimonies, fingerprints, palm imprints and photographs. However, in U.5, although the element is included in inventories of intangible cultural heritage in both Colombia and Venezuela, the frequency with which the inventory is updated and community participation in drafting the entry are missing in the case of Colombia. The Evaluation Body therefore recommended referring the nomination to the submitting States Parties. The file was nonetheless well-conceived and carefully prepared, notably in relation to the description of the threats to the element.
378. The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body for the detailed explanation, noting that this was the first case of the dual system of draft decisions. As previously explained, the Bureau had decided to open the debate on this file, and the Committee had received written information from the submitting States concerning the questions raised. This information was attached to the nomination file. In conformity with Rule 22.4 of the Rules of Procedures of the Committee, the submitting States were given the floor to provide only the relevant information on two issues: community participation in the inventorying process in Colombia, and the frequency of inventory updating in Colombia.
379. The delegation of Colombia noted that the Evaluation Body had two main questions regarding U.5. Responding to the question on the frequency of updating of the inventory, the delegation wished to explain how relations work in Colombia and how the inscription of an element in the National List of Intangible Cultural Heritage works according to its law and regulations. The main instrument that serves as an inventory of Colombia in cultural heritage is the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage at the national level.
This list contains the development of an up-to-date regulation, which explains the procedure by which interested communities can register cultural manifestations and practices, undertaking in turn a Special Safeguarding Plan, which must be built and agreed upon by the bearers and social actors related to the cultural manifestation in question. The participatory preparation of the Special Safeguarding Plan is a mandatory requirement to join the list, and is the basis for the registry that had been presented along with the nomination file. This entire procedure is stipulated in the General Law of Culture and is explained in the section ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’. With respect to the submission as presented, the delegation clarified that in Colombia, the ‘llano work songs’ are inscribed in inventories at the local, regional and national levels. The inventories at the local and regional levels are updated according to the requirements of the authorities and communities. However, and most importantly, the ‘llano work songs’ are inscribed in Colombia's main registry of intangible cultural heritage elements, administered by the Ministry of Culture. Its inclusion was only possible after the development of the Special Safeguarding Plan, which was constructed through a participatory process with the communities, bearers, cultural agents, researchers and local authorities. As explained, the
Special Safeguarding Plan is the basis for the registration of an element in the national Intangible Cultural Heritage Representative List, containing a detailed description, its social function, the modes of transmission as well as the risk, opportunities and safeguarding initiatives that are a result of the participatory process. The national laws establish that the Special Safeguarding Plan must be reviewed and renewed every five years by the Ministry of Culture. This action constitutes the main mechanism for updating the inventory as it makes it possible to review the status of the manifestation in question, and that action has been undertaken to warrant its sustainability and safeguarding in the medium term. The element presented to the Committee was inscribed in the National Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003, which means that the revision and updating of the Special Safeguarding Plan would take place in 2018.
380. The delegation of Colombia referred to the second question concerning community participation in drafting the inventory, explaining that the current regulations in Colombia define the Special Safeguarding Plan as a social and administrative agreement by the community involved in the element. The laws regarding safeguarding intangible cultural heritage explicitly state that the consultation and participation mechanisms are mandatory for the Special Safeguarding Plan to be approved as the main tool for the management and safeguarding of the element. This participation was also secured as evidence in the records and as presented in the nomination file. Since 2011, a working group led by the NGO Fundaset, and supervised by the Ministry of Culture, had undertaken a tour through the Llanos region gathering testimonies with elder bearers with their respective informed consent forms on different characteristics of the llanos work songs and their historical memory in order to construct a robust description of the element for the Special Safeguarding Plan. Furthermore, in each of the four departments of the Llanos region of Colombia, forums were conducted that were open to all interested actors to build a Special Safeguarding Plan for the inclusion of an element on the Representative List. An important representation of musicians, of cattle, cattle dealers, cultural managers, representatives of educational institutions and researchers was achieved. They contributed to the reconstruction of what the llano work songs represented for llano culture in general and how to plan for its safeguarding and management.
381. The delegation of Cuba thanked Colombia for the information provided, adding that this information allayed any doubts presented by the Evaluation Body. It thus agreed that the element should be inscribed.
382. The delegation of Palestine echoed the remarks by Cuba. Indeed, the clarifications from Colombia, as well as the document distributed in the room from Venezuela and Colombia, provided all the information required to demonstrate the merits of inscribing this element. It therefore supported the inscription of this element and not a deferral.
383. The delegation of Bulgaria expressed appreciation for the work by the Evaluation Body and for the extremely rich report. Regarding the nomination, the delegation was satisfied with the additional explanations provided as they gave clear evidence of the continuous and systematic updating of inventorying at the local and regional levels in close connection with the five-year safeguarding plan, as well as the wide participation of communities and bearers in the inventorying process.
