Document ITH/12/7.COM/13.c Decision 7.COM 13.c
946. Introducing the item, the Chairperson recalled that at its fourth session in June 2012, the General Assembly requested that the Committee begin a process of reflection on the ‘procedure for extended inscription of an element already inscribed’ and that the Committee ‘report on it to the next session of the General Assembly’ (Resolution 4.GA 5). It was noted that Mr Tafuri had already introduced some reflections on this item.
947. Presenting the background, the Secretary explained that following the discussion by the first Subsidiary Body and the Committee in 2009, the Operational Directives were amended in 2010, particularly paragraph 14, to include a provision to extend a nomination to include one or more States Parties. The principles are that the new inscription replaces the original inscription, but if the Committee decides not to inscribe the extended element,
the original inscription would remain intact so that existing inscriptions were not placed at risk. The 2009 Subsidiary Body suggested that submitting States share a common approach and not simply add a State Party to the existing file. It also suggested that all the States Parties concerned should jointly submit a new nomination, as reflected in paragraph 14 of the Operational Directives. At its sixth session, the Committee began to consider the inscription on an extended basis of an element already inscribed by the same State Party.
The issue was also discussed during the open-ended intergovernmental working group, which largely agreed that the procedure should be broadened to include elements found within the territory of a single State Party. As reported by Mr Zebec, the 2012 Subsidiary Body examined two dossiers that raised a number of questions regarding extended nominations that might be submitted in the future (Document ITH/12/7.COM/11), such as:
i) determining information common to all States involved in the multinational file as well as information specific to each country; ii) the extent of the information provided in the nominations concerning the specific situation of the element and its community in the States Parties newly joining; iii) the free, prior, and informed consent of all the communities concerned; and iv) potential mechanisms within the concerned States Parties to ensure proper coordination of multinational nominations. Based on the history, the reflections of the open-ended working group, and the concrete experience of the Subsidiary Body, the draft decision proposed two options: A) to further reflect before addressing specific recommendations to the General Assembly; B) to request the Secretariat to propose specific operational directives for your examination in the eighth session, so they can be proposed to the fifth session of the General Assembly in June 2014. It was noted however that both options could be adopted, as had previously occurred in Decision 7.COM 12.
948. The Chairperson remarked that the participants of the working group were particularly concerned that the extension should not simply be an administrative exercise and required comprehensive consultation with the communities concerned. The working group also considered that the Committee might wish to think about the possible reduction in the scope of an element, the size of the community, or the number of States Parties adhering to an inscription, even though it had not been explicitly asked to do so by the General Assembly.
949. Thanking the Secretary for the explanation, the delegation of Indonesia remarked that extensions were already occurring, i.e. as seen in the falconry file with two new joining States Parties, which suggested that further reflection was perhaps unnecessary and that Option B was therefore more pertinent. However, the delegation agreed to unite the two options. The delegation of Japan also supported the adoption of both options.
950. The delegation of Greece believed that the next step would involve concrete options and thus supported Option B. The delegation spoke of the consent of communities as a delicate matter and recommended having clear formalized guidance in this regard, particularly in cases where communities did not consent to an extension.
951. The delegation of Belgium favoured combining the two options, adding that the Research Forum and the NGO Forum could be invited to reflect on and contribute to the subject.
952. The delegation of Spain also supported the proposal to combine both options, adding that common sense could be applied in developing the procedures so that they encouraged extensions by remaining reasonable and least burdensome as possible.
953. The delegation of Grenada was also in favour of merging both options and having clear draft directives for the extension of an element on both a multinational and national basis, as well as a reduction of an inscription.
954. Noting a consensus to merge the two options, the Chairperson moved to the draft decision.
955. The delegation of Grenada wished to add possible reduction as a point for reflection in Option A.
956. The Chairperson concurred that in light of the discussion and the findings of the working group, a reflection on a possible reduction should be introduced.
957. The delegation of Belgium reiterated that the NGO Forum at the next Committee session could be invited to also reflect on the issues, and proposed, ‘Invites the NGO Forum to submit a report on reflections about this topic’.
958. The Chairperson reiterated Grenada’s and Belgium’s proposal, which read,
‘Decides to continue its reflection on the procedure for extended inscription of an element already inscribed or its possible reduction at its eighth session and in conformity with the discussion of the open-ended intergovernmental working group and invites the Subsidiary Body and the Consultative Body to address this topic in their 2013 reports to the Committee and invites the NGO Forum to submit a report on reflections about this topic’.
959. The delegation of Peru supported the amendment by Grenada, but did not agree with Belgium’s amendment to convene an NGO Forum on the subject, suggesting that the category 2 centres be invited to provide their contributions in this regard.
960. The delegation of Nigeria agreed that category 2 centres should be invited to reflect on the issue, and suggested deleting the latter part of the sentence.
961. The Chairperson noted the support for Grenada’s amendment.
962. The delegation of Peru wished to include a reference to category 2 centres and their contribution to the reflection process.
963. The delegation of Belgium suggested adding both the NGO Forum and category 2 centres.
964. The delegation of Spain suggested also inviting States with experience in extensions.
965. The Secretary remarked on the substantial work involved in collating the input of the many contributors, and suggested that proposals and recommendations by category 2 centres and States Parties be channelled through the members of the Committee, which would then be submitted to the Secretariat by a given date so that it may draw up the draft recommendations. In this way, the proposals and suggestions can be sorted so that a consensus could emerge. By nature of its non-governmental status, the recommendation would not extend to the NGO Forum.
966. The delegation of Nigeria reiterated that it wished to delete the sentence since contributions should in any case transit through Committee members.
967. The delegation of Indonesia concurred with Nigeria that Peru’s and Belgium’s amendment could be deleted, not least because item 16 would deal specifically with NGOs.
968. The delegation of Peru agreed that the sentence should be omitted. The delegation of Belgium withdrew its amendment.
969. The Chairperson concurred with the decision, as a decision along the same lines had already been adopted. Noting that there were no further comments or objections to paragraph 4 [corresponding to Option A] and the new paragraph 5 [corresponding to Option B], the Vice-Chairperson moved to the adoption of the draft decision as a whole. With no objections, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 7.COM 13.c.
970. The Chairperson reiterated his thanks to Mr Tafuri for his work as Chairperson.
ITEM 13.d OF THE AGENDA :
REFLECTION ON THE USE OF THE EMBLEM OF THE CONVENTION