Document ITH/12/7.COM/9 2 proposals Decision 7.COM 9
263. The Chairperson recalled Article 18 of the Convention by which the Committee shall periodically select and promote national, subregional and regional programmes, projects and activities for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage best reflecting the principles and objectives of the Convention. Altogether, there had been eight Best Safeguarding Practices already selected; three in 2009 and five in 2011. This year, both China and Mexico identified their proposals to Best Safeguarding Practices as their priority files for examination in 2012, and the Chairperson thanked them for prioritizing this important mechanism, adding that three other States had also decided to prioritize this mechanism in the 2013 cycle. The Chairperson then suggested to proceed to the examination in the same manner as the Urgent Safeguarding List, starting with the presentation by the Rapporteur on the work of the Consultative Body, followed by the examination of the proposals, and finally, the overall adoption of Decision 7.COM 9. The
Chairperson reminded the Committee of the nine criteria by projecting them on the screen, as found in paragraph 7 of the Operational Directives.
264. The Rapporteur of the Consultative Body remarked that the Consultative Body appreciated the decision by the two submitting States to grant priority to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, but regretted that a larger number of proposals had not been received in 2012. The Consultative Body wished to reiterate its 2011 message to the submitting States and to the communities associated with proposals that its recommendation not to select a proposed programme or project did not imply that it was not a good practice. The Body had to decide which programmes constituted best practices that could serve as models for other communities and States Parties, particularly in developing countries. Like its predecessor, it did not seek uniqueness but rather exemplary safeguarding programmes that were inspirational. Even though almost any programme might serve as a model, in order to be considered as a Best Safeguarding Practice, there should be convincing evidence provided by the submitting State. The criteria for the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices are not all obligatory, and the Consultative Body understood its task, as in 2011, to recommend those programmes, projects or activities that most fully responded to the largest number of criteria. Nevertheless, certain criteria seem to have an obligatory character such as P.1 (‘The programme, project or activity involves safeguarding, as defined in Article 2.3 of the Convention’), P.3 (‘The programme, project or activity reflects the principles and objectives of the Convention’), criterion P.5 (‘implemented with the participation of the community, with their free, prior and informed consent’), or criterion P.6 (‘The programme, project or activity may serve as a subregional, regional or international model for safeguarding activities’). Criterion 4 that the Consultative Body identified as obligatory in its 2011 report again proved to be decisive in this cycle, requiring that the programme ‘has demonstrated effectiveness in contributing to the viability of the intangible cultural heritage concerned’, which was considered together with criterion P.8 (‘The programme, project or activity features experiences that are susceptible to an assessment of their results’). Indeed, in evaluating the efficacy of a safeguarding programme, the Consultative Body sought to use not only quantitative but also qualitative indicators. As in the previous cycle, this requirement seemed to exclude programmes with a short life cycle.
265. The Rapporteur continued that the Consultative Body had lengthy and very interesting discussions on criterion P.9 (‘The programme, project or activity is primarily applicable to the particular needs of developing countries’), regarding what the ‘particular needs of developing countries’ might be. The Consultative Body also sought to discover whether the capacity of a programme to meet those needs should be measured in terms of financial resources and the potential of its approaches to inspire. It ultimately agreed that in either case the State Party concerned had not sufficiently engaged the question of how its experience could be useful to developing countries, as requested in the proposal form.
Finally, criterion P.2 (‘The programme, project or activity promotes the coordination of efforts for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage on regional, subregional and/or international levels’), which although desirable was not obligatory, as it was evident that most proposals submitted concerned programmes that were implemented at the national level and thus did not satisfy criterion P.2. Thus, the Consultative Body concluded that the selection criteria were not well-adapted to the goal of identifying Best Safeguarding Practices. In particular, the criteria did not lend themselves to clearly distinguishing a good safeguarding practice from a best safeguarding practice. It believed that the difficulties faced by its members in applying the selection criteria was also experienced by the submitting States when they drew up their proposals. The Consultative Body therefore proposed in the draft decision 7.COM 9 that the Committee might wish to reflect on whether the existing criteria adequately distinguishes best safeguarding practices from a larger number of good safeguarding practices.
