SAFEGUARDING
Document ITH/13/8.COM/6.b Decision 8.COM 6.b
256. The Chairperson moved to item 6.b, adding that this was similar to the previous exercise except that the Committee had to examine a report by a State Party on a single element, as specifically requested by the Committee. He asked Mr Proschan to present the item.
257. Mr Proschan recalled that during its sixth session in Bali, the Committee, while inscribing
‘Yaokwa, the Enawene Nawe people’s ritual for the maintenance of social and cosmic order’ on the Urgent Safeguarding List, had invited Brazil, the submitting State Party, ‘to ensure that the safeguarding measures regarding the protection of the territory of the Enawene Nawe people are more fully associated with measures concerning the intangible cultural heritage aspects of Yaokwa’ and ‘to detail the safeguarding plan in order to define clearly the expenses and responsibilities and ensure the full participation of the community’
[Decision 6.COM 8.3]. The Annex to the document included an analysis and summary of the responses provided by Brazil in its report. In the report Brazil pointed out the potential threats to and negative impacts on the element and its continued viability from: i) the construction of dams on the upper reaches of the river and the consequent reliance on frozen fish stocks supplied by outside agents; ii) possible introduction of fish farming as a source of fish; iii) exposure to pollution of the river system and lands; iv) the incorporation of petrol as an element of the ritual; and v) increased contact with the outside world. The dual aim of the safeguarding strategy presented by Brazil was: i) to strengthen the protection of the Enawene Nawe people’s environment; and ii) to strengthen their material, financial and organizational capacities to provide them with the means to manage and protect their land and defend their interests. The report explained that the Yaokwa ritual was recognized as Brazilian Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2010. As a consequence, the government had a legal obligation to put in place a ten-year safeguarding plan. However, the long-term safeguarding plan had not yet been developed, but several preliminary actions had been identified, including: i) ethnographic diagnostic; ii) a photographic record of the Yaokwa Ritual of 2012; iii) a cooperation agreement between the National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) [the Instituto de Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional] and the National Foundation of Indios (FUNAI) [Fundação Nacional do Índio] to supplement the quantity of fish purchased for the Enawene Nawe people; and iv) a series of meetings with representatives of different governmental institutions to formulate integrated and coordinated public policies. The latter action appeared to be the precursor to defining specific safeguarding measures and was part of the institutional context of the plan.
258. Mr Proschan noted that in general the report had a tendency to focus on the protection of the environment rather than safeguarding the ritual, with few measures or actions for the latter, although several actions suggested that future safeguarding approach will be more strongly oriented towards socio-cultural aspects. Mr Proschan spoke of the short time frame between the recognition of the element in 2010 and its inscription in 2011 such that the development of the plan was still ongoing and the report was therefore unable to demonstrate the safeguarding plan intended for a ten-year period. Brazil identified a number of major challenges, including the fact that: i) IPHAN, the main implementing agency, does not have internal experts or access to external experts on the Enawene Nawe ethnic group; ii) the complexity of the element means that safeguarding implicated environmental, social, economic and other aspects of national policy-making; and iii) the sustainability of the Enawene Nawe’s way of life and continuation of the ritual poses challenges. Brazil also reported the difficulty in reaching the high level of community participation in the safeguarding and reporting exercise due to: i) remoteness of the location and the bearer community; ii) the fragility of communications due to the lack of stable partners and an expert to establish a more effective dialogue; and iii) lack of information on the representatives of the community who could serve as spokespersons. The crucial role played by the Department of Intangible Heritage of the National Institute of Historical and Artistic Heritage (DPI/IPHAN) and FUNAI was also apparent. Mr Proschan noted that the report was submitted in 2012 and may therefore not fully reflect all the developments in 2013, suggesting that Brazil be given the opportunity to update the Committee with new information and recent developments, if any.
259. The Chairperson thanked Mr Proschan for the useful overview of the report, noting that the development of the safeguarding plan was still ongoing, which was made difficult by certain communication problems and the need to involve different stakeholders. In general, he was satisfied that the State Party had taken heed of the Committee’s concerns expressed at the
time the element was inscribed. The Chairperson suggested that Brazil be invited to continue its efforts to further develop its safeguarding strategy and to try to involve the Enawene Nawe people as much as possible. At the same time, he suggested that the Committee could concur with the proposal included in the draft decision and enable Brazil to return to the normal quadrennial reporting cycle.
260. The delegation of Brazil wished to thank the Secretariat for its interaction during the process of submitting the report, adding that its drafting revealed a number of challenges associated with completing and implementing the safeguarding plan. It explained that the Enawene Nawe is one of more than 250 indigenous peoples in Brazil, who were first contacted in September 1973, which was rather recent and they still remained largely isolated. Reaching them required a hour flight from Brasilia, followed by another two-hour flight, and a boat trip of several two-hours to the indigenous reserve, which required prior authorization from the community. Communication was the main challenge, with only a very small number of people able to speak Portuguese. It was also noted that women were not allowed to enter the reserve alone. With regard to the Yaokwa ritual, the main challenge was guaranteeing the integrity of their land and the surrounding biodiversity, as the ritual depended heavily on fish stocks. It remarked that ‘monitoring’ did not appear in the Convention yet monitoring the safeguarding of the element was taking place. In the face of all the challenges posed in safeguarding the element, Brazil had seriously considered requesting the Committee to remove the element from the Urgent Safeguarding List in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Operational Directives. Nevertheless, recent developments had provided hope that some solutions might be found. As of October 18, a federal court of law enacted a ruling in favour of the national indigenous authority FUNAI to review the demarcation of the Enawene Nawe’s land to include the areas of the river where the ritual takes place. This was seen as a consequence of the safeguarding measures that were proposed in the nomination file, and the reason the report was heavily based on land ownership. The Enawene Nawe comprise a little more than 500 individuals, two-thirds of whom are children. The government of Brazil was therefore developing a new approach to deal with them through actions and measures to enhance their language, through which it was believed their culture could be reached and thus safeguarded. It added that this was a long-term process, and that it was very much in line with the proposed recommendation by the Secretariat reflected in the draft decision.
261. The Chairperson noted that the draft decision reflected the position of Brazil, while stating the involvement and support of the Secretariat and the Committee in improving the situation.
262. The delegation of Burkina Faso congratulated Brazil for having undertaken the safeguarding of the element since 2010 on the national plan, as well as its inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List, adding that the element deserved its place on the list even if Brazil had considered withdrawing the element. The element also raised a number of questions, notably on criteria U.3 and U.4, particularly as Committee sessions revealed how certain delegations had the impression that these criteria were self-evident and easily satisfied, and that safeguarding measures described on the form was a simple task, when in fact the opposite was true. This further highlighted the prior work that takes place ahead of the submission of nomination files that require full consultation and consent. It believed that the decision would allow Brazil to make considerable progress, though it was up to the Committee to take full account of the criteria when examining the nomination files. The examination of criteria was thus not a question of contesting the intrinsic value of the element, but rather the quality of information contained in the nomination file.
263. The delegation of Indonesia congratulated Brazil for submitting its report, and wished to make an amendment to paragraph 3 that would replace ‘thanks’ with ‘expresses appreciation’, and ‘regretting’ with ‘noting’.
264. Noting that Brazil agreed with the amendment, the Chairperson proceeded with the adoption of the draft decision. With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson declared Decision 8.COM 6.b adopted.
ITEM 6.c OF THE AGENDA:
REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES ON THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM