Decision 10.COM 10
968. The Chairperson moved to Item 10.c, the examination of Requests for International Assistance, advising the meeting that the following that item the Committee would examine the Draft decision 10COM 10 concerning a number of transversal issues common to the three different mechanisms. The Chairperson was confident that the Committee shared her regret that there were only two international assistance requests to examine, which was surprising when the global needs for assistance for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage were taken into account.
969. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the Evaluation Body had considered different ways of supporting this important mechanism and that concrete recommendations were included under 10COM 10. She recalled that the Body’s job was to evaluate to what extent the requests for international assistance met the criteria as a whole. In other words, it was not necessary to meet every criterion for the assistance to be granted. Before examining the requests, she reminded the delegates of the criteria (A.1 – A.7 indicated in paragraph 12 of the Operational Directives) as well as two factors indicated in paragraph 10 of the Operational Directives that would guide their decisions.
970. Before moving to the examination of the requests the Chairperson recalled that the Secretary had recently reminded the Committee of all possibilities of international assistance not yet exploited under the Convention. She noted that the two requests to be evaluated were ‘old fashioned’ in the sense that they were under Article 21(g): ‘Financial Assistance’ and that, therefore, any amount granted by the Committee today would result in a contract between UNESCO and an agency designated by the State as responsible for the implementation of the project, for the entire amount.
971. The Chairperson moved to examination of the first international assistance request submitted by Malawi and gave the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body to share the findings of the Body on the request.
972. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body presented the first request for international assistance on Safeguarding of Nkhonde, Tumbuka and Chewa proverbs and folktales [draft decision 10.COM 10.c.1] submitted by Malawi. He explained that the Evaluation Body found that information in the file fulfilled the criteria for international assistance as defined in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Operational Directives. For Criterion A.1 the Body felt that request revealed a strong indication of participation by Nkhonde, Tumbuka and Chewa communities in the project from the initial proposals by traditional chiefs to the multi-party consultations between experts, traditional authorities, local governments and community heritage organisations. When developing the project, community members were selected to be research assistants. Two coordinators and six external researchers were responsible for top-priority activities regarding research and documentation for the publication of nine books. For Criterion A.2, the budget was clear with a detailed structure
based on planned activities and expected results, however, discrepancies remained. There was a lack of precision between proposed activities and budgetary breakdown particularly concerning staffing and the duration of activities for which costs seemed very high and an imbalance existing among project participants. For Criterion A3, project feasibility was supported by a systematic implementation strategy and monitoring and evaluation system, although a top-down structure was evident. The Body felt that there was a lack of activities to revitalise oral transmission of the elements and a lack of information on levels of literacy to see if selected strategies and apriori decisions on the number of proverbs were relevant, as well as a low number of fieldwork days. For Criterion A.4, aside from publications on proverbs and folk tales six national researchers and six field assistants would be trained in inventorying techniques with community participation and coordinated by national and public institutions, traditional authorities and community heritage organisations. This would be expected to demonstrate high sustainability potential. Nothing indicated, however, that the project would strengthen the sources of creative, traditional knowledge; community learning spaces; and/or oratory skills. Concerning A.5, the State Party committed itself to funding seven percent of the total budget, most of which was earmarked for publishing expenses. Given the partners involved, the Body felt that it would have been useful to identify in kind or other contributions. For Criterion A.6, besides general awareness of the importance of the intangible cultural heritage and its safeguarding, the safeguarding capacities of communities concerned would be reinforced by the work of the research assistants, as well as other community members involved in management of the project.
Although the idea was to have general capacity-building through community participation including follow-up and evaluation of the project, no concrete activities were defined.
Regarding Criterion A.7, Malawi was one of the beneficiaries of three projects supported by the UNESCO Flanders Funds-in-Trust for Southern Africa. Work on these projects was in accordance with UNESCO’s regulations and all projects were completed. Regarding Consideration 10.a, the project had local scope and involved national implementing partners. For Consideration 10.b, according to the request the project would involve universities, television and radio stations, telecommunication operators and the Ministry of Education getting them to create programmes with stories for children, for instance.
