File: 1 request Decision: 13.COM 10.d
978. The Chairperson began by thanking the Vice-Chairs of the Philippines and Lebanon for their assistance, noting that the Committee had completed its examination of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and the Representative List, as well as the examination of proposals to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices. There remained the examination of item 10.d, the request for International Assistance, before the examination of draft decision 13.COM 10 concerning a number of cross-cutting issues common to the different mechanisms. There was one request submitted by Albania under this sub-item. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had to evaluate the extent to which this request met the criteria for International Assistance as a whole. In other words, not all the criteria had to be met in order for International Assistance to be granted. Before starting the examination of the request, the Chairperson recalled criteria A.1–A.7 that would guide the Committee’s decision, which were projected on the screen. In addition, paragraph 10 of the Operational Directives referred to two other considerations in 10(a) and 10(b)35. The Chairperson then turned to the request by Albania for a project entitled ‘Community based Inventory of ICH in Albania with a view to safeguarding and transmitting to future generations’.
979. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body presented the nomination Community based Inventory of ICH in Albania with a view to safeguarding and transmitting to future generations [draft decision 13.COM 10.d], submitted by Albania. Albania had requested International Assistance of US$213,260 from the ICH Fund for the implementation of the project aimed at carrying out a community-based inventory of intangible cultural heritage, with a view to drawing up tailored action plans for safeguarding and transmission to future generations. From the information included in the file, the request responded as follows to the criteria. The project involved a suitable set of activities to guarantee its feasibility by training a large number of community members and experts in community-based inventorying, as well as the wide dissemination of the principles and working methods of the Convention. The active involvement of the state administration, research institutes and regional NGOs could guarantee further development of the inventory when the project concludes. The State Party had implemented previously financed activities. As a national project, the State Party would invite experts with the necessary know-how to ensure the appropriate quality of the project outcomes. However, the Evaluation Body considered that it was unclear how the communities had been involved in the preparation of the request, and the implementation and evaluation of the proposed project. Although the budget breakdown and timetable were well-structured, the lack of coherency between the request, the budget and the timetable did not allow for an assessment of the appropriateness of the requested amount. The digitalization of data was budgeted for twelve months but was scheduled to last fifteen months according to the timetable. The State Party’s contribution 35 .Paragraph 10(a) the request implies cooperation at the bilateral, regional or international levels; and/or Paragraph 10(b) the assistance may have a multiplier effect and may stimulate financial and technical contributions from other sources.
covered less than 1 per cent of the total cost of the project, which raised concerns about the sustainability of the project at the close of the project. The file also did not explain how the project would stimulate financial and technical contributions from other sources or similar efforts elsewhere. In addition, the Evaluation Body invited the State Party, should it wish to resubmit its request in another cycle, to provide a clear and detailed explanation of its commitment, both financial and in-kind, to demonstrate the sustainability of the project once the International Assistance ends. The Evaluation Body recommended that the Committee refer the International Assistance request to the State for the project, inviting it to submit a revised request to the Committee for examination at a later session.
980. The Chairperson noted an amendment from Lebanon.
981. The delegation of Lebanon remarked that Albania’s request for International Assistance showed that despite the country’s efforts to safeguard living heritage, the national inventory with the participation of communities had not yet been realized, hence the importance of the proposed pilot project for three districts in the country. Now at the end of the examination of nomination files in this cycle, the delegation noted that several files had not been adopted due to technical flaws. This file was one more example, which led to the conclusion that a major capacity-building effort had yet to be done. To this end, it would present amendments, but it first wished to hear from Albania on the comments made by the Evaluation Body.
