Documents ITH/14/9.COM/9.b+Add.
4 proposals Decision 9.COM 9.b
196. The Chairperson proceeded to item 9.b and document 9.b+Add., adding that the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices helped share successful safeguarding experiences and provided examples of efficient transmission of living heritage to future generations. These methods and approaches were useful lessons and models that could be adapted to other situations, including those in developing countries. Since 2009, eleven Best Safeguarding Practices had been selected. In the 2014 cycle, the Consultative Body had evaluated four proposals. However, it was noted that both Mexico and Hungary had withdrawn their proposals. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the overall decision 9.COM 9.b would be adopted upon completion of the examination of the two proposals. He thus invited the Rapporteur to present the second part of the Consultative Body’s report on the examination of proposals to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices and the examination of requests for International Assistance.
197. Presenting the Consultative Body’s report, the Rapporteur began by congratulating the four States that prioritized proposals to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices for this cycle, but regretted that more countries did not follow suit. The Rapporteur stressed again that the Body was tasked to evaluate not simply a good practice but an exemplary safeguarding practice that could inspire other communities and States Parties. One of the issues that attracted the attention of the Body in several of the files was the apparent lack of understanding of the fundamental concepts of the Convention. States were reminded that the proposals must be designed in the framework and spirit of the Convention and should focus on intangible cultural heritage, as defined in Article 2. States should avoid, for example, selecting projects that were primarily concerned with natural or tangible heritage.
Similarly, a best safeguarding practice should demonstrate knowledge of the Convention’s definition of safeguarding and should not result in folkorizing or institutionalizing intangible cultural heritage. Moreover, the Body noted that while a programme’s economic benefits could be relevant and important for the communities concerned, financial gain could not be the primary reason for the programme nor could it justify its selection as a best safeguarding practice. As previously mentioned, the identification of the communities involved in the proposed programme was one of the central themes of discussion. Once again, a poor definition of communities had an impact on the other criteria and precluded the understanding of the proposed safeguarding methodologies in general. Similarly, the issue of the contour of the communities arose, and once again an adequate description of the communities was considered indispensable for evaluating proposals. The Body also pointed issues such as the necessity for the programme to be primarily applicable to the needs of developing countries, the importance of capacity-building, and the necessity for research and evaluation demonstrating the effectiveness of safeguarding programmes before they could be put forward as best practices. It was noted that in response to the Committee’s Decision 8.COM 5.c.1, the Body held a brainstorming session on alternative lighter ways of sharing good safeguarding experiences. The Body felt that it was very important to encourage and take advantage of primary research on the effectiveness of safeguarding programmes – or on their lack of effectiveness – so as to begin drawing lessons, and so that communities could begin to learn from others and benefit from their experiences. The Secretariat had taken note of the Body’s brainstorming.
198. The Rapporteur concluded with the evaluation of international assistance requests greater than US$25,000. There were only two requests in this cycle and the Body regretted this low level of interest. As mentioned in the first part of the report, the Body hoped that technical assistance provided to some developing countries in the preparation of international
assistance requests would improve the situation, as well as the new combined form ICH-01bis to allow submitting States to simultaneously request inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List and international assistance for the proposed safeguarding plans. As previously found, the Body encountered problems with the definition of communities, as well as incoherence and inconsistency between the stated objectives, the expected results, the activities proposed, and the corresponding budget. States Parties were again encouraged to take heed of advice given by the past Committee in this regard, and to follow the instructions given in the form. Furthermore, the Body wished to emphasize that elaborating national strategies required a full consultation process at the national level, and could not be an isolated, individual initiative. Another issue that arose concerned the compensation of communities. The Body held the opinion that the time spent by community members to participate in the project should be compensated. Whether they should be remunerated at the same or different standards compared to the experts performing similar work was at the discretion of each State and varied with the context, but the reader should be able to find clear information in the file. Lastly, the Body noticed the striking similarity of two submitted requests to International Assistance requests previously approved by the Committee. While it was good to draw inspiration from successful files, the Body wished to remind States that safeguarding measures should always be specific to a given context.
Concluding, the Rapporteur hoped that the report had presented an accurate and comprehensive overview of the Body’s work. She also wished to extend her sincere appreciation to the Chairperson of the Consultative Body and to all its members for their support in her role as Rapporteur.
199. The Chairperson thanked the Rapporteur for the concise and informative report, which gave the Committee an overview on the work of the Consultative Body regarding the two safeguarding mechanisms. He then opened the floor for comment and observations.
200. The delegation of Brazil was disappointed to note that only two International Assistance requests had been examined, and therefore there was a need to reflect as to why this was so given that there were resources available in the Fund and it was known that many people were in great need of assistance. Moreover, one of the two files had been rejected.