266. The Chairperson thanked the Rapporteur for the thoughtful presentation that sought to distinguish best safeguarding practices from good safeguarding practices, and noted that the Consultative Body had underscored the need to consider the adequacy of
the selection criteria. He suggested that the Committee return to the general decision after the examination of the two proposals.
267. Congratulating the Consultative Body and the Secretariat for the quality of their work, the delegation of Morocco drew attention to paragraph 13 of the working document on the application of criteria, noting that the task of identifying Best Safeguarding Practices could have been facilitated with a higher number of proposals to compare, which was difficult in this cycle with only two proposals. The delegation wondered therefore whether the application of criteria should be applied in the absolute terms regardless of the number of proposals, or whether there should be a larger number of proposals for the application of the criteria.
268. The delegation of Latvia thanked the Consultative Body for its work, but regretted the small number of proposals submitted, noting that the mechanism was underrepresented within the Convention. The delegation supported a study of the application of the criteria as well as the difficulties faced by States Parties in preparing proposals.
269. The delegation of China expressed appreciation of the efforts by the Secretariat and the Consultative Body. The delegation remarked that the goal of the Register was to encourage States Parties to propose programmes that promote good practices and international cooperation, while considering the needs of developing countries in particular.
It noted paragraph 7 of the Operational Directives that states, ‘the Committee shall select those that best satisfy all of the following criteria’, which was unlike the criteria for the other two lists that had to be all satisfied, and which had thus posed difficulties to the Consultative Body in distinguishing the best from the good. It also noted that this cycle was the first time the new nomination form ICH-3 had been applied and that States Parties had also encountered the similar difficulties in elaborating the proposals. The delegation hoped that the evaluation of the effectiveness of the safeguarding measures reflected in the good practices was an ongoing process, adding that according to Art. 18 of the Convention and paragraphs 42–46 of the Operational Directives, the Committee should encourage research and evaluation of the effectiveness of the safeguarding measures after their selection for the Register. Thus, it was important that the selected proposals will serve to inspire States Parties and communities in developing their own safeguarding measures in other contexts.
The delegation noted that only 8 proposals had been selected by the Committee so far when States Parties needed a broad range of good practices to help develop their safeguarding measures at the national level and so promote international cooperation. The delegation therefore sought a more inclusive mechanism, and agreed with the Consultative Body on the necessity of greater reflection on the adequacy of the selection criteria to distinguish best from good practices.
270. The delegation of Brazil thanked China and Mexico for their interesting programmes and the Consultative Body for its good work, adding that Best Safeguarding Practices was very much in line with the Convention as a means for information and knowledge-sharing, and lesson-learning. The delegation remarked that Brazil would continue to prepare proposals, having already presented five proposals, of which two had already been selected for the Register. It agreed that States Parties should be encouraged to submit proposals, suggesting that the periodic reports could serve as a way of identifying programmes of potential interest to the Register. The delegation spoke of the diverse realities of developing countries, to which a one-size-fits-all approach could not be applied, suggesting that caution should be exercised when applying criterion P.9. The delegation asked the Secretariat to explain what would be done to a programme after its selection to the Register, since the selection was not an end in itself and could be used to share information and learn from one another.
271. The delegation of Japan commended the Consultative Body for its excellent work and Mexico and China for their constructive contributions to the Register. The delegation remarked that the register not only promoted safeguarding practices through awareness-raising but also provided other communities with very useful information by sharing successful experiences, and therefore regretted the small number of proposals. One of the
merits of the mechanism was that it did not necessarily accompany access to the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund and was thus a very cost-effective tool that could be better utilized for information sharing. From the report, the delegation noted that the Consultative Body considered the criteria as being ill-conceived and therefore supported the idea of reflecting on them.
272. The delegation of Belgium drew attention to paragraph 46 of the Operational Directives, suggesting that the Committee make greater use of the directive.