982. With no forthcoming comments, the Chairperson invited Albania to respond.
983. The delegation of Albania thanked the Evaluation Body for its evaluation and for duly recognizing the considerable efforts already undertaken to safeguard living heritage in Albania and its transmission to future generations. It also highlighted the crucial importance of the project in order to build capacities, and to establish a comprehensive inventory with a very clear impact on the community. In the three districts chosen, out of twelve in the country, five groups of national minorities were living, which confirmed a clear value added in fostering cooperation within and among communities with an understandable broader impact at the regional level as well. One of the main deliverables of the project would be to create the mechanism to involve the communities in the safeguarding process by creating a pattern for the inventory, which could later be replicated to the other eight regions in the country. The assistance, if provided, would strongly support efforts already underway in order to speed up the process, and train and empower communities, which was the focus of the project with a clear bottom-up approach contrary to what had previously been done in the country. The community would play an important role in monitoring and validating the results of the inventorying process. Their views, experiences and preferences would be taken into account, as would their reflections on the meaning and significance of the intangible cultural heritage inventoried. The Evaluation Body had rightly identified some inconsistencies in the compilation of the budget and the timeline. The delegation apologized and regretted that the file did not undergo a final proofreading, which could have corrected those inconsistencies.
984. The delegation of Albania explained that the Evaluation Body also rightly pointed out that the in-kind contribution of the State Party, although clearly mentioned in the file, had not been quantified. It gave the wrong impression that the involvement of the State Party was insufficient and could raise concerns about the sustainability of the project during its implementation and thereafter. These issues in fact echoed a remark made several times before and during this session of the need for a better and more fluid communication and interaction between States and the Evaluation Body. In fact, the many, various technical and other means and the dedicated human resources that would be engaged by local and central authorities amounted to a considerable contribution to ensuring the smooth implementation of the project and ensuring continuation and sustainability so that the experience in the three districts chosen would be duly and hopeful successfully replicated and extended throughout the country. It may thus serve as a model for the countries in the region should they wish. The best sustainability proof will be some 100 community bearers in the targeted area, in the three districts, who would directly benefit from the project.
Sustainability was also ensured by the fact that the project was the starting point of a much larger effort in order to compile not just an inventory of the three districts involved but an inventory of the intangible cultural heritage at the national level. If the request were approved as proposed by the amendments, the delegation stood ready to work to reach an agreement to resolve any technical issues identified prior to implementation. The delegation would duly quantify the substantial in-kind contributions by the local and central authorities, which was not 1 per cent but way beyond 10 per cent of the requested assistance, and it would make sure that the project was sustainable for its duration, as well as the follow-up community-based inventory in the remaining parts of the country.
985. The delegation of Kazakhstan closely studied the nomination and found the request to be strong, adding that the Evaluation Body had indicated many high qualities of this request and that some of the issues were more technical in nature and could have been solved by requesting additional information from the State Party. Thus, this was a very strong case that deserved consideration by the Committee, according to the amendments.
986. Thanking Kazakhstan, the Chairperson noted the recommendation of the Evaluation Body and also the clarifications from the submitting State, and with no forthcoming comments, proposed moving to the adoption of the decision paragraph by paragraph. Paragraph 1 was duly adopted.
987. The Secretary noted the clerical error by the Secretariat in the file number in paragraph 2.
988. With no comments, the Chairperson pronounced paragraph 2 adopted. Paragraphs 3–6 were also duly adopted. An amendment was received from Lebanon in paragraph 7 [approving the International Assistance request].
989. The delegation of Kazakhstan voiced support for the proposed amendment.
990. The delegation of Palestine asked the Secretariat whether there was a need for coherency between the many concerns raised by the Evaluation Body and reflected in the previous paragraph, which were not amended, and the amendment from a referral to an approval.
991. The Secretary replied that indeed it would not be coherent if the texts of the criterion were not aligned to the Committee’s decision in the evaluation of this file.
992. The delegation of Palestine added that some time should be given to amend the previous paragraph for the sake of coherency in order to adopt the new recommendation.
993. The Secretary was not saying it was not coherent, only that it would need to be coherent.
994. The delegation of Palestine remarked that as it needed to be coherent then some time should be spent amending the previous paragraph to adopt the new recommendation.
