Decision 10.COM 15.a
1287. The Chairperson welcomed delegates to the last day of the current session of the Committee, saying that good progress had been made the previous day and congratulating all present. She informed the Committee that the Bureau had met that morning for the fourth and final time and had discussed several issues.
1288. The Chairperson directed the Committee’s attention to a set of three sub-items following up on decisions and resolutions adopted by the Committee and the General Assembly at their previous sessions, starting with item 15.a: Expert meeting on a model code of ethics;
followed by item 15.b: Guidelines for the treatment of correspondence with regard to periodic reports; and finally item 15.c: Follow-up on audits and evaluations. The Chairperson advised the Committee that following the examination of item 15 the discussion would move to item 19: Other business since the debate to find a solution to Viet Nam’s request for the transfer of an element could require a more substantial debate.
During the lunch break, the Secretariat would prepare a list of all decisions adopted to date, printed copies of which would be found upon returning to the room at 2:30 p.m. The Committee would then have half an hour to read through the decisions after which the meeting would start with item 20 to adopt the list of decisions. Before closing the session, the Committee would have to examine the last items, item 17: Date and venue of eleventh session of the Committee, for which Ethiopia had kindly offered to host the Committee in 2016, before moving to item 18: The election of the Bureau. The Chairperson was pleased to inform the Committee that the Bureau had examined and approved a preparatory assistance request from the Philippines to prepare a nomination to the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding.
1289. The Secretary wished to inform members of the Committee that the last meeting of the Convention’s global capacity building programme would be held for Electoral Groups I and II between 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.
1290. The Chairperson thanked the Secretary and moved on to open item 15.a and the Secretary was invited to present that item.
1291. The Secretary advised the meeting that the item followed up discussions made at the seventh session of the Committee in 2012, during which the Committee invited the UNESCO Secretariat ‘to initiate work on a model code of ethics and to report on it to a next session of the Committee’. This request was made in the context of a debate on the increasing concern over the commercialization of intangible cultural heritage and reflected the growing awareness among States Parties of the need to provide guidelines on ethical approaches to the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Responding to the Committee’s request, the Secretariat organized an expert meeting in Valencia, Spain from 30 March to 1 April 2015, generously co-funded, hosted and co-organized by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport of the Kingdom of Spain, with additional funding from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund. The meeting brought together eleven experts (including five women), who were selected to represent a wide range of expertise, experience and sectors from the six UNESCO electoral groups. In preparation for this meeting, the
Secretariat had prepared a reference document around key issues to be considered during the development of a code of ethics, proposing ten initial ethical principles that could constitute the basis of a code of ethics for intangible cultural heritage.
1292. The Secretary said that the expert meeting in Valencia constituted the first important step in a global discussion on the relevance, content and modalities of developing a potential model code of ethics for intangible cultural heritage:
1293. At the meeting, consensus was reached on a need for ethical principles for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage, founded on fundamental principles embodied in the Convention and key normative instruments in the field of human rights, including the importance of free, prior and informed consent of local communities and respect for the right of the people concerned to full and fair participation in any processes, projects and activities that affect them, and recognition of their key role in maintaining and managing their culture and heritage.
1294. Experts also considered that such ethical principles could provide guidance to Member States and development actors with concrete ethical procedures applicable to all kinds of activities related to intangible cultural heritage or that could potentially affect its viability.
1295. The Secretary continued that taking into account the broad tendencies of the debate at the expert meeting and specific comments and proposals, the Secretariat had incorporated improvements proposed by the experts in a revised version of the ethical principles, annexed to document 15.a and the twelve proposed ethical principles were now submitted to the Committee for general debate and adoption. It was also proposed that the Committee reaffirm the importance of ethical principles for all organizations and individuals who directly or indirectly affect the viability and thereby safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage.
1296. The Secretary concluded by pointing out that the draft decision also included provisions requesting the Secretariat to develop an online toolkit based on the ethical principles annexed to the decision, comprising practical guidance and examples of existing codes of ethics to facilitate the development of specific codes by national and local entities, as well as to continue integrating ethical considerations in the global capacity-building programme.
1297. The Chairperson thanked the Secretary for her presentation and opened the floor for discussion. The Chairperson informed the Committee that two amendments had been received from Brazil and Turkey, before giving the floor to Kyrgyzstan.
1298. The delegation of Kyrgyzstan advised the Committee that it had also submitted an amendment the previous day and that it wished to give the floor to the NGO Forum to propose one more ethical principle for consideration.
1299. The Chairperson thanked Kyrgyzstan, and before giving the floor to the two countries that had submitted amendments, first gave the floor to Belgium.
