1 Request Decision 8.COM 7.c
493. Following the completion of the Committee’s examination of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and proposals of Best Safeguarding Practices, the Chairperson concluded with item 7.c and the examination of requests for International Assistance, followed by consideration of draft decision 8.COM 7, relating to a number of transversal issues common to the three mechanisms. The Chairperson regretted that there was only one International Assistance request to examine in the present session. Nevertheless, the start of the week welcomed the emergency assistance of US$307,307 that the Bureau granted to Mali in October, adding that there was surely a greater need worldwide to support the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage with financial assistance. The Chairperson recalled from the Consultative Body’s general report that the cycle began with five such requests, but only one was completed. He was however confident that this agenda item would provide the Committee with an opportunity to discuss innovative ways to reverse this trend. He gave the floor to the Chairperson of the Consultative Body to introduce the request, reminding the Committee that its task was to evaluate the degree to which the request responded to the criteria in their totality. It was noted that Paragraph 10 of the Operational Directives referred to two factors that the Committee might also take into account when examining requests for International Assistance.
494. The Chairperson of the Consultative Body presented the sole request for International Assistance for Safeguarding of the ibex dance and song of Pakistan [draft decision 8.COM.7.c] submitted by Pakistan for a total amount of US$90,590. Performed by young men from the Hushey valley in the Ghanche district of Baltistan, the ibex dance and song represents the way snow leopards try to hunt ibex while villagers arrive playing drums and waving big sticks to save their livestock. These festivities provide opportunities for the communities to recall the importance of the ecosystem on which they depend. The project aims to revitalize the practice and transmission to younger generations by creating an institutional and economic environment that regulates and perpetuates the practice while generating income for the practitioners. The Consultative Body considered that the strengths of the proposal lay in the fact that the State Party and a number of NGOs, development agencies, and local governments shared the cost of the proposed activities.
The Body proposed that the Committee underline the importance of such commitment from all stakeholders in paragraph 5 of the draft decision, as this increased the feasibility of the proposed project and the possibility for future support. The Body was also sensitive to the focus on income generation in the context of livelihood insecurity, highlighted in paragraph 4 of the draft decision. Although the project was mainly implemented at the local level, the request provided for cooperation with international NGOs. In addition, the implementing institution, the National Institute of Folk and Traditional Heritage, had successfully implemented activities in the context of financial assistance received in 2011 from UNESCO/Norway Funds-in-Trust, in accordance with criterion A.7. However, the Body felt
that the proposal failed to satisfy a number of key criteria. Neither the dancing and singing nor its practitioners were adequately described, especially with regard to its current social and cultural functions and meaning. Without a sufficient description of the element, the viability, relevance and feasibility of the proposed project could not be demonstrated.
Paragraph 6 consequently suggests that the State attaches greater attention to these aspects. Activities were presented very succinctly and the information provided did not show how the expected institutionalization of the element would effectively contribute towards safeguarding, as required in criteria A.3 and A.4. Relying primarily on the conversion of the dance into a professionalized performance, the request raised questions as to whether the proposed activities would contribute towards safeguarding in line with the Convention, while highlighting threats due to marketing, decontextualization, and distortion of the element’s significance, outlined in paragraph 9. Although it would bring the element into the economic and commercial sphere and promote the transfer of knowledge and techniques in the medium term, without certain precautions it might well lose its significance to the practitioners.
495. The Chairperson of the Consultative Body explained that in addition, the request did not demonstrate how the proposed audiovisual recordings would contribute towards strengthening the transmission of dancing and singing, and thus ensured its viability. In the absence of adequate identification of the relevant community, or an explanation of the representativeness of the local implementing organizations, the project’s widest possible participation of the community did not appear to be demonstrated. The relationship of practitioners to their own intangible cultural heritage and their own modes of transmission seemed to be neglected in favour of more formal education by professionals from outside the community. The Body recalled in paragraph 7 that community participation must be evident throughout the file, as the main actors in every activity proposed for funding, without which its feasibility would be undermined. Furthermore, some of the activities budgeted for were not described, while others were mentioned but not budgeted. In addition, the budget was not presented consistently and contained a number of inaccuracies. Consequently, the Body was unable to determine the appropriateness of the amount requested, and encouraged the State Party, in paragraph 8, to develop its proposal as a coherent whole in which each component should be linked accordingly. Finally, the benefits of capacity-building, particularly among the implementing partners, were inferred but not clearly demonstrated. In the opinion of the Body, the proposal did not explain how the creation of artistic groups or a resource centre would enhance the capacity of practitioners to effectively safeguard their intangible heritage. This analysis did not enable the Body to approve the International Assistance.
496. The Chairperson returned to a point made by the Rapporteur in his report, in which a favourable decision of the Committee led to the establishment of a contractual relationship between UNESCO and the implementing organization. The Secretariat considered that this contract must strictly reflect the scope of work proposed in the approved request and correspond exactly to the timetable and budget.
