EXAMINATION OF THE REPORTS OF STATE PARTIES ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF ELEMENTS INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE IN NEED OF

URGENT SAFEGUARDING

Document ITH/15/10.COM/6.b Decision 10.COM 6.b

146. The Chairperson opened the afternoon session with Item 6.b - ‘Examination of the reports of State Parties on the current status of elements inscribed on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding’ and asked the Secretary to present it to the Committee.

147. The Secretary began by saying that the Committee’s task was to examine three reports submitted by States Parties on elements inscribed on the Urgent Safeguarding List, namely one ordinary report from Croatia and two extraordinary reports from Guatemala and Uganda respectively, summaries of which were to be submitted to the next session of the General Assembly.

148. The document listed the three reports that the Committee were to examine during the session and tabled seven reports that had been expected in 2013 and 2014 but were not yet submitted by France (on one element) and China (on six elements). The Secretary said that the Secretariat had been trying through different correspondence and reminders to obtain these reports without success and that there was no provision in the Convention or the Operational Directives on how to deal with such situations. She thought that the Committee might therefore wish to adopt a similar decision to that taken in the morning session with regard to late periodic reports in Item 6.a.

149. A draft overall decision was proposed by the Secretariat in the document at the end of the introduction for the attention of the Committee, followed by assessments of the three reports and a draft decision for each of them. The Secretariat had summarised the reports on the effectiveness of safeguarding activities, participation of communities in implementing

the safeguarding plan and in the reporting process, and the viability of and current risks for the inscribed element.

150. The Secretary mentioned that the previous year the Secretariat had mentioned to the Committee a need to discuss procedures to implement paragraph 38 of the Operational Directives concerning the possible transfer of an element from one list to another, in particular from the Urgent Safeguarding List to the Representative List. On 29 October 2015 the Secretariat had received a letter from the Viet Nam National Commission for UNESCO in which they expressed their wish to transfer an element inscribed in 2011 on the Urgent Safeguarding List, to the Representative List. Viet Nam also asked that the Committee debate this procedure at the current session and the Secretary suggested that Viet Nam might wish to take the floor during the general debate on the item to further explain the situation to the Committee. The Secretary concluded by inviting general comments from the Committee before entering into the substance of the three individual reports.

151. The Chairperson suggested a general debate on the agenda item before moving on to the examination of the individual reports and the corresponding draft decision, commenting that there were a number of issues at stake: the submitted reports and their content; the reports not yet submitted and possible actions; and the issue of the transfer from the Urgent Safeguarding List to the Representative List, and opened the floor for discussion. She encouraged the three submitting states of Croatia, Guatemala and Uganda to intervene if they were present and wished to do so, as well as those States that had not been able to submit, namely France and China.

152. The delegation of Egypt started the discussion, pointing out that in the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding there had been always less inscribed elements if compared to the Representative List, and that was the reason why the Committee should assist countries in inscribing elements to that list.

153. The delegation of Belgium raised a more general point about safeguarding plans, saying it was time to start reflecting on how these could be updated. Belgium pointed out that on the nomination form, section 3.a questions past and current efforts to safeguard elements and section 3.b is about the proposed safeguarding plan for the element, while the required timetable only covers a period of about four to six years and there is no provision to update the safeguarding plans. A mechanism is required to update safeguarding plans and Belgium proposed a solution whereby, if section 3.b on the nomination form (where safeguarding plans are proposed) is copied into the report, when submitting a report on a specific element a new safeguarding plan could be included in this new section. Belgium suggested that it was time to consider updating the List in Need of Urgent Safeguarding and that perhaps using the report to start a new plan could facilitate this. Belgium felt that urgency cannot be forever, therefore one could expect that at one point some elements could be removed from the Urgent Safeguarding List.

154. The Chairperson thanked Belgium for proposing that the Committee started reflecting on updating the safeguarding plan under sections 3.a and 3.b.

155. The delegation of Uganda thanked the Government of Namibia and the Committee for their hospitality and hard work. Responding to possible needs to remove an element from the Urgent Safeguarding List referred to under Chapter I.11 of the Operational Directives, which states that if an element fails to satisfy criteria for inscription on the list it should be removed, a community should be the first body to assess this, after which it can be passed on to the Committee for review and approval. In short, if a community has already agreed that one or two criteria are not satisfied anymore, it would be appropriate for the Committee to agree with the community to move the element from the Urgent Safeguarding List to the Representative List.

156. The Chairperson thanked Uganda, for their suggestion that the Committee needed to hear the view of the State Party requesting for the transfer. She asked if Viet Nam was present in the room and gave the floor to the Viet Nam delegation.

