Documents ITH/13/8.COM/7.b 2 Proposals Decision 8.COM 7.b
465. The Chairperson moved to the next item, giving the floor to the Rapporteur of the Consultative Body, Mr Pierre Bois, to present the second part of the Report of the Consultative Body on issues specific to both the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices and to International Assistance, followed by a brief discussion of those issues and the debate and adoption of the individual draft decisions.
466. The Rapporteur presented the final part of his report on the Consultative Body’s evaluation of the two proposals for the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices and the sole request for International Assistance. The Body welcomed the decision of both States Parties that prioritized their proposal to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, but regretted that a larger number of proposals had not been submitted in this year’s cycle. The Rapporteur recalled that the Body was required to evaluate a programme as a best practice not just a good practice, so that it might inspire other communities and States. The Rapporteur wished to present criterion-by-criterion even though, unlike for the Urgent Safeguarding List, they were not all obligatory. The Body considered criterion P.1 as an assessment on whether the first and main objective of the proposed programme would indeed ensure the viability of the intangible cultural heritage concerned. As with other mechanisms, community participation was specifically addressed in criterion P.5 with identifiable communities throughout the file as both authors and the main beneficiaries of safeguarding measures. In general, the Body sought convincing and justified explanations for all the criteria. In the case of criterion P.2, the Body was not solely satisfied with signs of regional, sub-regional and/or international level coordination, but whether such coordination were isolated actions
or an essential part of safeguarding efforts beyond the strict scope of the proposed programme. This also applied to criterion P.3, where it was felt insufficient to list the safeguarding measures proposed in Article 2.3 of the Convention, but rather to recognize the principles and objectives of the Convention in the programme’s description, especially with regard to the active participation of communities who bore the intangible cultural heritage that the programme sought to safeguard. Besides the need for a programme to have reached in order to assess criteria P.4 and P.8, it was obvious that by submitting the proposal, the State was convinced of the effectiveness of the programme. However, the Rapporteur recalled that for the Body and the Committee to share such a belief, they would need to rely on an external and independent evaluation rather than an inevitably positive self-assessment. Criterion P.6 allows to assess the exemplary nature of the proposed programme, and thus should contain sufficient quantitative and detailed information on its methodology and results in order to determine that it has the potential to serve as a regional or sub-regional international model. As regards criterion P.9, although it was difficult to agree on what were the special needs of developing countries, the Body agreed that it was important that the proposal contained sufficient information on how safeguarding methodologies put forward by a given programme could be replicated in different contexts, while meeting the specific needs of other communities and other States, especially developing countries. It was noted that the best safeguarding practices could serve as a model for broader development process, and that the more the proposals proved their effectiveness in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage, the more likely policy-makers would integrate these methods and approaches in domains other than culture.
467. The Rapporteur remarked that the lessons from International Assistance were more difficult to assess as unfortunately only one request had been submitted for evaluation of the five requests processed in the 2013 cycle; the others had not been completed in time following the Secretariat’s letters for additional information. It was useful to recall that only requests for International Assistance had received a thorough evaluation by the Secretariat, thereby benefitting from these guidelines in the review process. This was attributed to the specificity of the mechanism, as a favourable decision by the Committee led to a contractual relationship between UNESCO and the organization responsible for the project’s implementation, rendering the process of preparing and evaluating requests more complex than nominations to the other mechanisms. As such, the Body regretted the low number of requests, adding that this mechanism, not the Lists, was probably better able to support the implementation of safeguarding efforts on the ground. The Rapporteur reiterated that the inscription of an element on the List did not automatically release funding for the safeguarding plan. This observation led the Body to propose an experimental new form that merged Form ICH-01 and Form ICH-04.
468. The Rapporteur acknowledged the difficulties faced by States in formulating rigorous and well-structured requests to meet the criteria defined in the Operational Directives, as well as UNESCO’s financial and administrative regulations. Nevertheless, the Body was confident that the comprehensive capacity-building strategy would prove more effective in the mid-and long-term. The Body suggested that in the short-term, as outlined in paragraph 5 of the draft decision 8.COM.7c, the Committee consider a way of providing technical assistance to States Parties in preparing their requests for International Assistance. Based on a brief note describing the project, by which the State Party intended to apply for International Assistance, the Secretariat could perhaps provide experts to assist the submitting State in developing ideas and needs in the form of a request. Returning to the single request in this cycle, the Body recalled that the criteria for International Assistance were not all mandatory;
the recommendation to approve or not to approve the request was based on the capacity of the nomination as a whole to satisfy the criteria. The Rapporteur recalled the importance of ensuring coherence and consistency between the objectives identified, the expected results, and the activities proposed. A clear sequence of objectives and results would help assess whether the proposed activities were likely to achieve the desired results within the given time frame. The Body also warned against the tendency to conceive capacity-building, of which International Assistance would contribute, as essentially institutional, at
the expense of capacity-building of communities for practising their intangible cultural heritage.