1300. The delegation of Belgium congratulated the Secretariat and the Spanish government for the results of their efforts in facilitating the reflection on possible codes of ethics for the 2003 Convention. The expert meeting organised in Valencia in March 2015 by the Secretariat and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of the Kingdom of Spain was interesting and an important milestone in that reflection. In the opinion of Belgium, document ITH/15/EXP/229 prepared for the meeting was of a very high standard and could henceforth be used as a reference text, with many links provided in the document to other instruments, tools and codes of ethics, and as a basis to build on when developing an online platform. The experts that participated in the Valencia meeting had discussed a 29
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/30195-EN.docx
whole series of issues and, abandoned the idea of one overarching code of ethics and explored several other possibilities and alternatives. Belgium considered that the Secretariat had done a wonderful job in processing all ideas and suggestions and coming up with a pragmatic conclusion in document 15.a. Belgium found the suggestion to select a series of principles to be a pragmatic one based primarily on Article 15 of the 2003 Convention. On the other hand, Belgium supported the proposal to develop an online toolkit where codes, forms, guidelines and protocols could be shared and accessed, especially if it could be organised as an online platform in a participatory manner. Belgium said there were abundant instruments for toolkits available in and across the different disciplines, networks and fields both within and outside the cultural sector, for instance the development of the Convention on Biodiversity or the Convention on Bioethics. The lesson learned was that in practice, it is not only codes but also forms and other tools that could be useful, especially if they were interlinked. The ICH NGO Forum had just organised a symposium on codes of ethics and the roles accredited NGOs could play. Belgium would therefore like to join Kyrgyzstan who had requested the ICH NGO Forum to share some of their ideas and conclusions. Accredited NGOs could offer valuable services and inputs on constructing and updating a platform, a suggestion also expressed in several of the NGO review reports. The annex listing the twelve ethical principles included several interesting ideas such as the notion of ‘sustained consent’, a recurring concern in the meetings of the Intergovernmental Committee.
1301. The Chairperson thanked Belgium and gave the floor to Turkey.
1302. The delegation of Turkey thanked the experts and congratulated the Secretariat for its efforts. Turkey also wished to thank the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport of the Kingdom of Spain for generously hosting and co-funding the expert meeting. Neither the Convention nor the Operational Directives had given ethical considerations any form of consideration until now, apart from a few mentions in the Operational Directives, and for this reason Turkey welcomed this initiative and supported the draft document as a whole including the annex, saying it would be proposing some linguistic revisions to the annex.
1303. The Chairperson thanked Turkey and offered the floor to members of the Committee; there were no comments and the floor was given to the ICH NGO Forum.
1304. The representative of the ICH NGO Forum thanked Kyrgyzstan and Belgium for their generous comments, saying that the ICH NGO Forum had held a symposium before the Committee meeting, dealing with the development of a code of ethics, a subject very close to activities carried out by NGOs. The delegate said that the NGO Forum had closely examined the different provisions proposed in the annex of document 15.a and had welcomed the approach that the Secretariat, the group of experts and the Intergovernmental Committee had used in defining clear, consensual and operational lines of action for future safeguarding activities for intangible cultural heritage. One of the purposes of this normative initiative remained to formulate certain principles and objectives guiding the implementation of the Convention and of the Operational Directives, reinforcing its scope and strengthening peoples’ understanding of it. The delegate said the NGO Forum was pleased to see the central focus given to communities, groups and individuals in the principles and that their aim was to see intangible cultural heritage flourish in all corners of the world. The delegate wished to draw the attention of the Committee on the necessity to complement these general orientations with an ethical principle reflecting, through the imperative of sustainable development, the necessary partnership between civil society and institutions that represent it at local and national and national levels, which constitute one of the main drivers in the safeguarding of living traditions. He continued that safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in the context of sustainable development should be supported by public policies that enhanced cultural activities and respect for environment and here in particular, should take into account the equitable allocation of scarce resources, if deemed necessary through exchange of information, subsidies, individual scholarships, technical
assistance, educational initiatives, publication of statistics ,as well as support for the creation, promotion and dissemination, consistent with the specificities of the various cultural elements concerned. He concluded by saying that groups, communities, artisans, artists, cultural associations and other stakeholders and mediators of living cultural heritage would be pleased to see such principle based upon sustainability, collaborative action and equity in the ethical prescriptions linked to the Convention.
1305. The delegation of Greece supported all the positive comments expressed for the hard work of the Secretariat and the working group on ethical codes and the work under discussion, believing it would be a good foundation for further development of a code of ethics. In this respect Greece believed that there should also be a small addendum to paragraph 5 and mention of cases of armed conflicts. Referring to the Hague Convention and its protocols, the delegate mentioned that there are international UNESCO conventions dealing with the protection of tangible heritage in the case of armed conflicts, but the protection of intangible cultural heritage in the case of armed conflicts is also of utmost importance and Greece felt that the Committee should deal with this issue, to try to have the matter in the open for discussion because intangible cultural heritage in conflict areas is in many cases in grave danger. Greece believed that in the paragraph 5 of the ethical principles the final phrase could be amended and read ‘customary practices governing access to intangible cultural heritage should be fully respected even where it may limit public access and even in case of public armed conflict’. Greece suggested that the NGO Traditions for tomorrow would be in a better position to explain this issue.