157. The delegation of Viet Nam expressed their thanks for the hospitality shown to their delegation and congratulated the Chairperson for her appointment while expressing their conviction that that meeting would be successful under her guidance. The delegation raised a point concerning the transfer of an element from one list to another, as it was not specified in either of the specific texts nor the Operational Directives apart from paragraph 38 that allows transfer from one list to another if deemed necessary by a community and if a State so requests it. The Viet Nam delegation said they wanted to request the transfer of the element of Xoan singing from the Urgent Safeguarding List to the Representative List, pointing out that Xoan singing was inscribed five years ago since which time government, local government and local communities have made tremendous efforts in trying to revitalise, promote and safeguard the element. It has become so popular that it does not meet any of the requirements for urgent safeguarding and it would be appropriate at this time to move it from the Urgent Safeguarding List to the Representative List. This move was also the wish of the community involved and the delegation hoped that members of the Committee would discuss and endorse the request, thereby acknowledging the efforts in safeguarding and protecting an element which was in need of urgent safeguarding, and this would further encourage Viet Nam in continuing its safeguarding efforts. Viet Nam said that this step would be in conformity with a measure described in the Convention. Regarding procedures, Viet Nam suggested that if the Committee were in agreement, the transfer could be adopted at the eleventh session of the Committee and until that time experts could evaluate the current status of the element and whether it could meet requirements for inscription on the Representative List.

158. The Chairperson thanked the delegation of Viet Nam for their clear presentation, reminding that the procedure suggested by Viet Nam would allow sufficient time to the Committee to look at the situation and decide only at its eleventh session. The Chairperson then opened the floor for comments.

159. The delegation of Turkey said that, after perusal of the Operational Directives, their delegation was of the opinion that under paragraph 38, transfer from the Urgent Safeguarding List would be legally possible and they welcomed Viet Nam’s proposal that this should not turn into an automatic inscription but should be done after due examination by the appropriate organs and Committee in a way that would result in eventual adoption, and would also encourage the State Party to reinforce its commitment to achieving higher standards. The delegation was of the opinion that Turkey could recognise such a proposal and incorporate it into the Committee’s decision.

160. The delegation of Kyrgyzstan considered the approach of Viet Nam as being very constructive and the process in this instance of an element’s removal from the Urgent Safeguarding List to the Representative List as an encouraging one. They said it was a positive signal for the element, showing that the community took constructive measures to safeguard it and that now, according to the report from Viet Nam, it could be moved to the Representative List. This positive signal should be encouraged and used as an example for developing specific future procedures. The approach suggested by Viet Nam in taking one more year to consider the case was seen as acceptable, as it gave enough time for analysis and consideration and Kyrgyzstan expressed its support to the approach taken.

161. The delegation of Latvia congratulated States Parties that had submitted periodic reports on elements on the Urgent Safeguarding List. Latvia confirmed that they supported Belgium’s proposal to reflect not only how well specific safeguarding plans had been implemented, but also their update for the future. They also raised the question whether the Committee should take a decision on this in order for the Secretariat to integrate this

particular aspect within the report form. Regarding the issue of the transfer of an element from the Representative List to the Urgent Safeguarding List, Latvia considered that further such cases might arise in the future and suggested that certain procedures should be agreed upon before examining the first case of Viet Nam. Latvia referred to paragraphs 38 and 39 of the Operational Directives where certain basic provisions already existed, namely the necessity for the consent of the concerned communities for the proposed action and the necessity to respond to all of the criteria set for the Representative List. The delegation of Latvia believed that a separate form would be useful in such cases, where States Parties would be able to respond to criteria required by the Representative List and be able to give more information on how aspects affecting the viability of elements might have changed or are changing over time.

162. The delegation of Belgium commended the States Parties for their information and for the discussion on transferring an element from the Urgent Safeguarding List; this activity was one of the main objectives of the Convention and the Committee, so the efforts made by Viet Nam were commendable. With regard to procedure, Belgium felt that there were some aspects of the Operational Directives that, as mentioned by several delegations, would have to be clarified and safeguarding measures would have to be discussed by the Committee in parallel with a review of the process of nomination to the Representative List.

Belgium spoke of how in the Operational Directives it was mentioned that procedures and guidelines for nominations needed to be established and asked whether the Operational Directives needed to be changed, or could the Committee work within the existing directives. The delegation mentioned the proposal of the separate form which Belgium found to be an interesting suggestion, concluding that they were very open to possible solutions.

163. The delegation of the Republic of Korea, commenting on Viet Nam’s request, felt it set a very good example in showing how a country’s hard work and efforts to protect intangible cultural heritage in danger could succeed, emphasising that in their opinion this set an exemplary example for States Parties to follow. In this regard, the Korean delegation supported previous comments on the Committee taking more time to review Viet Nam’s proposal.