273. Congratulating the Consultative Body for its report, the delegation of Nicaragua remarked that improvements could indeed be made in the evaluation process, noting the Consultative Body’s concerns regarding the criteria. The delegation therefore agreed with the Body’s recommendation to revise Chapter I.37 of the Operational Directives to improve the process of selection of proposals in the future. With regard to P.9, the delegation noted that there were no guidelines in the Operational Directives to help determine the needs of developing countries, as required in P.9. For example, how can new strategies in documentation, community participation, safeguarding measures or funding be identified as being most useful for and applicable in developing countries.
274. The delegation of Grenada thanked the Consultative Body for its observations, and agreed with Nicaragua that the needs of developing countries were difficult to define, and differed from one developing country to another, as highlighted by Brazil. However, the delegation recalled that the Convention not only addressed developing countries but also developed countries where the most endangered elements were often found as a result of modernity and the disinterest of youth. The delegation also supported the initiative to reflect on possible amendments to the selection criteria.
275. The delegation of Uganda congratulated China and Mexico for submitting files to the Register. It noted the Consultative Body’s regret about the low number of submissions, yet stated that quality should take precedence over quantity given the time limitations for examinations and the limited resources of the Body. The delegation also requested that the Consultative Body highlight aspects of the proposals that could benefit other States Parties to learn.
276. Taking note of the proposal to revise the criteria, the delegation of Indonesia recalled the first debate on the subject in Nairobi, which took the form of a circular consultation, followed by an open-ended working group that focused mainly on the criteria of the Urgent Safeguarding List and the Representative List. At the time, States Parties did not feel it was necessary to revise the criteria. The delegation remarked that the nomination forms closely follow the articles of the Convention and the Operational Directives, and had become clearer with every revision. Having submitted two nominations to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, the delegation remarked that it had not experienced problems with the current criteria and cautioned against hasty revisions that would only exacerbate the workload and time spent understanding new criteria.
277. The delegation of Peru drew attention to paragraph 4 of the Operational Directives in which the Committee could call upon proposals, asking that the Committee take into account successful nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List that could be used thereafter as a benchmark for Best Safeguarding Practices.
278. The Chairperson opened the floor to observers. With no comments forthcoming, the Chairperson turned to the two questions posed by Morocco and Brazil addressed to the Chairperson of the Consultative Body and the Secretariat.
6 . Paragraph 4: At each session the Committee may explicitly call for proposals characterized by international cooperation, as mentioned in Article 19 of the Convention, and/or focusing on specific priority aspects of safeguarding.
7 . Chapter I.3: Criteria for selection of programmes, projects and activities that best reflect the principles and objectives of the Convention.
279. In response to the question by Morocco on the criteria and the evaluation of Best Safeguarding Practices, the Chairperson of the Consultative Body remarked that in its evaluation the Consultative Body had highlighted Best Safeguarding Practices as examples to be shared with the world. In this regard, the aim of selection was not to have infinite numbers of examples but rather best practices that had proved their success and worthy results. When assessing the proposals, the Consultative Body sought not best practices better than others but those with the certainty of successful implementation to serve as real and applicable models. The Chairperson also referred to Nicaragua’s comment in which the Consultative Body considered the ways how Best Safeguarding Practices could be best adapted to the specific needs of developing countries. She remarked that the importance was that a submitting State should consider what aspects of its own programme could be adapted to other developing countries.
280. The Chairperson then turned to the question by Brazil addressed to the Secretariat.
281. The Secretary concurred with Brazil on the special nature of the mechanism, especially since a programme, and not an element, is inscribed on the Register, and also because the work of the Committee did not cease at the selection of the proposal: the Committee had to promote the selected Best Safeguarding Practices. In order to help this task and thanks to the ICH Fund, some promotional activities had already begun – one related to the Indonesian batik museum and the other to the Fandango’s Living Museum – aiming at researching and collecting materials to help understand why these programmes were successful and how the results could be evaluated. In addition, the brochures published by the Secretariat explained more of Best Safeguarding Practices for the purpose of promotion, compared to the elements inscribed on the Lists, while a special promotional website would be developed for the mechanism of Best Safeguarding Practices. The Secretary agreed with Brazil that the mechanism did indeed reflect the real spirit of the Convention in seeking to share successes. With regard to the small number of submissions, it reflected the reality that States could only select one priority nomination from all the mechanisms in a given cycle. For this reason, the Secretary wished to acknowledge the positive choice made by Mexico and China in presenting their proposal.