Moreover, individual and institutional capacity-building and cooperation established between different national institutions could lead to future safeguarding projects and financial contributions.
973. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body concluded by saying that the Body therefore, recommended that the Committee approve this request for international assistance made by Malawi and to grant the submitting State an amount of US$90,533.
974. The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body and, informed the Committee that the Bureau had not received any requests for debate on this request or amendment to the draft decision. She asked the Committee to adopt the draft decision on the request as a whole. With no objections the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.c.1 to approve international assistance in the amount of US$90,533 for Safeguarding of Nkhonde, Tumbuka and Chewa proverbs and folktales. The floor was given to Malawi.
975. The delegation of Malawi thanked the government of the Republic of Namibia and the Secretariat for their excellent organisation of the meeting. On behalf of the Oral Traditions Association of Malawi (OTAMA), the Nkhonde, Tumbuka and Chewa communities and the people of Malawi, the delegation thanked the Committee for approving the project. The approval would assist Malawi in moving forward on safeguarding its intangible cultural heritage. The project intended to build capacity, as well as document in audiovisual and book format the proverbs and folk tales of the three communities which, the delegate pointed out, were already part of an inventory of intangible cultural heritage created by communities using guidelines from the Department of Culture and assistance given through the project funded by the UNESCO/ Flanders Funds-in-Trust cooperation. Since the
purpose of an inventory was not to document the intangible cultural heritage elements in detail, the 2011 inventory only broadly referred to the existence of proverbs and folk tales as part of community traditions, and the dangers they faced due to dwindling numbers of practitioners. The delegate said that the project intended to document these individual proverbs and folk tales in detail and that the Nkhonde, Tumbuka and Chewa proverbs and folk tales embodied the knowledge, wisdom and culture of their respective societies, and were therefore vehicles for the cultural values and philosophical orientations of those communities.
976. The delegation of Malawi also thanked the UNESCO Secretariat for its invaluable guidance on technical requirements before the request was forwarded to the Evaluation Body, asking the Committee to ensure that the Secretariat continued with this important process of dealing with files. Although it did add to the Secretariat’s workload, preliminary technical examination and guidance was essential as it helped submitting States Parties to fill in gaps and correct inadequacies in their applications. Malawi had taken note of the grey areas in the request and would address them in collaboration with the Secretariat as advised by the Evaluation Body and Committee. Malawi closed by acknowledging the generous support of the Belgian Government through the UNESCO Flanders Funds-in-Trust, which supported and continued to support the project on strengthening national capacities for implementing the 2003 Convention in Southern Africa, and Malawi was grateful to be among its beneficiaries.
977. The Chairperson thanked and congratulated Malawi.
[Applause]
978. The Chairperson gave the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body to share its findings on the second request submitted by Kenya.
979. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the second and final request for international assistance on Safeguarding of Enkipaata, Eunoto and Olng’esherr, three male rites of passage of the Maasai community [draft decision 10.COM 10.c.2]
submitted by Kenya.
980. The Evaluation Body considered that based on information contained in the file, the request met the criteria for granting international assistance set out in paragraph 12 and in the supplementary considerations of paragraph 10 of the Operational Directives as follows.
Concerning Criterion A.1 the Body felt that the file failed to demonstrate active involvement of the Maasai community in the preparation, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of the project especially as the central role was assigned to a governmental department and a national non-governmental organisation. With regard to Criterion A.2 the file showed divergences between objectives, activities, timeline and parties involved in the project, with top-down organisation and differences between planned activities and expected results. For Criterion A.3, the project oscillated between capacity-building for safeguarding and inventorying without linkages between the two clarified. Moreover, descriptions of the rites lacked sufficient detail for evaluators to understand the importance or identification of spaces and places to be entrusted under the protection of the communities concerned.
