Document ITH/13/8.COM/10 Decision 8.COM 10
839. The Chairperson turned to agenda item 10 and the number of files to be treated in 2014.
840. The Secretary understood the sensitivity of the issue, coming after the joy of the inscriptions, particularly as the number of files was forever increasing. She reminded the Committee that paragraph 33 of the Operational Guidelines requested the Committee to set each year the number of nomination files that could be treated over the next two years, based on available resources and capacities. It was noted that with the current decline in financial resources within UNESCO, the number of treatable files became problematic. The document therefore proposed to decide on the number the Committee would accept in 2015 and 2016. Referring to the 2014 cycle, the Secretary explained that the Secretariat had begun its work on 31 March 2013, while the Committee in its decision 7.COM 12.d had decided to treat 60 nominations, though some flexibility could be applied in the spirit of inclusiveness. In reality, 61 States Parties had submitted at least one nomination; there were also five multinational nomination files, three of which included a State Party with no nominations in the same cycle. Thus, the three multinational nominations could count as a national nomination for the State that had no other nominations. For example, this was the case for Portugal this year in its extension of the Mediterranean diet, but with no national nomination. The total for 2014 was therefore 64 nomination files currently in the process of treatment. It was recalled that the Secretariat registered and acknowledged receipt of the files, examined them, and requested the State Party, if appropriate, to provide any necessary information to correct and/or complete its nomination file. The letters were sent out to the submitting States, as and when they were treated, though admittedly some States Parties had yet to receive the Secretariat’s letter. This suggested that the Operational Directives, as they currently existed, could not be implemented by the Secretariat as the workload was clearly too great. It was noted that between March and July, the Secretariat was occupied with the Consultative Body and Subsidiary Body meetings. In reality, the two cycles actually overlapped such that the 60 nominations entering the system in 2012 would only be fully treated in the first six months of 2013, when new nominations were submitted. It was thus clear that in the context of diminishing human resources, the Secretariat would be unable treat 120 nomination files for the biennium. With this in mind, the Secretariat proposed in its decision to treat 80 nomination files over the biennium instead of 120, fully understanding that this was a difficult decision for the Committee. The Committee might then decide to split the figure into two and treat 40 files in one year and 40 in the other. Alternatively, the Committee might decide to treat the procedural issues, evaluations and new directives during one session, and concentrate on processing nominations in another session. In which case, the Committee’s agenda items during the sessions would not be equally divided as they were today, but spread over the biennium, resulting in a reduction in the agenda items and the Committee’s workload in general. The Committee therefore had to decide on a figure for 2015 and 2016, as stipulated in the Operational Directives. The Secretary reminded the Committee that the figure for 2015 had already been established in 2012 in Bali, but given the current situation, as explained, the Committee might consider it wise to reduce this figure.
841. To help the Committee in its decision, the Secretary projected an illustration on the screen displaying the numbers and profiles of the submitting States over the previous cycles in 2012–2013 and 2013–2014. She recalled that the Operational Directives requested that at least one nomination per submitting State should be treated in any one cycle, but if there were not enough slots, then non-represented States Parties should be prioritized, followed
by lesser represented States to most represented States. From the chart, it was noted in blue the projection with respect to the reality of nominations in 2012 and 2013. In the biennium, there were 18 States Parties with no inscriptions that had submitted a nomination file. By adding those that had only one inscription, the total would be 37 States Parties. If they were added to those with two inscriptions, there would be 44 States Parties, and adding those with three inscriptions would give a total of 51 States Parties. Adding States Parties that had more than three inscriptions, with three States with nine inscriptions and five States with more than ten inscriptions, would give a total for the 2013–2014 cycle of 70.
Currently, there were more States Parties submitting nomination files such that there would be 75 States Parties over the two years. The Secretary added that it was important to keep the spirit of the Operational Directives, and to set the figure for 2015, while keeping in mind the need to try to consider at least one nomination per submitting State.
842. The Chairperson remarked on the unhappy situation, which revealed a very real problem that required some creative solutions. It was noted that 120 files per biennium for two years was unrealistic and might therefore have to be reduced to a more realistic 80.
843. The delegation of Latvia appreciated the commitment of the Secretariat in the effective treatment of the nomination files, while understanding the issue of human resources and the capacity of the Secretariat. In this regard, it emphasized that the treatment of nominations should not be the main focus in the implementation of the Convention nor in the work of the Secretariat. It thus invited the Committee to take a decision that would respond to the growing interest in nominations, while respecting the importance of granting due attention to the elements already inscribed on the Lists, as well as the dissemination of best practices, the active involvement of NGOs and other relevant issues of the Convention. The delegation understood the concerns of the Secretariat and supported its proposal to diminish the number of files for treatment, and as such was in favour of 40 files per year, keeping a certain flexibility according to the number of files received and the priorities decided. As noted by the Secretariat, the upcoming years would be marked by the beginning of the examination of the reports by the 97 accredited NGOs. Thus, it supported the proposal to postpone the examination of NGO reports to 2015, asking the Secretariat about the feasibility of examining the 97 reports within one evaluation cycle.
