Document: ITH/18/13.COM/10.b+Add.2 Files: 40 nominations
486. The Chairperson then moved to sub-item 10.b and the examination of nominations for inscription on the Representative List. As the Committee had already examined the joint inscription submitted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, and Lao People’s Republic had withdrawn its file, there were only thirty-seven nominations for examination. The Chairperson recalled inscription criteria R.1–R.5 that would guide the decisions, inviting the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body to present the nomination files.
487. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body turned to the first nomination, Chamamé [draft decision 13.COM 10.b.1], submitted by Argentina. Chamamé, a musical genre originating in the province of Corrientes, is the product of a cultural symbiosis comprising Guaraní, African-American and European elements. It is danced, played and enjoyed by people of all social spheres and generations during family, civic, popular and religious celebrations and festivals. From the information included in the file, the nomination satisfied criteria R.1 and R.3. The Evaluation Body considered Chamamé to be a cultural expression that brings together people of different cultures, generations, religions and social classes. A wide range of safeguarding measures was proposed, including the repair and maintenance of musical instruments, the integration of Chamamé into education, and setting up an interpretation centre in Corrientes. However, the Evaluation Body considered that the information was not sufficient to assess criteria R.2, R.4 and R.5. The file concentrated exclusively on increasing the visibility of the element itself, while making inappropriate references to its uniqueness without demonstrating how the inscription could contribute to raising awareness of intangible cultural heritage in general. A long list of different meetings related to the nomination process was provided, but there was no clear description of the nature or mechanisms of involving communities. Evidence related to the inclusion of the element in an inventory was incoherent. The information provided referred to several different inventory mechanisms in an unclear and scattered manner. Basic information such as the date of inclusion of the element in the inventory, how the inventory is regularly updated and the modality of updating was also missing. Therefore, the Evaluation Body recommended that the Committee refer Chamamé to the submitting State.
488. The Chairperson noted that amendments had been received for this nomination, opening the floor for comments.
489. The delegation of Guatemala remarked that dialogue was important in this Committee, as previously discussed, as it provided an opportunity for the submitting States to express themselves. In this case, the delegation requested that the submitting State be allowed to speak in order that it explain some of the issues, which were perhaps unclear or which the Evaluation Body did not interpret in the way that the submitting State would have hoped.
490. The delegation of China appreciated the efforts of the Evaluation Body on this nomination, thanking the submitting State. It noted that the nomination file under Section 4.a on the participation of the communities mentioned the active participation of the communities by listing a series of events and activities. The delegation requested further clarification from the submitting State on this issue.
491. The delegation of Poland appreciated the recommendations prepared by the Evaluation Body. However, in light of the previous day’s discussion concerning dialogue, it wished to ask the State Party for clarification on a few points concerning the criteria mentioned by the Evaluation Body, adding that it appeared that not every argument was taken into account by the Evaluation Body, which the State Party could provide in this case.
492. The delegation of Colombia thanked the Evaluation Body for its work on this file. It also thanked Argentina for protecting and recognizing Chamamé, which is a cultural manifestation inherent to the province of Corrientes. This is a product of symbiosis between the Guaraní indigenous population, the European population and the African population, which since the 17th century had been set up and managed by the Jesuit missionaries, sharing a common history in South America between several countries such as Paraguay, Bolivia and Colombia. This is manifested in several, very specific ways in South America, for example, in the use of instruments like the guitar, violin or the harp. The nomination file stated that the element had been inscribed on the intangible heritage list of the province of Corrientes; however, the information contained in the sixth section [of the file] referred to different mechanisms, including several laws and the List of Intangible Heritage of MERCOSUR. The information on the date of inclusion of the element or how the inventory is updated on a periodic basis was not included in the file. Thus, on the basis of the information provided, the Committee could not conclude whether the Chamamé is properly inventoried. For this reason, Argentina was asked to shed light on these issues.
493. The delegation of Kazakhstan appreciated the work of the Evaluation Body and also the State Party for a very interesting nomination. It was noted that the tradition of Chamamé is hugely important for the people of Argentina and, in fact, is considered as one of the central elements of their cultural identity of no less importance than the world-famous Tango. It was also noted that some of the Evaluation Body’s more negative conclusions seemed to be more technical in nature, which could be clarified by the State Party. Given the well-known challenges related to the absence of a dialogue mechanism between States Parties and the Evaluation Body, the delegation believed that this file deserved close examination. In this regard, it would appreciate the State Party’s response on how inscription of Chamamé would contribute to greater visibility and raise awareness about intangible cultural heritage in general.
494. The delegation of Armenia thanked the Evaluation Body for its work and also commended Argentina for the interesting Chamamé file. It joined Colombia in asking to allow Argentina to respond to the question on the inventory as, based on the information provided, it was difficult to assess whether Chamamé was included in an inventory in compliance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention, or whether there was a technical misunderstanding.