995. The Secretary replied that there was a solution to the potential inconsistency, should the Committee approve, as there was a precedent in the context of International Assistance where the Committee asked the submitting State to work with the Secretariat for a later presentation to the Bureau. This meant that the later paragraphs would be amended in line with the precedent.
996. The delegation of Palestine noted the good proposal that the Committee could approve.
997. The Secretary requested time to ensure coherence and consistency with the precedent.
998. The delegation of Palestine asked whether it would be agreeable to suspend the item in order to save time to allow the Secretariat to correctly amend the paragraphs.
999. The Chairperson suspended the item to allow the Secretary to carry out some corrections.
[Suspension of agenda item 10.d]
ITEM 10.b OF THE AGENDA [CONT.]
EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF HUMANITY
1000.The Chairperson informed the Committee that it had so far completed forty-seven individual files and sub-items 10. a, b, c, with sub-item 10.d just suspended, and one file remaining for Chamamé, submitted by Argentina. It was recalled that the examination of its corresponding draft decision had been suspended. As a reminder, when it was suspended on Wednesday, the Committee requested that the Secretariat reflect on a creative procedure that would allow the file to be examined by the Committee as soon as 2019.
Responding to its request, the Secretariat gracefully accepted and presented to the Bureau the previous morning a proposal for a preliminary dialogue procedure. Following this, Bureau members undertook consultations within their respective Electoral Groups. It was the Chairperson’s understanding that in order to come to a consensus on draft decision 13.COM 10.b.1, the Committee first had to discuss the proposal presented by the Secretariat. The Chairperson therefore proposed first opening a general debate on the proposal for a preliminary dialogue procedure, after which there would be two possible solutions. If the Committee came to a consensus, then it would discuss and adopt the paragraphs concerning the dialogue mechanism that would be integrated into the draft chapeau decision 13.COM 10. Then the Committee would return to the remaining files under item 10.b. However, if a consensus around a preliminary dialogue mechanism did not emerge, then it would be best to resume the examination of the remaining files under 10.b.
before starting a general debate under item 10 as originally planned. The Chairperson sought the comments and views of the Committee on this procedure. With no objections to the proposal made, the Chairperson opened the debate on the proposal for a preliminary dialogue. As this was a matter was of great interest, not only to Members of the Committee but also to all States Parties to the Convention, the Chairperson wished the debate to be as inclusive as possible. In accordance with Article 22.3 of our Rules of Procedure, he would first give the floor to Committee Members and then to Observers. As required, he may also seek the opinion of the Evaluation Body and the Secretariat. The Chairperson invited the Secretary to present the Secretariat’s proposal.
1001.The Secretary presented the proposal that offered States—whose files would be referred at the current session—the possibility to submit clarifications to the Secretariat prior to the first meeting of the Evaluation Body foreseen at the end of February in 2019 should they wish.
These clarifications should respond to the concerns of the Committee and the Evaluation Body on the referred criteria and must be provided in the two working languages of the Committee, English and French. The word count should not exceed the total word limit set in the nomination form for the criteria concerned. The Secretariat would register acknowledged receipt of the clarifications received. It would not check if the information was complete. The Secretariat would then forward the clarifications to the Evaluation Body, which would assess these against its original recommendations on those criteria and review their initial recommendation on the basis of the clarifications received. The files concerned would be re-examined by the Committee at its fourteenth session in 2019 and would not be considered as newly submitted files. As previously mentioned, the Committee would need to review this procedure for discussion at the eighth session of the General Assembly, taking into account the preliminary remarks previously mentioned by the Secretary. These files would be considered above the adopted overall ceiling for the 2019 cycle and would not count in the quota of States concerned.