497. The delegation of Uganda extended its appreciation to the State Party for taking the initiative to apply for International Assistance, and especially for the consistency and coherency of the objectives, expected results and activities, which was in itself challenging.
It believed that the State Party could improve its proposal in its resubmission, and also noted that many States were still not applying for this support. It suggested that a short-term measure that provided support to States Parties could be applied for smaller amounts.
498. The Chairperson thanked Uganda, and with no further comments or objections declared Decision 8.COM 7.c.1 not to approve international assistance in the amount of US$90,590 for Safeguarding of the ibex song of Pakistan adopted. Noting the absence of the delegation of Pakistan, the Chairperson turned to the overall draft decision 8.COM 7.c.
499. Wishing to clarify the situation with regard to International Assistance, the Secretary explained that in 2013, seven requests had been submitted, of which only five requests
were given priority status, since not all files could be treated in the cycle. During the revision process carried out by the Secretariat, four of the proposals were suspended. The States Parties had felt that their proposals were not ready to be put to the Committee. This explained why only one proposal had been presented. The situation was almost identical in 2014 in that only five proposals were submitted, with only two considered a priority. Thus, the precise number of requests for International Assistance was yet unknown. The Secretary further clarified that there were many other requests for International Assistance, up to US$25,000, which were treated by the Bureau and thus not seen by the Committee.
Noting that States Parties encountered difficulties in drafting their requests, the Secretariat had proposed, in paragraph 5 of the draft decision, a specific measure that would offer States technical assistance in the preparation of their requests in a more proactive way than presently undertaken, i.e. currently the Secretariat reviewed the files for technical flaws rather than with a view to providing guidance in their elaboration. The Convention and the Operational Directives made reference to technical assistance, so the Secretariat had decided to propose such assistance, on an experimental basis, to help States in drafting their requests for International Assistance, with the hope for more favourable outcomes.
500. The Chairperson opened the floor for amendments
501. Referring to paragraph 5, the delegation of Brazil proposed to replace ‘invites’ with
‘requests’, adding that this was indeed a very important paragraph in the draft decision, as it was in line with the decision taken on Uganda’s file in which the Committee requested the Secretariat, within the available resources, to provide technical assistance. It reminded the Committee of Guatemala’s request for international assistance in 2012 that had been rejected by the Committee, and that Brazil had pledged to offer assistance to the State Party to help prepare another request for a future cycle. The delegation was happy to report that the assistance was accepted by Guatemala and an expert was sent to Guatemala on a week’s mission. Together with the Guatemalan authorities, the expert examined the request on the inventory, for which they were requesting resources, and established a work plan, the first stage of which was currently being implemented.
502. The delegation of the Czech Republic proposed to harmonize draft decision 8.COM 11, concerning the plan for the use of resources of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund, as it appeared relevant in this case and should be therefore reflected in the decision.
503. The delegation of Burkina Faso also remarked on the low number of requests received given the importance of the International Assistance for all elements whose viability was threatened and required the implementation of appropriate measures. It believed that perhaps the objectives of this mechanism were poorly understood. Although the inscription of elements to the Urgent Safeguarding List increased visibility for the element, it was also true that primarily funds were sought to implement the safeguarding measures. Actually, a submitting State could solicit a request for International Assistance without seeking to inscribe the element. The delegation recalled that safeguarding measures that required financial assistance from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund, but without a request for International Assistance having been submitted for this purpose, posed a serious problem with regard to their implementation. It was delighted that the Secretariat would provide technical assistance to States, reflected in paragraph 5, which it hoped would result in many more requests.
504. The delegation of Uganda proposed a slight amendment to paragraph 5, which read, ‘the Secretariat to devise a means, on a short-term basis, and experimentally’.
505. The delegation of Albania was going to propose the same amendment as Uganda, adding that if it proved to be effective, then it need not be on a short-term basis. It also supported Brazil’s amendment, and the remarks by Burkina Faso on the importance of the paragraph.
The delegation was of the view that International Assistance was the most effective mechanism of the Convention. The inscription on the Lists only raised visibility, but did not concretely help the element. It asked the Secretariat to clarify the procedure for a State
Party, in the process of preparing a file for International Assistance, to ask for technical assistance and the provision of experts.
506. The Secretary explained that the State Party would be asked to complete a simplified request for International Assistance, which would outline their needs and the specific scope of the project, but not necessarily in any detail. In this way, the Secretariat would be able to identify the right expert vis-à-vis the country reality, contexts, domain, and so. The expert would then work alongside the State to elaborate a fully fleshed request for International Assistance.
507. The Chairperson noted that there were no objections to the amendments by Brazil, Albania, Uganda and Czech Republic, and so turned to the adoption of the draft decision.
The Chairperson declared Decision 8.COM 7.c adopted. He then turned to decision 8.COM 7.