469. The Chairperson thanked the Rapporteur for his concise and useful report, opening the floor for debate.
470. The delegation of Latvia supported the concern expressed by the Consultative Body of the limited number of proposals to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices. It also respected the Body’s position to recommend proposals that were truly convincing.
However, it considered with caution the suggestion that an external evaluation would be more appealing than a self-evaluation. It believed that communities, groups and individuals had a better understanding of what would be effective with regard to the viability of their intangible cultural heritage. However, these considerations could be understood and accepted in the case of the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, as these cases served as examples for other communities, groups and individuals or States. Nevertheless, the Committee should be attentive that the practice of external evaluation or independent assessment did not spill over into the other mechanisms, notably the nominations. Finally, it welcomed qualitative and quantitative research on the experiences accumulated from the several programmes, projects and activities already selected by the Committee, adding that this would help draw conclusions on the implementation of the Convention on a longer-term basis.
471. The Chairperson proceeded to the examination of the two individual proposals following the same methodology used in examining the nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List.
The Committee’s task was to select the proposals that best satisfied the criteria, drawing on the recommendations submitted by the Consultative Body. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the criteria were found in paragraph 7 of the Operational Directives, and that a file did not necessarily have to satisfy all of the criteria to be selected.
472. The Chairperson of the Consultative Body introduced the first proposal Documentation of Egypt’s Nubian intangible heritage [draft decision 8.COM.7.b.1] submitted by Egypt. A joint initiative of the Public Nubian Club and the Centre for Documentation of Cultural and Natural Heritage (CULTNAT), the project aims to document and safeguard the intangible heritage of Egypt’s Nubian community. It trains young Nubians to collect, document and digitize their rich and distinctive heritage for dissemination to revitalize and sustain their culture. In the future, the objective is to build a cultural and professional training centre to promote the Nubian culture and train young people in traditional know-how. The Body considered that, overall, the nomination provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage of the Nubians is at the heart of this programme that focused on training youth and documenting their heritage. The Consultative Body noted that one of the main entities responsible for the programme’s implementation, the NGO Public Nubian Club, had signed a cooperation agreement with the Sudanese NGO representing the Nubians in Sudan. However, it was premature to say that it contributed towards the coordinated efforts of safeguarding at the sub-regional level, as the information provided amounted to declarations of intent and did not indicate any concrete results. Elements of the Convention framework were visible, such as the role of young Nubians in the definition of their intangible cultural heritage. However, the section of the form dedicated to criterion P.3 was not fully utilized and did not demonstrate how programme activities reflected specific and concrete principles of the Convention.
Moreover, it made rather general remarks, copying sections of the Convention. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the programme on the viability of the intangible cultural heritage concerned, the file cited two success stories: the link between old and new generations, who were beginning to lose their identity, and the new approach for helping young people understand their own heritage. However, as these were current activities, the Body was unable to find specific quantitative or qualitative information enabling it to verify their impact. Moreover, the impact of documentation and awareness activities on the viability of intangible cultural heritage and on the capacity of communities to contribute to it was not demonstrated. In addition, although the Public Nubian Club was clearly involved in
programme implementation, its role and level of representation of the three Nubian communities concerned was also unclear. As a result, the Body was unable to assess community participation in the implementation of the programme, especially as consent forms only came from the NGO and CULTNAT with no certification from a local customary or traditional authority, or any other representative of the community. The Body also found it difficult to assess the programme’s ability to serve as a model, as activities and results were not sufficiently detailed, even those that had started several years ago and were ongoing.
473. Regarding criterion P.7, the Chairperson of the Consultative Body noted that a Memorandum of Cooperation had been signed between the two organizations concerned, but it considered that the information provided was strictly formal. Furthermore, the file as a whole did not provide sufficient evidence of genuine commitment by the communities to cooperate in the dissemination of the programme as a best practice. Neither the information on the results nor their evaluation was sufficiently concrete, supplemented only by a few publications and films whose content and audience was unknown. As in previous cycles, the Body faced the difficulty of understanding the significance of the special needs of developing countries in criterion P.9. Although the needs were extremely variable, the Body tried to identify in the proposal a methodology that could be transferable to other contexts.