1002.Taking note of the proposal, the delegation of the Philippines wished to clarify its position in that a dialogue had been called for in last two years, which was in fact a dialogue within the evaluation process. This proposal concerned files that were referred at this present session, which was thus a little different from the dialogue previously called for, and which the ad hoc working group had been working towards in consultation with the Secretariat and the Evaluation Body. The delegation also wished to emphasize that the General Assembly had taken a decision on the dialogue within the evaluation process.
1003.The delegation of Palestine noted the ongoing discussion among Committee Members and other States Parties concerning this proposal, which it strongly supported, even though it was unfortunately an exception, albeit in an experimental phase. It fully agreed with the remarks by the Philippines that this was not the procedure that had been sought for two years, but it would nonetheless underline the importance of dialogue, as well as the need for dialogue as expressed during the present session. Having said that, the delegation felt that some Members might raise concerns in that it did not fully respect the provisions of the Operational Directives, accepting that this might be a problem. In any case, to address the concerns of the Philippines, the delegation suggested at this stage, and also on an experimental basis, that the Committee begin a pilot phase of upstream dialogue. This meant that for the files already in the pipeline for evaluation at the next session in February and June 2019, the Evaluation Body and the Secretariat could be solicited once the recommendations on each file were terminated in June. They would then be asked to address questions on the criteria that were not satisfied, which would be sent to the States Parties concerned so that they could have the opportunity to respond in one of the two working languages and ahead of the third meeting of the Evaluation Body when it finalized its report in September. In September, the Evaluation Body would consider the replies and if they were satisfied, they would change the recommendation on the criteria concerned. If not, they would maintain the recommendation. This was the understanding behind the mechanism of dialogue that was being sought.
1004.The delegation of Djibouti welcomed the proposal by the Secretariat, which was in fact a way to settle these minor problems. Nevertheless, it was stressed that the mechanism of dialogue sought was outside the framework of this session and must become a formal and standardized procedure that must enter into the different mechanisms of the Convention.
The Committee was thus asked to consider whether it was necessary to experiment with a first phase to see how effective it could be in relation to the various minor issues that may arise. The delegation believed that it was indeed a laudable proposal.
1005.The delegation of China welcomed the idea of the proposed dialogue procedure, which would help improve the evaluation mechanism and facilitate States Parties in their nominations, and it appreciated the Secretariat’s contribution. However, the Committee should be very cautious in taking this approach in order to make the dialogue mechanism really effective and efficient. The delegation emphasized a number of observations based on some facts. Firstly, the Evaluation Body follows some principle working methods, including recalling the recommendations of previous Bodies, as well as past decisions of the Committee when encountering cross-cutting issues. The delegation understood that the Evaluation Body should strive to be consistent throughout the files and remain neutral and equitable, taking into account the individual circumstances of each file. It should also strictly adhere to the principle of exclusively evaluating the content of the files without making any assumptions or value judgements. The Committee had already emphasized this approach in its Decisions 9.COM 10 and 8.COM 8 that a decision not to inscribe or refer an element in no way constituted a judgement on the merits of the element itself but only on the
1005.The delegation of China welcomed the idea of the proposed dialogue procedure, which would help improve the evaluation mechanism and facilitate States Parties in their nominations, and it appreciated the Secretariat’s contribution. However, the Committee should be very cautious in taking this approach in order to make the dialogue mechanism really effective and efficient. The delegation emphasized a number of observations based on some facts. Firstly, the Evaluation Body follows some principle working methods, including recalling the recommendations of previous Bodies, as well as past decisions of the Committee when encountering cross-cutting issues. The delegation understood that the Evaluation Body should strive to be consistent throughout the files and remain neutral and equitable, taking into account the individual circumstances of each file. It should also strictly adhere to the principle of exclusively evaluating the content of the files without making any assumptions or value judgements. The Committee had already emphasized this approach in its Decisions 9.COM 10 and 8.COM 8 that a decision not to inscribe or refer an element in no way constituted a judgement on the merits of the element itself but only on the