384. The Chairperson noted that the file enjoyed wide support, with many Members wishing to speak, including: Armenia, Turkey, Saint Lucia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Lebanon, Philippines, Côte d’Ivoire, India and Mongolia, Zambia, Afghanistan and Algeria. He therefore asked whether there were any opposing views among the speakers. Otherwise, he would record the supporting views.
385. The delegation of Ethiopia expressed support.
386. The Chairperson assured the Committee that all the speakers wishing to make supporting remarks would be duly reflected in the summary records. He then proceeded with the adoption of the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Paragraph 1 was duly adopted.
387. The delegation of Palestine suggested that instead of going paragraph by paragraph, knowing there was huge support, the Committee could adopt the inscription option and delete the referral option.
388. The Chairperson asked whether the Committee wished to adopt the decision as a whole.
The Chairperson noted that paragraphs 1–3 had been duly edited from referral to inscription.
389. The delegation of Saint Lucia remarked that part of what had been deleted was a section that stated, ‘commends the State Party for the otherwise well-conceived and carefully prepared file’, which it wished to retain, albeit with ‘otherwise’ deleted.
390. The delegation of Hungary remarked that it was following the amendment proposed by Saint Lucia to assess its impact, as this was the first nomination file to deal with the issue in U.5. The delegation explained that the decision had been prepared with a problem in U.5, thus the decision should somehow keep a record of this issue. From this perspective, the delegation would be more comfortable in going along with the original suggestion or finding some language that commended the file overall but kept a record of the U.5 issue. The delegation raised this point at this stage because the method adopted now would likely apply to other nomination files that had U.5 or R.5 issues. Thus, the Committee should come to a structural agreement at this stage.
391. The delegation of Saint Lucia agreed with Hungary on this very important point, pointing out that the paragraph made a specific reference to the threats of the element and how the submitting States dealt with those threats, and thus it should be retained.
392. The delegation of Cuba understood the concern expressed by Hungary, adding that the text, ‘the information included in the file is not sufficient to allow the Committee to determine whether the following criterion for inscription […]’, was a bit strong because the file did eventually lead to an inscription. It suggested instead, ‘on the basis of information submitted by the State, the Committee decides to inscribe’, as there were two options suggested by the Evaluation Body. Starting the paragraph with a negative sentence was not a good way to proceed for this file and for the others that would follow.
393. From a procedural point of view, the Secretary explained that the additional information submitted in writing would be attached to the nomination and that all discussions would be recorded. This was why the Secretariat encouraged written submissions so that they could be attached to the nomination file for the record.
394. The delegation of Palestine was of the understanding that the Evaluation Body had proposed two options: either the Committee took the whole first option or the second option.
Nevertheless, it understood the concerns of Saint Lucia and Hungary, but remarked that including negative elements in the decision was not appropriate. If the Committee wished to commend the submitting State Parties for the notable description of the threats, in particular, then it should retain only that aspect without mentioning the file, as addressed by Hungary. Otherwise, its proposal was to be as simple as possible, i.e. to take one option or the other, which would simplify the procedure for the upcoming files with this kind of dual option.
395. The delegation of Ethiopia remarked that if the Committee accepted option 2 (the inscription option) then the Committee was basically saying that the file was complete, but somehow there was a misunderstanding (in terms of the missing information), which the submitting State had cleared up with a clarification. Should the Committee agree with the clarification, which was the case, then there was no need to refer back to the fact that there was an issue. The delegation felt that there was no need for a negative remark in the conclusion, especially as all the annexes would be attached for reference, as explained by the Secretary. The decision was thus based on the information later received with the conclusion to inscribe. Thus, the Committee had to standardize the decision simply and positively because the conclusion was ultimately positive. Including any negative remarks in
some of the paragraphs would not make sense to the communities. It thus strongly supported the argument put forward by Cuba and Palestine.
396. The delegation of Algeria added that it was normal to take some more time with this decision as it would set the example and precedent for future decisions. The delegation was comfortable with both options. What was presented by the Hungarian delegate made sense; however, the fact that the Evaluation Body had proposed two options, as pointed out by Palestine, meant that the Committee was limited to the first or the second option. To
396. The delegation of Algeria added that it was normal to take some more time with this decision as it would set the example and precedent for future decisions. The delegation was comfortable with both options. What was presented by the Hungarian delegate made sense; however, the fact that the Evaluation Body had proposed two options, as pointed out by Palestine, meant that the Committee was limited to the first or the second option. To