495. The delegation of Azerbaijan thanked Argentina for submitting the Chamamé file, an expression of vibrant culture that represented several cultural traditions in itself and brought together people of different cultures, generations and religions. It particularly noted the involvement of persons with disabilities in the practice, which was one of the strengths of this element. With regard to criterion R.2, the delegation remarked that the Committee was once again confronted with a situation where the submitting State faced difficulties in adequately responding to the criterion. It partially agreed with the opinion of the Evaluation Body in that the response to Section 2 in the nomination file could have been better formulated. The delegation wished to hear from Argentina on how it believed the nomination would support the visibility of intangible heritage in general, and it would be ready to revisit the recommendation proposed by the Evaluation Body in that case.
Regarding criterion R.4, the delegation thanked the Evaluation Body for its detailed evaluation. The information provided in the form of community consent letters was indeed very limited. However, the delegation believed that not all the consent letters had been submitted by the State, and on the website http://chamameargentina.org—mentioned in the nomination—it indeed contained at least sixty pages of letters that expressed consent to the nomination, leading to the belief that this might be a technical issue. Regarding criterion R.5, the date of inclusion on an inventory was indeed provided, though it was not reflected in the form but rather in the inventory extract attached dated 6 January 2017. In that sense, the delegation reminded the Committee of paragraph 21 in Decision 10.COM 10 stating that the relevant extracts of inventories and the corresponding section in the nomination form should be considered together and complement each other for the purposes of the evaluation; an important principle that should be applied in the future. The remaining information on criterion R.5, such as community participation and the updating of the inventory, could also be found in the form and the inventory extract. For these reasons, the delegation did not find reasons for referring the file on this criterion and would support a positive recommendation.
496. The delegation of Cuba thanked the Evaluation Body for the information contained in the assessment, as well as the State Party. As already mentioned by some Members of the Committee, the delegation once again drew attention to the fact that the file encountered issues in R.2 and R.5, which underscored the need to reflect further on these criteria and how they are specifically used. Indeed, there is room for interpretation and such ambiguity needed to be clarified. With regard to R.4 in particular, the delegation noted a discrepancy between how the criterion was used by the State Party in the file and how it was assessed by the Evaluation Body, whose interpretation would need to aligned. Thus, it was pertinent to allow both parties to clarify this issue to enable the Committee to make an objective decision.
497. The delegation of Kuwait thanked the Evaluation Body for the work accomplished and also the State Party for submitting this important file on the Chamamé, adding that music always brought people together. It is a living form of heritage, especially in a multiethnic place that had seen a lot of migration over the years. Keeping this tradition and music alive was thus an important consideration. Owing to a lack of interpretation of the documentation submitted, some clarification was required on some of the technical issues that were apparent. For this reason, the State Party should clarify the issues raised by the Evaluation Body so as to have a more positive outcome for this file, as it was a really good file that brought people together.
498. The delegation of Austria had read the file several times and admitted to having reached the same conclusion as the Evaluation Body on almost every criterion. It sought to hear from the Evaluation Body concerning the use of social and mass media because the element appeared to have a very large community and the approach of involving them through the use of social media and a reflection forum online was interesting. The delegation thus wondered whether the Evaluation Body could elaborate on how they had come to this decision under R.4, and in general whether a dedicated website, as mentioned in the form, was consulted. This would also clarify the issue in future nominations.
499. The delegation of Senegal thanked the Evaluation Body for its extremely important work and joined the other Members who expressed the wish to allow the submitting State to provide the explanations needed to decide on the nomination.
500. The delegation of Jamaica recognized that R.1 and R.3 had been adequately met in the nomination file, but it also noted the concerns raised by the Evaluation Body in relation to R.2, R.4 and R.5. It supported the position of Cuba, Senegal and Kuwait that the State Party should be given the opportunity to address the concerns related to the element’s contribution to intangible heritage in general, on community involvement and the presence of an inventory.
501. The delegation of Lebanon thanked the Evaluation Body for its work, noting that it appeared to have been a difficult case. Nevertheless, on the basis of dialogue, it was important to give the submitting Party a chance to fill in the gaps.
502. The Chairperson thanked the Committee Members, and first gave the floor to the Evaluation Body to respond to certain issues that were raised, particularly the question raised by Austria, before giving the floor to Argentina.
503. Responding to the issue raised by Austria, the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body explained that in addition to the four consents that were submitted in the file, the Evaluation Body also visited the website that had been indicated, and where quite a number of other consents were available. However, the Chairperson recalled that R.4 was not solely about consent as there were several other aspects contained within R.4, including the mechanisms of involving the communities and the nature of their participation. There was also Section 4.c that sought a clear statement on the respect for customary practices.
These were the aspects that had led the Evaluation Body to reach a consensus that the criterion was not fully met. Although they appear minor, they were some of the aspects that were required for the criterion to be met when going through the form section by section.