164. The delegation of Brazil supported the Belgian proposal concerning the updating of safeguarding plans and expressed satisfaction with Viet Nam’s efforts in safeguarding the element under discussion. Brazil asked the Secretary what the adequate procedures might be in going forward and to perhaps make a proposal to the General Assembly to help in defining procedures.

165. The delegation of Namibia expressed their appreciation of Viet Nam’s work in safeguarding the element and supported the elucidation of a procedure that could be followed in moving an element from one list to another.

166. The Chairperson asked the Secretary to comment on the preceding discussion, particularly on existing procedures to move an element from one list to another and to react to the Belgian proposal about updating existing safeguarding plans.

167. The Secretary first addressed the proposal regarding updating of the safeguarding plan to include aspects of progress in the periodic reports, which should not just be reports on plans included in the nomination form at the time of inscription, but should take into consideration any new measures needed after the inscription, for instance if the element, despite implementation, is not yet considered to be viable. This would mean that additional measures would be in the meantime adopted in so updating the safeguarding plans at the time of inscription, and states shall report on any new measures. An element can remain for 10-20 years (or more) on the Urgent Safeguarding List, which is acceptable as intangible cultural heritage can still disappear, despite safeguarding measures taken. Therefore, the

suggestion to include a new section in the reporting form where the State must, after every four years following inscription, include not only a report on measures that have been taken but also new measures in an updated safeguarding plan, seemed to be absolutely reasonable and a less onerous procedure than preparing a new nomination.

168. With the issue of transferring an element from one list to another, the Secretary was of the opinion that this would be the role of the Committee to discuss in greater detail, as until now the Secretariat had been reviewing the Operational Directives, discussing the issue with Viet Nam and within the Secretariat itself and it appeared that the Operational Directives reflected two different though not contradictory concepts, which were hard to reconcile. The first principle, which has been respected until the present time, is that an element cannot be inscribed on both lists at the same time; that is why there is the possibility to transfer an element in either direction. The second one is that an element is inscribed if a new nomination fulfils all the criteria for the new list. These two principles become complex in light of paragraphs 39 and 40. Paragraph 39 states that removal from a list will be decided by the Committee, not by a State, following assessment of the safeguarding plan and its implementation when there is reason to believe that certain criteria are no longer being fulfilled.

169. There is, however, no information given on how such an assessment might be performed, and the Secretary suggested that periodic reports might be one source of information but wondered if they would be an adequate source for Committee to draw conclusions from. If, for instance, after four years on the Urgent Safeguarding List an element can demonstrate that it has implemented effective measures that have made it possible to safeguard the element and therefore that the threat hanging over the element no longer exists, one of the criteria is no longer fulfilled and the Committee can conclude deciding to remove that element from the Urgent Safeguarding List. If however there has been no nomination to the Representative List that should have been submitted by the State 18 months previously predicting that it wants the element to be transferred to the Representative List, then the Committee cannot in the same session remove an element from one list and inscribe it on another. Furthermore, if the Committee had not received a report or something similar in which it was possible to understand whether the element no longer requires to be on Urgent Safeguarding List, then such an element could not be inscribed on the other list, the Representative List in this case, even if a new nomination would fulfil all the criteria, as it could not be on two lists at the same time.

170. The Secretary was of the opinion that although the paragraphs are clear and concise, they do not link together well and there were aspects of their interpretation requiring clarification by the Committee. The paragraphs lacked clarity on the order of procedural implementation and time frame, for example when it comes to an element to be inscribed on the Urgent Safeguarding List, how the Committee could implement paragraph 39 whilst considering its fit with paragraph 38 in terms of the time frame.

171. The Secretary further expressed concern that there might be self-inflicted procedural difficulties ahead, given that permitted annual limits and criteria on the number of nominations permitted had been established but that if an element on the Representative List needed to be moved to the Urgent Safeguarding List, then that nomination should be a priority; but that if the proposal were reversed, would it still be considered as a priority, or permitted above the ceiling?

172. The Secretary concluded by reiterating that the individual paragraph of the Operational Directives were logical, but when read collectively were difficult to fit together. Without looking at the issue of the yearly ceiling, she felt that at some point the Committee would have to deal with a situation where a State approaches the Committee regarding transferring an element to another list by lodging a nomination and only after examination or acceptance of safeguarding measures would it be possible to remove it from a list. This

could not be an independent assessment and could be seen to be contradictory; with existing directives on when an element fulfils the criteria and can be inscribed, why should its inscription on the Representative List be turned down merely because the criteria for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List are still satisfied.

173. The Chairperson thanked the Secretary for her explanation and opened the floor for discussion.

174. The delegation of Turkey felt that there should be no objection to the principle of transferring an element from one list to another in either direction, saying it was obvious that the Committee would need a review mechanism and a formula for decision-making,

Dans le document The session was conducted in the two working languages of the Committee: English and French (Page 21-30)