844. The delegation of Nicaragua recalled that the Committee had approved a resolution whereby it encouraged States to submit nominations either to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices or the Urgent Safeguarding List, but the problem now arose as to when States Parties could expect an inscription when there were only 120 nominations accepted over two years. It remarked on the need for a mechanism to deal with resubmitted files, wondering whether they would be in competition with the others, and how this would affect their distribution. The delegation felt that the Committee could not sacrifice the desire of various countries, peoples and communities to have their cultural expressions included as part of the intangible cultural heritage of humanity. It thus wished to maintain the current figure.
845. The delegation of Albania trusted that the Secretariat’s proposal was realistic and was ready with regret to support the smaller figure. It also strongly supported Latvia on the importance given to nominations by the Member States of the Committee, agreeing that the Secretariat should also concentrate on other important issues such as capacity building and helping States safeguard the already inscribed elements. The delegation referred to Article 7 of the Convention on the functions of the Committee in which its functions were outlined from (a) through to (g) where only (i) mentioned inscription on the lists and proposals, i.e. this was only one of the Committee’s and the Secretariat’s numerous functions.
846. The delegation of Spain spoke of its surprise at the proposal, noting that the restriction on the number of nominations per annum was due to the workload for the Secretariat, adding that the Subsidiary Body had been able to handle this number of nominations over the past four years. It was thus important to reduce the burden on the Secretariat whose excellent work reviewing nominations facilitated the Subsidiary Body’s evaluation. However, the time
had perhaps come for the Secretariat to cease carrying out this exhaustive work, which could be carried out by the Subsidiary Body. It appealed to States Parties to present good and solid nominations with all the mandatory information, particularly as States Parties were now more knowledgeable in drawing up nominations. The delegation also took into account the series of nominations coming from Spain whose communities had already prepared their nominations and who would not now understand it if they were put on a waiting list.
847. The delegation of Peru fully understood that the Secretariat had other tasks than reviewing nominations for inscription on the various mechanisms, and that the heavy workload affected the quality of the Secretariat’s work. However, it was also true that States and communities had high expectations as they sought recognition for their cultural expressions. Thus, the Committee should not continue reducing the number of nominations per biennium but look four other ways to reduce the Secretariat’s workload without affecting the number of nominations submitted for inscription.
848. The delegation of Brazil understood the limitations and that the perspective for the next biennium was not very promising in terms of resources within UNESCO. It also believed that limiting the number of nominations would provide a greater balance, particularly as the Representative List counted a limited number of inscriptions from Africa. Establishing a ceiling would naturally give priority to those countries that had fewer elements on the List.
Nevertheless, it was not altogether convinced on how to achieve this, adding that the Committee could use the prioritization established in paragraph 34 of the Operational Directives to also put a ceiling on the different mechanisms. In this way. States wishing to submit to nomination files, if they already had elements on the Representative List, might be encouraged to present files to the other mechanisms. Noting the 155 States Parties Members of the Convention, and calculating 20% of 155, which gave 30, the delegation surmised that perhaps a ceiling of 30 files on the Representative List would stimulate other States Parties to submit their nominations to the other mechanisms.
849. The delegation of Czech Republic understood the concerns of previous speakers, namely the disappointment by communities and the States Parties themselves, but it was also clear that the Committee and the Secretariat had other important tasks. It therefore supported the idea of reducing the number of treated files, adding that this decision only affected the next biennium, after which the quality of nominations and the knowledge of States Parties would have improved, so that the Committee could later return to a higher figure.
850. The delegation of Belgium was torn between the two sides, adding that on the one hand, it fully understood the limited capacities of the Secretariat, but on the other hand, it believed in the importance of the Lists, not as a goal in itself, but as a safeguarding instrument when used well. It agreed with keeping the same system with 60 nominations every year, but would also consider moving towards a system of 80 nominations over two years. It also found interesting the idea to differentiate the ceiling based on the priorities, without necessarily agreeing right away with the specific figures.
851. The delegation of China fully understood the tremendous workload and the limited resources available in the evaluation of nomination files, adding that this was not a new problem. It did not yet hold a position with regard to the number of files that could be treated in the next cycle, but took the opportunity to emphasize that when deciding on the number of files or setting the priority, the principle of fairness and equal opportunity should be applied rather than restrictions simply in terms of the amount of elements inscribed on the Lists. The delegation drew the Committee’s attention to the significance of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in that each country, within the communities, groups and individuals concerned, all expressed their aspirations in the nominations and the Convention. The Committee had all witnessed in the past few days the emotion and excitement that inscribed elements procured, and it hoped that this sentiment would continue in the future, which should also be taken into full consideration when carrying out the evaluations.