508. The delegation of Belgium proposed in paragraph 8 to change ‘communities’ to
‘communities, groups and, if applicable, individuals’.
509. The delegation of Japan proposed a new paragraph after paragraph 9, which read ‘Notes with concern that a limited number of files were inscribed to the Urgent Safeguarding List and reaffirms the importance of the capacity-building strategy’.
510. The delegation of Czech Republic wished to add ‘Urgent Safeguarding List’ to paragraph 11, after ‘simultaneously nominate an element for inscription’, so that it was clear to which list the article alluded.
511. The delegation of China proposed an amendment in paragraph 3, adding ‘appreciation’ in place of ‘satisfaction’ to read, ‘Expresses its appreciation of the work of the Consultative Body and the present report and thanks its members for their efforts. In paragraph 4, it proposed, ‘Commends those developing countries, particularly those in Africa, that continue to submit a significant number of files’. The delegation added that paragraphs 5 and 6 were saying the same thing, so suggested merging the paragraphs, which would read, ‘Invites States Parties to take careful heed of the experiences they have gained from previous cycles when preparing files, and to respond to the decisions and suggestions of the Committee and its bodies during the examination of all nominations; further invites States Parties to submit files providing all of the information needed for their proper evaluation and examination’.
512. The delegation of Brazil proposed a slight change in paragraph 8 in the sentence, ‘to avoid top-down approaches’, suggesting to delete ‘to’, which would read, ‘avoiding to the extent possible top-down approaches’. It explained that occasionally communities were not empowered enough to be initiators of certain measures and that initial measures might be top-down in an effort to reach communities, before it could enable bottom-up approaches.
513. The delegation of Morocco wondered whether the proposal by Japan in paragraph 10 should cover the three mechanisms examined. The Chairperson agreed that it should refer to all three mechanisms.
514. The Secretary explained that in former paragraph 7 the Committee already expressed its concern about the number of proposals to the Register and requests for International Assistance. This might explain why Japan wished to add paragraph 8 to include the Urgent Safeguarding List.
515. Commenting on Brazil’s amendment in paragraph 9, the delegation of Albania felt very uncomfortable with the addition of ‘to the extent possible’. It understood Brazil’s concern, adding that it was right that the initiative might not necessarily come from the communities, but that the approach should come from the communities themselves, which were clearly different. The delegation felt that this might create confusion as it implied that the bottom-up approach was optional.
516. The delegation of Brazil explained that it had spoken from experience, but was happy to favour consensus and withdrew the amendment.
517. The delegation of Belgium wished to add ‘groups and, if applicable, individuals’ to paragraph 7.
518. The delegation of Latvia proposed to add ‘regularly’ before ‘revised’ in paragraph 5, which reflected an earlier concern that the document should be regularly updated, not only following the present Committee session, but also future sessions.
519. The Chairperson turned to the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, and pronounced paragraphs 1 and 2 adopted.
520. The delegation of Grenada wished to make an editorial amendment to China’s amendment,
‘Commends those developing countries that continue […]’.
521. The Chairperson interrupted as paragraph 3 was being discussed. With no objections, paragraph 3 was adopted. The Chairperson returned to paragraph 4, ‘Commends those developing countries that continue to submit a number of files, particularly those in Africa’, which was pronounced adopted.
522. Regarding paragraph 5, the delegation of Burkina Faso noted that it was a statement of fact that developing countries continued to have a large number of nominations, and thus found the amendment by China to be awkward. The delegation proposed reverting to the original wording that took note that many requests continued to come from developing countries, adding that the idea was not to congratulate States that have submitted at the present time, but also to encourage them to continue the process in the future.
523. The Chairperson noted that China was willing to accept the comment. With no objections in paragraphs 5 to 8, they were adopted.
524. The delegation of Spain wished to add to the amendment proposed by Japan in new paragraph 9, which would read, ‘Notes with concern the limited number of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List’, and add, ‘and we also note with concern that there are very few written requests for International Assistance’, or maybe just add, ‘International Assistance’. Noting the concern that of five requests presented this year, only one International Assistance request was approved, the delegation wished to add, ‘the importance of the capacity-building strategy and of the assistance of the Secretariat’. It noted that the Secretariat’s assistance would be aimed at identifying difficulties that States encounter in finalizing their requests, adding that there were obviously some concrete hurdles to address, as there were very low numbers of approved International Assistance requests.
525. The Chairperson noted Japan’s willingness to concede to Spain’s request to revise the paragraph, which was duly adopted.
526. The delegation of Spain reiterated that it wished to add ‘the assistance of the Secretariat’
under new paragraph 9. With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson declared Decision 8.COM 7 adopted.
527. Following a number of practical announcements, the Chairperson adjourned the session.
[Wednesday, 4 December, afternoon session]
ITEM 8 OF THE AGENDA:
REPORT OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODY ON ITS WORK IN 2013 AND EXAMINATION OF