Regarding Criterion A.4, the proposed project did not adequately demonstrate its contribution to the sustainability of the three male rites. In Criterion A.5, the file stated that the State Party committed to covering the costs of four officials at all meetings and workshops and identifying places and spaces, while the contribution by the community included meetings to educate young people about the importance of the rites. Regarding Criterion A.6, the Body found that the request required further explanation on ways the project could help build community capacity in either inventorying its intangible cultural heritage or safeguarding the element. Regarding Criterion A.7, Kenya had twice received international assistance from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund. Work on the contracts
was carried out in accordance with UNESCO regulations and the projects completed except one on the safeguarding of the traditions and practices associated with the Kayas in the sacred forests of the Mijikenda to be completed in 2015. For Consideration 10.a, the project had local scope and involved national and local implementation partners. Finally, on Consideration 10.b the request did not address whether the project would have a multiplier effect or promote technical or financial contributions from other sources. Additional information would be necessary to explain the multiplier effects that could emerge from partnerships between the project and another project mentioned in the request on the culture and reproductive health of the Maasai.
981. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, therefore concluded by saying that the Body’s recommendation was to invite the State Party to promptly submit a new revised request in accordance with the recommendations of the Body’s evaluation. The Body also recommended that the Committee delegate authority to the Bureau to take appropriate decisions on the revised assistance request for the Safeguarding of Enkipaata, Eunoto and Olng'esherr, three male rites of passage of the Maasai community.
982. The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that the Bureau had not received any requests for debate or proposed amendments and asked the Committee to adopt the draft decision on the file as a whole. There were no objections, and the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10 COM 10.c.2 to invite the submitting State to resubmit a request and delegate its authority to the Bureau to take any appropriate decision on such revised request received from Kenya for Safeguarding of Enkipaata, Eunoto and Olng’esherr, three male rites of passage of the Maasai community.
[Applause]
983. The Chairperson gave the floor to Kenya to respond.
984. The delegation of Kenya took note of the Evaluation Body’s recommendations to revise its request for international assistance and would resubmit the request to the Bureau for further consideration. It thanked the Evaluation Body for recommending that the Committee delegate authority to the Bureau to take any appropriate decision on the revised request.
985. The Chairperson thanked Kenya and gave the floor to Côte d’Ivoire.
986. The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire wished to express its gratitude to the Bureau of the Committee for its favourable response in June 2015 regarding Côte d’Ivoire’s request for funding an inventory on intangible cultural heritage in need of urgent safeguarding (10.COM 1.BUR 2.1 ). Côte d’Ivoire had gone through a decade of political and military crisis, which put existing efforts in jeopardy – why the request for assistance had emerged.
It had appreciated encouragement to implement the project in close cooperation with UNESCO and United Nations operations in Côte d’Ivoire where there would be complementarity of different projects set up with the assistance of the United Nations.
Concerning intangible cultural heritage as a lever for reconciliation and dialogue between communities, Côte d’Ivoire wished to express its gratitude to the Secretariat for assisting in the preparation of the request.
987. The Chairperson reminded the meeting that as decided the previous day, the general Decision 10.COM 10 be addressed. Noting the tiredness of delegates, she suggested an adjournment until 9.30 a.m. when a start would be made on consideration of the overall decision. Armenia asked for and was given the floor.
988. The delegation of Armenia told the Chair that it had not been its intention to take the floor at this stage. However, certain developments over the last couple of days had forced it to
voice concerns regarding an issue that could be very dangerous for and detrimental to UNESCO, in particular for the Committee. Armenia mentioned that it had systematically opposed any politicisation of UNESCO, recalling that the Committee, under Agenda item 6.a., adopted the reports of States Parties on the implementation of the Convention the day before yesterday. On an unrelated item, 10.b, the Committee decided today, after relevant amendments, to refer the nomination by Armenia. What connected these two issues was the reaction by one of the Member States, Azerbaijan, namely by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism as well as most of the media of that country, who often quoted the Ministry.