852. The delegation of Albania reminded the Committee of the very lengthy debate that ensued during the experts’ meeting at UNESCO in Paris on the subject of priorities, quotas and limitations with regard to the capacities of both the Secretariat and the Committee. It found Brazil’s idea interesting, noting that the issue of how to give priority within the mechanisms and Lists had already been debated at length. In fact, there were two ways to achieve this:
(i) by giving priorities to certain mechanisms, i.e. Urgent Safeguarding List nominations, International Assistance requests, followed by the others; and (ii) prioritizing States Parties that had no inscriptions on any of the mechanisms. They were however exclusive of each other in that they could not both be applied. Albania’s position at the time, which was finally adopted, was that it was the prerogative of every State Party to decide which mechanism best suited its situation. There were clearly States Parties that favoured the Representative List, while others favoured International Assistance. The delegation found it more fair and politically correct to apply the system of prioritization based on the number of elements inscribed, meaning that the State with no element or the least number of elements inscribed would receive priority, followed by the others. In this way, the Committee did not prioritize the mechanisms. It also believed that the work of the Secretariat in revising the files was very important and that this should not be compromised to increase the number of nominations. Moreover, the Consultative Body had noted that the quality of the files had diminished owing to a lack of written correspondence from the Secretariat on the files.
853. Acknowledging the heavy workload, the delegation of Morocco also supported the proposal by the Secretariat with regret, adding that a distribution of 40/40 seemed appropriate. It especially thanked the States Parties that had seconded colleagues to the Secretariat, noting however that after the period of secondment the Secretariat found itself seriously lacking in human resources. It also wished to point out that the ceiling invariably involved a given quantity of files that could reasonably be examined in the course of a cycle, while agreeing with Albania that the quality of files had deteriorated significantly compared to the first cycles of examinations. The delegation had noted the drop in quality both as a submitting State and through its experience in the Subsidiary Body. As the Secretariat could no longer carry out the task of reviewing files, which it had done so excellently in the past, the delegation suggested finding individuals or entities who could carry out the work, adding that perhaps category 2 centres or independent experts could contribute, as this substantive feedback on the nominations resulted in better nominations.
854. The delegation of Tunisia agreed that there was a need to strike a balance between having the highest possible number of submitted files on the one hand, and having the ability to process them on the other. The situation described in the document gave the Committee no choice but to limit the number of examined files. In this way, the priority given to files would determine whether a balance could be struck between the different countries, as there were still very large disparities between the countries and the regions, with little hope of it diminishing in the short term.
855. The delegation of Namibia also understood the rationale behind the Secretariat’s proposal to reduce the number of nominations per biennium, adding that this was likely a temporary arrangement and there would be an opportunity to return later to the decision, as mentioned by the Czech Republic. Referring to the Secretary’s suggestion to split the agenda of the Committee meeting, and representing a country with no elements inscribed, the delegation believed it would be better to treat the 80 nominations every second year, which would allow States sufficient time to build national capacity to prepare a quality nomination.
856. The delegation of Grenada supported the remarks by Namibia to reduce the number over a two-year period. It understood the financial situation faced by the Secretariat, adding that many States Parties were also experiencing economic difficulties, which had affected financial support to the Secretariat and to UNESCO. The delegation agreed to consider 80 nominations every two years, at the end of which the Committee could revisit the situation and change it accordingly.
857. The delegation of Greece agreed that the proposal by the Secretariat should be followed for the next two years, as things were unlikely to change in the very short term.
Furthermore, the delegation returned to the proposal by Morocco on outsourcing the work, suggesting that the accredited NGOs be made responsible for the first selection and screening of files. It agreed that the pressure on all the mechanisms of the Convention and especially the Representative List was going to grow in the future. Moreover, submitted yet untreated files were placed online under ‘backlogs’, which the delegation felt was inappropriately named, as this only highlighted the problem, and only showed the willingness of the State to inscribe an element without responding to the communities’
desire to see their elements inscribed. The delegation strongly believed in the option of outsourcing some of the Secretariat’s workload to NGOs that have the capability.
858. The delegation of Brazil asked the Representative of the Director-General to enlighten the Committee on the experience of the 1972 Convention, as it was under the impression that a decision had been taken by the World Heritage Committee on imposing limits on nominations.
859. The Mr Bandarin remarked that there were many important differences between the two systems, notably the advisory body of the 1972 Convention, which examined nominations, was a specialized organization that undertook the entire cycle of examination. The role of the Secretariat was essentially limited to the preliminary screening of files for their consistency and completeness before being transferred to the advisory body. The Secretariat did not see the nomination files again until the end of the process, which was not the case for the 2003 Convention. The advisory body comprised a group of people
859. The Mr Bandarin remarked that there were many important differences between the two systems, notably the advisory body of the 1972 Convention, which examined nominations, was a specialized organization that undertook the entire cycle of examination. The role of the Secretariat was essentially limited to the preliminary screening of files for their consistency and completeness before being transferred to the advisory body. The Secretariat did not see the nomination files again until the end of the process, which was not the case for the 2003 Convention. The advisory body comprised a group of people