In this case, the State Party referred to the tools, without specifying which ones, while highlighting the potential of the programme to generate income from crafts and tourism, but without describing how these benefits contributed towards safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. In addition, it was noted that the programme relied mainly on the digitization of collected information, while very often in developing countries, the power grid, especially for rural communities, was under supplied, even in urban areas. Even though the selection process of a best practice did not require that all criteria were met, the Body concluded that overall, the file did not provide enough information or arguments to demonstrate its exemplarity vis-à-vis the principles and objectives of the Convention. The Body therefore proposed some additional paragraphs in the draft decision, to serve as guidelines for possible resubmission. In paragraph 4, it was recalled that for documentation to safeguard intangible cultural heritage, it must first be thought out and implemented so as to contribute to the continued practice and transmission of the intangible cultural heritage about which it gathered information. Similarly, for this approach to be a safeguarding process, it must be conducted by and for communities, as outlined in paragraph 5. As mentioned in the Rapporteur’s report, a State Party submitting a proposal to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices naturally considered its outcome as positive. However, it not only had to declare it so, but had to demonstrate it, and the reason why the Body suggested an evaluation of the programme’s results, notably concerning their particular contribution to the health of the intangible cultural heritage in question. Finally, given that best practices were intended to contribute towards safeguarding efforts at regional, sub-regional and/or international level, and that some Nubian populations live outside Egyptian borders, the Body invited the State Party to engage with all the stakeholders concerned with safeguarding this intangible cultural heritage, particularly the communities themselves.
474. The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Consultative Body for the comprehensive overview, opening the floor for comment. With no comments or objections, the Chairperson declared Decision 8.COM.7.b.1, not to select Documentation of Egypt’s Nubian intangible heritage for the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, adopted.
475. The delegation of Egypt thanked the Consultative Body for its detailed examination, from which it had drawn many lessons, noting that the same effort had been made in the examination of every file. It apologized for the amount of work required, but that it would take on board the comments made when it resubmitted the file. The delegation also wished to highlight an inaccuracy in the Arabic interpretation in that Egypt did not have a Nubian population; it comprised the Egyptian people of which Nubians were part and parcel of the Egyptian population and were not a separate people. It added that it was harmful to begin using inaccurate terms in the interpretation or translation of written documents.
476. The Chairperson proceeded to the second proposal for the Register.
477. The Chairperson of the Consultative Body presented the next proposal Methodology for inventorying intangible cultural heritage in biosphere reserves: the experience of Montseny [draft decision 8.COM.7.b.2] submitted by Spain. Initiated by the UNESCO Centre in Catalonia, an NGO, the project focuses on the identification of intangible cultural heritage in a biosphere reserve and the drawing up of inventories. Carried out in cooperation with local stakeholders and institutions, a methodology for inventorying founded on a participatory approach has been developed, which involves the population of Montseny in the identification, documentation and research of its own intangible cultural heritage. The methodology could be reproduced at the regional and international levels, and is suitable for developing countries. The programme aims to share a methodology for preparing inventories adapted to biosphere reserves based on the experience in the Montseny Mountains in Catalonia. In this sense, it implements a safeguarding measure outlined in Article 2.3 of the Convention, which is the identification of intangible cultural heritage. The Consultative Body noted that the current programme was implemented at the national and national level, and therefore had not yet been proven at the regional, sub-regional or international or transboundary level. Nevertheless, the Body wished to emphasize its potential to contribute towards the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage at this level, particularly through the MAB Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Body found that criterion P.3 was met, as the preparation of inventories of intangible cultural heritage represented a safeguarding measure, notably in Article 12 of the Convention. In addition, the programme promoted the respect for intangible cultural heritage of the communities, illustrating the interdependence between intangible and natural heritage, as advocated in the preamble of the Convention. The Body concluded that the main results of the programme, a methodology for preparing inventories of intangible cultural heritage of biosphere reserves, and an inventory of intangible cultural heritage of the Montseny massif, constituted sufficient evidence of the programme’s effectiveness on the viability of the intangible cultural heritage concerned. With about 90 pages attesting the consent and participation of communities, associations, local authorities, research centres and local museums to inventory development, the Body concluded that criterion P.5 had been met.
The programme also responded to the State Party’s wish to share its experience in the preparation of inventories with other States whose methodology could be replicated in other contexts. In its analysis of P.7, the Body found that the programme sought to diffuse its survey methodology as a best safeguarding practice and found sufficient evidence in the file of the provincial and city councils’ commitment to achieve this.
478. However, the Chairperson of the Consultative Body was surprised to find in the file a statement that it was unnecessary to involve communities, although they had participated in the preparation of the inventory and the dissemination of the methodology. As such, paragraph 5 in the draft decision suggested that the State Party reconsider the role of communities in this context. The Body also noted that the Biodiversity Foundation of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment had positively evaluated the programme. However, given that the same institution funded the programme, the Body reminded the Committee of the importance of conducting independent evaluations. Again, on criterion P.9, the Body had difficulty in relating to the special needs of developing countries as a unique and homogeneous reality. However, it found that from the point of view of costs, mechanisms for community participation and institutional support, and inventory experience that the programme could be replicated in developing countries.
Overall, the Body found that the file contained sufficient information to conclude that the programme reflected the principles and objectives of the Convention, though this did not mean that all criteria had been met. The Body proposed to add additional paragraphs to the draft decision. Firstly, the State Party should be encouraged for its initiative that illustrated the relationship between intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development.
However, the Body found that more detail could have been provided on the concrete steps
However, the Body found that more detail could have been provided on the concrete steps