504. The Chairperson gave the floor to Argentina to respond to the queries.
505. The delegation of Argentina began by thanking the Government and authorities of Mauritius for organizing this meeting and for the first-hand experience of its hospitality and cultural heritage. The delegation cited Mr José Ortega y Gasset, Mr Koichiro Matsuura and Mr Mohammed Bedjaoui as persons who would have understood the significance and importance of dialogue.
506. The Chairperson asked Argentina to respond directly to the points raised by the Committee.
507. The delegation of Argentina explained that its introduction was to emphasize the importance of communicating. It greatly appreciated the Evaluation Body’s work, but it
would have wished to have been able to communicate beforehand with the Evaluation Body by email or telephone, which would have been the best way to clarify these points prior to the present session. Dialogue was of the utmost importance and Argentina had always been ready to provide the responses necessary. The delegation further explained that the communities concerned speak Spanish and Guaraní, the official language of the Corrientes province and also in the constitution of Paraguay, which is not simply understood such that its translation into French or English made the drafting of the nomination form, which is limited in scope, linguistically, culturally and procedurally more difficult. Moreover, providing all the information required in the nomination form to include and recognize each of the different communities and groups, where they held workshops, who took part, and on what dates was deemed impossible. The delegation highlighted certain key sentences that drew particular attention. For example, only four different consent letters had been submitted because it was unclear how many were needed; one or four thousand? The delegation explained that it had been working on the nomination file for years and that it had provided four consent signatures as an example, not least because the section only allowed for 150 words, but behind each of the four signatures were hundreds if not thousands of letters of consent with their dates of submission that can be seen on the Chamamé website. The delegation further explained that it was very involved in all the work undertaken by UNESCO, which consistently advocated for the use of ICTs as a modern way of communicating. However, in the examination of this nomination file, it appeared that everything had to be provided on paper. The drafters had used ICTs, and the dedicated website perfectly illustrated the wealth of information required. The delegation wondered whether the Secretariat could project the website onto the screen in order that everyone could see the information contained online, adding that this would surely allay any concerns regarding the information and the number of signatures required.
508. The delegation of Argentina referred to R.2 and the several concerns raised on the visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general, explaining that the drafters had worked with women, children, elders and all manner of associations and bodies who had participated in drafting the nomination file, as they were all naturally proud of the prospect of inscription.
The delegation added that there may have been some confusion between the 2003 Convention and the 1972 Convention, but everyone working on the inscriptions understood the importance of clarifying why intangible cultural heritage in general was of great importance. Moreover, the issue of criterion R.2 was a question of comprehension and capacity. It was thus important to ensure that everyone understood the purpose of R.2, after which it would be easier to come up with better proposals that comply with R.2 in the future.
Nevertheless, the pride of these practising communities meant that they used words such as ‘unique’, ‘exclusive’ and ‘exceptional’ to describe the unique nature of their intangible cultural heritage, which was perfectly understandable. The communities could indeed be asked to express their culture in a different way, but they should not be denied pride in their element because they are unable to interpret the language required to explain how the element would increase the visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general. The Committee should therefore bear in mind the community’s perspective. With regard to the other issues raised, the delegation further explained that the inscription of Chamamé in the inventory allowed other elements to be inscribed, which in turn enabled the communities to participate, engage and learn more about intangible cultural heritage in general. The delegation conceded that the procedure could be improved upon and it was perfectly willing to demonstrate the results stemming from the criteria and inscription in the periodic reports, which would also demonstrate the pride of the communities, which should also be taken into consideration. Moreover, UNESCO needed to approach the communities more closely, just as the communities needed to approach UNESCO and the Convention in the case of inscription. Nevertheless, there should be respect for their culture by not focusing on asking for the impossible and reproaching the communities for their shortcomings. Instead, they should be given the opportunity to inscribe these practices, which are important for the country, the communities concerned and for the region more widely. It would serve to unite the communities throughout Argentina, as well as the communities that immigrated to other
parts of South America. As concerns criterion R.4, it was noted that the nomination file had focused on providing consent from a small number of individuals. The delegation explained that the form was very limited in space and scope, with very few instructions on what was required.
509. Noting the time, the Chairperson reminded Argentina of Rule 22.4 that only information to the questions raised by Committee Members should be provided, asking the delegation to remain precise on the explanation under R.4.
510. The delegation of Argentina remarked that it had been asked to explain different aspects of the Convention, hence its detailed explanations, but it was ready to respond more specifically to the questions raised. The delegation referred to the dedicated webpage on Chamamé where the very broad participation of these communities and the workshops held
510. The delegation of Argentina remarked that it had been asked to explain different aspects of the Convention, hence its detailed explanations, but it was ready to respond more specifically to the questions raised. The delegation referred to the dedicated webpage on Chamamé where the very broad participation of these communities and the workshops held