282. The Chairperson remarked on the stimulating discussion, and suggested turning to the examination of proposals using the same methodology as for item 8.
283. The Chairperson of the Consultative Body introduced the first proposal on Strategy for training coming generations of Fujian puppetry practitioners [draft decision 7.COM 9.1] submitted by China. Fujian puppetry is a Chinese performing art consisting mainly of string and hand puppetry. In response to new threats to its transmission, concerned communities formulated the 2008–2020 strategy for the training of future generations of Fujian puppeteers to enhance its sustainability through professional training, the compilation of teaching materials, the setting up of performance venues, public awareness, regional and international cooperation, and artistic exchange. The Consultative Body concluded that the proposal responded well to several criteria: the programme aims at formalizing the process of transmission by training young puppeteers and by raising public awareness through formal and non-formal education, and it contributes to strengthening the transmission and preservation of Fujian puppetry in accordance with the objectives of the Convention, and thus satisfied criteria P.1 and P.3. Criterion P.4 was also satisfied in that the proposal had demonstrated the effectiveness of its strategy, for example, through the training of a number of practitioners, the twelve new training centres, and the establishment of a database. The same applies to P.6 as the programme could serve as a safeguarding model for traditional performing arts, especially those from Asia, even if they did not have an international reach. This strategy attracted widespread participation of practitioners, local people and institutions in the development and implementation of the project, as required in P.5, with many willing to cooperate in the promotion of the programme if selected as a best safeguarding practice, as required in P.7. Despite the positive aspects, the Consultative Body concluded that the proposal did not sufficiently meet the criteria in its entirety. Indeed,
it found that the proposal was submitted before the programme had matured in that the strategy began in 2008 while the proposal was submitted in early 2011. Although the proposal cites several international exchanges prior to the strategy, it did not clearly demonstrate how the programme helped in coordinating safeguarding efforts at the international level, as required in P.2. Similarly, the case presented some evaluation measures that had not yet been conducted, but could be performed in the future. These assessments were essentially quantitative and did not adequately address the issue of its impact on the safeguarding of puppetry for the communities of Fujian, as required in P.8. It was also noted that the strategy had been successful in terms of number of students, but more concrete information was sought regarding its effectiveness to safeguard the element so that the programme could serve as a safeguarding model. With regard to P.9, the proposal did not adequately describe how it satisfied the needs of developing countries. In particular, the Consultative Body sought more information on how such a large-scale strategy could be adapted to the context of a country with limited financial resources. The Consultative Body therefore concluded that the strategy had been submitted too prematurely to serve as a best practice model, even if it was said to be very interesting.
it found that the proposal was submitted before the programme had matured in that the strategy began in 2008 while the proposal was submitted in early 2011. Although the proposal cites several international exchanges prior to the strategy, it did not clearly demonstrate how the programme helped in coordinating safeguarding efforts at the international level, as required in P.2. Similarly, the case presented some evaluation measures that had not yet been conducted, but could be performed in the future. These assessments were essentially quantitative and did not adequately address the issue of its impact on the safeguarding of puppetry for the communities of Fujian, as required in P.8. It was also noted that the strategy had been successful in terms of number of students, but more concrete information was sought regarding its effectiveness to safeguard the element so that the programme could serve as a safeguarding model. With regard to P.9, the proposal did not adequately describe how it satisfied the needs of developing countries. In particular, the Consultative Body sought more information on how such a large-scale strategy could be adapted to the context of a country with limited financial resources. The Consultative Body therefore concluded that the strategy had been submitted too prematurely to serve as a best practice model, even if it was said to be very interesting.