1306. The Chairperson thanked Greece, adding that since the Committee would be examining the annex paragraph by paragraph, those issues would be dealt with on the understanding that only members of the Committee could propose amendments to the annex.
1307. The delegation of Latvia expressed appreciation for the debate on ethical principles connected to the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, and believed these needed to be continued. Latvia welcomed the draft decision proposed to encourage continuous exchange of information, examples and ideas on relevant ethical issues as well as the twelve ethical principles proposed in the annex of the draft decision. Meanwhile, Latvia believed that its support for principle 7 would need to be explained, in connection to the amendment proposed by Latvia for paragraph 173 of the draft Chapter VI of the Operational Directives that was recently debated and adopted by the Committee. Although Latvia thought that adoption of legal instruments for the protection of various rights, specifically within the regime of intellectual property, could be a questionable option for States Parties, it acknowledged that national legislation would not solve all the relevant issues and could have various effects on safeguarding processes. Latvia said that these issues needed to be emphasized within the context of ethics and welcomed the issue of research and documentation mentioned in paragraph 7, believing that different ethical challenges existed for research in disciplines dealing with aspects of intangible cultural heritage and its safeguarding. Latvia concluded by saying it entirely support principle 7 as defined.
1308. The Chairperson thanked Latvia. There were no further comments, and the NGOs were given the floor in their capacity of observers.
1309. The delegate of the NGO Forum from the NGO Traditions for Tomorrow said that his organization was extremely interested in the adoption of ethical principles for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, all the more so since it would contribute to legitimizing the actions of NGOs and of UNESCO. Referring to a concern expressed by the delegation of Greece, by many on several occasions during the current session and emphasized by the Deputy Director-General of UNESCO during his opening address, the delegate mentioned that intangible cultural heritage being embedded in tangible heritage, among other things; the destruction of tangible heritage – whether they are well publicized or not – is becoming ever more serious, but intangible cultural heritage is being similarly
attacked in both conflict and post-conflict situations. The delegate said that NGOs have expressed their support for the Unite4Heritage campaign launched by UNESCO as they know that it is not limited to tangible heritage and that cultural heritage is not limited to buildings being destroyed by barbarous acts. The delegate hoped that the ethical principles that would be endorsed by the Committee would serve as a reference in those situations.
1310. The Chairperson saw no more requests for the floor, so invited the Committee to start examination of the annex paragraph by paragraph.
1311. In the introductory paragraph there was a minor amendment from Turkey, inserting
‘intangible cultural’ after ‘ensure the viability of’ and before ‘heritage’, and one from Belgium inserting ‘and tools’ after ‘specific codes of ethics’. There were no objections, and the paragraph was adopted.
1312. In paragraph 1 Turkey wished to insert ‘in some cases’ after ‘Communities, groups and’.
Belgium had submitted an amendment but the Chairperson indicated that Belgium had withdrawn it before the discussion.
1313. The delegation of Belgium interjected, saying it had not withdrawn its amendment, rather that the idea had been to delete the last part of the sentence ‘particularly as it regards its identification, transmission and revitalization’, as it felt that communities, groups and individuals should be involved in all aspects of safeguarding. The idea was not to limit it to the three processes of safeguarding, but to enlarge it.
1314. The Chairperson thanked Belgium, confirming that Belgium’s amendment was to delete the last part of the sentence after ‘cultural heritage’. There were no objections to the amendments proposed by Belgium and Turkey and paragraph 1 was adopted.
1315. In paragraph 2 there was a similar amendment from Turkey, inserting ‘in some cases’ after
‘communities, groups and’.
1316. The delegation of Hungary apologized for sending up its amendment in a delayed manner, and proposed to insert ‘with a special attention given to the rights of indigenous peoples’
after ‘recognized and respected’. Hungary felt that this was an important dimension of the Convention as it was important to inform indigenous people and minorities about the code of ethics.
1317. The Chairperson thanked Hungary for its observation relating to indigenous people and minorities.
1318. The delegation of Turkey agreed with the concern expressed by Hungary in the first part of its proposal, pointing out that as per the second part of its proposal the word ‘minorities’ is not used in the text of the Convention and difficulties might be created vis a vis the text of the Convention if the term was now used. Turkey suggested that if Hungary wished to withdraw this term, it would be satisfied.
1319. The delegation of Hungary said that the terms were related and that national and ethnic minorities were important parts of communities, so was in favour of keeping the sentence and references to both elements.
1320. The delegation of Greece agreed with the Turkish delegation on the subject of minorities, saying that the Convention as written was rightly concerned about the cultural heritage of communities. There was a sense of wisdom that made the people who drafted the Convention choose the word communities. Greece continued that, although the Committee was of course concerned about the rights of minorities, the Convention made no reference to the word ‘minorities’ and the Committee should keep that in mind and not introduce
precedents that might endanger its work. Greece concluded that it would be in favour of keeping the wording of the Convention and hence deleting the Hungarian amendment.
1321. The delegation of Saint Lucia supported the idea of giving special attention to the rights of
1321. The delegation of Saint Lucia supported the idea of giving special attention to the rights of