The delegation suggested that the Committee reflect on its standards, adding that maybe the submitting States had too many forms to complete, or that the bureaucracy and the Committee’s demands were excessive. Difficulties could also be attributed to the fact that those requiring support and financial resources did not have the means to fulfil all the obligations imposed, resulting in them abandoning requests for funding. Additionally, people may prefer to find alternative sources of financing, or Member States were using their own national resources to support these activities. The delegation reiterated the need for reflection, adding that too many barriers were preventing Member States from presenting files and requests for support.
201. The delegation of the Republic of Korea appreciated the Consultative Body’s hard work, especially the Secretariat-led process of feedback, which improved the quality of the nomination files and was found to be an indispensable mechanism addressing the difficulties faced by submitting States with limited resources. It commended the Secretariat for this crucial work. It also drew the Committee's attention to the low level of approval of requests for International Assistance. In 2011, four out of the four requests submitted were not approved. In 2012, eight out of ten were not approved. In 2013, the sole request submitted was not approved, and in 2014, both requests were not approved. This showed that the very few annual requests for International Assistance were rarely successful. The delegation understood that all the necessary information had to be submitted in order to meet the strict criteria governing contractual arrangements between UNESCO and the beneficiary States, as reflected in paragraph 3 of the report. However, this low approval rate raised the question as to why the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund was not actively utilized.
Was it simply owing to a lack of understanding and a limited capacity among the requesting members, or were there other underlying and systematic difficulties that hindered the Fund’s active utilization? The delegation invited the Consultative Body and the Secretariat to respond to this issue. Nevertheless, it welcomed the technical assistance afforded to a
number of countries to support their planning and to assist in their requests, as reported in paragraph 10 of the report. It was also noted that the Secretariat had spoken about the high level of cooperation with UNESCO Field Offices and on aligning category 2 centres to its objectives. However, the delegation was still under the impression that the Secretariat could further tap into theses resources to bring additional value to the process in the near future in a continually aligning approach. It believed that the Secretariat would soon have the potential resources at hand, and the delegation encouraged it to envisage every possible avenue to realize its objectives, adding that it would continue to support the Secretariat’s efforts in this regard.
202. The delegation of Congo wished to reiterate thanks to the Consultative Body for a job well done. It found particularly pertinent Brazil’s remark on the very low number of requests for funding, adding that the Secretariat – as suggested by the Republic of Korea – should make contact with the field offices and the national commissions. In this way, they could offer assistance, while renewing their availability so that States had the opportunity to apply for funding.
203. The Chairperson opened the floor to Observers, but with no requests for the floor, he invited the Rapporteur to answer the questions.
204. The Rapporteur thanked the Committee Members for their questions, adding that she shared its concern regarding the under utilization of the Fund. This point was emphasised in the report in that the Secretariat – in the case of international assistance compared to the other mechanisms – was at the disposal of States Parties to help them fulfil all the technical requirements in their request so as to take into consideration the proposed objectives, activities, budgeting and timetable. Moreover, it had also been discussed that there was an improved Excel form for the budget outline, which would help States Parties in the budgeting part of their request to correctly link the budget with the other main components, which was therefore very useful. However, technical problems arising from the use of different computer systems was cited as a possible complication.
205. The delegation of the United Arab Emirates commended the Chairperson for his wise chairmanship, and for the quality of the work so far, adding that excellent results would likely be achieved. The delegation spoke of its intervention expressed in the past on the Representative List and the requests for international assistance. It reiterated that in spite of the efforts deployed by the Committee over the last sessions to overcome these difficulties, it had to come to the realization that the procedural mechanism for international assistance requests was more akin to an exam for Member States to demonstrate how knowledgeable their experts were in putting together a nomination file. It also seemed that files were systematically being rejected. It was aware of the difficulties encountered by the Consultative Body, and that it did not wish to reject the requests, but it also felt that the Body had to always show the very specific way in which it treated the nominations whose outcome was invariably rejection, which obviously did not help the requesting States. The delegation felt that the interventions, especially by the Republic of Korea and Brazil, had expressed most of the Committee’s concerns, and that it had to simplify the process in order to help countries requiring this assistance. It asked the Committee to keep in mind the essential goal, which was to help Member States formulate their requests as best it could.
Of course, this did not imply that the Committee should help the States cheat during an exam, but that they should be given the means to do their work and thus the Committee had to find a solution.
206. The Chairperson thanked the United Arab Emirates for its interesting comments, inviting the Secretary to respond.
207. The Secretary expressed that she believed that the Committee was debating a central point in the implementation of the Convention in the very idea of international assistance.