The delegation of Armenia read some headlines and quotes for the room: ‘UNESCO has not recognised Kochari as Armenian’ with the delegation saying it was surprised and wondered if the Committee had said anything like that as it had no recollection of it;
‘Azerbaijan delegation thanked UNESCO and called on the Armenian side to respect the cultures of other nations’; ‘UNESCO session adopts report on the so-called Armenian occupation’ with the delegation saying it did not recall the Committee adopting any such report. The delegation recalled that last year, after Lavash (‘Lavash, the preparation, meaning and appearance of traditional bread as an expression of culture in Armenia’) had been inscribed on the Representative List, the same ministry of the same country (Azerbaijan) circulated information that the Committee rejected Armenia’s request for inscription of Lavash and had requested Azerbaijan to present a new nomination for its inscription, which Armenia suggested was distorted information. Armenia believed that a policy of systematic total falsification and blatant dangerous lies through manipulation, with the name of the organisation and illegal use of the UNESCO logo and colourful photos of the Headquarters was nothing but a total disregard of the organisation and its noble goals and values. It said such manipulation could not be tolerated, not to mention that it could be very harmful for the image of UNESCO and the Convention. Armenia continued saying that it was probably possible in Azerbaijan to mislead its own public through continuing falsification of history and today’s news, but it was impossible to lie to the world in this age of information and communication technology. Armenia hoped that the Secretariat would take the issue seriously into consideration and requested that its statement be included in the official records of the present session.
989. The Chairperson thanked Armenia and gave the floor to Azerbaijan.
990. The delegation of Azerbaijan advised that it was obliged to respond to the provocation and blackmailing of Armenia, as it was not for the first time. The delegation said it understood the frustration of the Armenian delegation, as the Armenian element had not been inscribed on the List, and that it wanted to go home heroically hence its blackmailing and provocation.
It was clear for all members of UNESCO to see that Armenians still occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory, which was condemned by four UN Security Council resolutions and resulted in one million refugees and internal...
991. The delegation of Armenia interjected, saying this was what it called politicisation.
992. The delegation of Azerbaijan continued by saying that concerning the culture issue, Azerbaijan had always respected the Convention’s internationally recognised principles, as well as the procedures of the Committee. Based on this, it stood by information given to its media that the Azerbaijani delegation expressed concerns to the members of the Committee and delegations. It supported the decision of the Evaluation Body, which was fair and right, as Azerbaijan knew that Armenia had presented the Kochari dance because of its aggressive policy related to an ancient Azerbaijan region. Azerbaijan wondered to the Committee how long it would suffer from Armenian provocation and attempts of nationalising heritage which did not belong to it, or not only to it; and how long Armenia would not respect its neighbour country. The Azerbaijan delegate reminded the Committee that the previous year the Armenian Deputy Minister, ‘probably Arev Samuelian,’ gave an interview on Lavash in which she misinterpreted the decision of the Committee and said that she didn’t care what Azerbaijan said but that it had a (cultural) bomb for Azerbaijan
next year. The delegate of Azerbaijan called on the Armenian delegation to follow the Convention, which promoted dialogue, social cohesion and mutual respect, concluding with a quotation from Eldridge Cleaver: ‘If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem’ and expressing Azerbaijan’s belief that Armenia was always part of the problem.
993. The Chairperson reminded the meeting that the following day would be adoption of the general decision of Item 10 COM 10 at 9.30 a.m. She announced that the Bureau would meet at 9 a.m. in the usual venue, and that the University of Namibia was waiting for them
993. The Chairperson reminded the meeting that the following day would be adoption of the general decision of Item 10 COM 10 at 9.30 a.m. She announced that the Bureau would meet at 9 a.m. in the usual venue, and that the University of Namibia was waiting for them