She understood the underlying impression that requests received were often rejected given that the two requests under evaluation in the present cycle both received negative recommendations. However, it was recalled that the Chairperson had announced only the
day before that during the course of the year the Bureau had approved requests for international assistance under US$25,000. Moreover, thirty requests had been approved since the operation of the Convention began in 2009. The Fund had therefore benefited many States. In addition, the Bureau had approved emergency assistance to Mali for the amount of US$300,000. The Secretary remarked that this situation had already been mentioned in the Secretariat’s report. Indeed, it was not the first year that this concern had been raised. Hence, the Committee’s position in Baku that enabled the Secretariat to provide more technical support for international assistance requests, whether for more or less than US$25,000. She recalled that four requests were currently in progress, and three requests were in the phase of preparation. The Secretary cited the case of Côte d’Ivoire that was first State to benefit from this technical assistance and had already submitted its request. The Secretary therefore believed that there was now a process in place that recognized the problem. The Secretariat also provided longer term support in its capacity-building programme, which integrated international assistance and the notion of the safeguarding plan. The third measure, which was also evoked by the Rapporteur, was the joint nomination form that combined the Urgent Safeguarding List with international assistance, which should help match the requirements of the safeguarding plan with funding, particularly as requests for funding where often unclear, which made it difficult for the Consultative Body to pronounce its position on a recommendation. The Secretary added that the international assistance requests, regardless of the sum requested, were the only mechanisms in which the Secretariat provided its full attention, a sort of ‘luxury treatment’. The Secretary explained that for other nominations that appeared to lack
‘technical information’, the Secretariat would provide some assistance, but for international assistance requests, the Secretariat provided a highly personalized and meticulous review of the entire nomination, often running into five pages of suggestions for improvement. In this way, capacity-building occurred not only during specific workshops but also every time a request was received. In fact, this directly responded to a recommendation of the IOS evaluation that suggested using international assistance as a mechanism for capacity-building. Thus, there were a number of actions underway to improve the situation.
208. Responding to the remarks by Brazil, and the Republic of Korea and Congo in particular, the Secretary explained that international assistance requests tapped into the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund that was subject to a contractual arrangement between UNESCO and the State Party upon approval to cover a number of actions corresponding to their request. The contract is subject to the Financial Regulations of UNESCO, and thus the same terms of use were applied as per Regular Programme funds. The Secretary conceded that this was bureaucratic, but only a revision to the Financial Regulations of the Organization would alleviate the situation. Indeed, it was an implementation requirement in the way UNESCO administered its funds, which applied to everyone and there were no exceptions. This was the reason that the sole solution was to provide support to the requesting States. Responding to the question by the Republic of Korea as to why there were so few requests, the Secretary was convinced that this was not due to the complicated nature of the request, given the support provide by the Secretariat, which could likely result in a positive recommendation. But that the mechanism of the international assistance request over US$25,000 fell within the overall ceiling of nominations, which meant that countries had to select one nomination among all four mechanisms of the Convention. The nominations in the current cycle were indicative of the choices being made, even by States Parties requiring financial assistance. It was noted that the IOS evaluation had recommended that the Committee grant priority to international assistance requests, i.e. to prioritize international assistance requests in the order of priorities indicated in the Operational Directives, including over States Parties that had no inscriptions.
However, the Committee and the General Assembly had decided that it was up to each State to select its own priority. Hence, the actual nominations reflected the reality in the choices made by States Parties. Another suggestion invoked was to remove international assistance from the ceiling, but unfortunately this was not a tenable solution, as the Secretariat could simply not manage 70 nominations a year that would include 20 requests
for international assistance receiving ‘luxury treatment’ plus 50 nominations. The Secretary conceded that this was a recurrent problem and that a solution would eventually have to be found. With regard to the field offices, category 2 centres, and other UNESCO partners, the Secretary explained that although they were trying to assist, they did not necessarily possess the know-how. For example, a credible safeguarding plan or a request for international assistance required a vision of intangible cultural heritage and the adhesion of communities in the process, among other things, knowledge that was not necessarily acquired, including among all UNESCO’s colleagues. The Secretary further explained that the Secretariat was doing its utmost to encourage this mechanism and push the limits, but that time was needed for the concepts to be well understood and, increasingly, international assistance would fulfil its expectations, which was obviously essential to the idea of international solidarity.
209. The delegation of Jamaica commended the Secretariat on its work and continued support, adding that it had benefited from guidance from the UNESCO Office for the Caribbean, the Jamaican National Commission for UNESCO, as well as from interregional collaboration from partners such as Trinidad and Tobago and Belize with whom it had been involved in regional capacity-building workshops funded through the kind assistance of the Japanese Funds-in-Trust. It was thus grateful for their continued assistance as it further strengthened local and regional capacities to identify and safeguard intangible cultural heritage elements.
In the context of the debate, and the comments raised by Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and the Secretary, and from its own experience in its first submission and approval of Marron
In the context of the debate, and the comments raised by Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and the Secretary, and from its own experience in its first submission and approval of Marron