Decision 7.COM 13.b
933. The Chairperson turned to the second subject of reflection concerning the outcome of the open-ended intergovernmental working group convened in October in 2011.
He then invited the Chairperson of the working group, Mr Francesco Tafuri, to the podium.
He recalled that the working group was organized following the Committee’s Decision 6.COM 15 in Bali in November 2011, which defined the mandate of the group, namely ‘to discuss what the right scale or scope of an element should be’. He thanked the Government of Japan for its generous contribution that allowed for the organization of the meeting, particularly the participation of 33 experts from developing countries.
934. The Secretary introduced the background document, adding that the four discussion papers prepared by the four experts were still available on the website. The summary records of the working group would also be made available in early 2013.
935. Introducing his oral report, the Chairperson of the Working Group, Mr Francesco Tafuri, reported that the main objective of the working group meeting was to provide an opportunity for States Parties to reflect upon a set of recurrent questions faced by the States, the Committee and its advisory bodies in recent years with regard to similarities among certain nominated elements or the inclusivity of others. The Chairperson recalled that the working group met at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris on 22 and 23 October 2012, which he presided together with Mr Sidi Traoré from Burkina Faso with the participation of more than 210 experts representing 76 States Parties, of which 33 experts from developing
countries thanks to the generous financial support of Japan. Additionally, representatives of six States non-party to the Convention, category 2 centres, NGOs and a number of individual researchers attended as observers (Document 7.COM WG/7). The Chairperson recalled that in 2009 the Subsidiary Body requested that ‘submitting States clearly define the scale and scope of the proposed element in the nomination form’. In 2010, the Subsidiary Body expressed its concern faced with several similar nominations presented by the same submitting State that appeared to be the same element proposed as different manifestations, thus suggesting that States submit more inclusive elements. Repeating the concern in 2011, the Subsidiary Body noted that in several nominations to the Representative List, submitting States had not sufficiently demonstrated the differences between an element proposed and an already inscribed element that would justify a new inscription. The Subsidiary Body therefore wondered whether the contribution of the second inscription would respond to the objectives of visibility and awareness of the Representative List. The other issue concerned elements considered as being too generic, which included elements that were excessively inclusive and broad with multiple manifestations from the different domains of intangible cultural heritage. The Subsidiary Body in 2011 therefore recommended to find a balance between over-generalized elements and micro-elements whose specificity was unclear and therefore difficult to determine.
936. The Chairperson of the Working Group explained that in order to help frame the reflections of the working group, the Secretariat had asked four experts to prepare discussion papers organized around each of the four themes, which were then introduced by the authors. The excellent quality of the discussion papers was also noted. The first discussion paper by Rieks Smeets (Document ITH/12/7.COM WG/3) traced the thinking of the international community with regard to the concept of ‘element’ as it developed over the past four decades. The paper argued that the development of terminology for intangible cultural heritage was accompanied by changing notions of heritage, which was first raised within UNESCO in 1973. Although the decades saw a shift from an earlier preoccupation with documenting, protecting and promoting individual expressions of folklore to the living and changing character of intangible cultural heritage as a dynamic social process, it assumed that the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage of a given group or region should begin with the identification and documentation of specific manifestations, which led to the term ‘element’ becoming accepted as an international neutral term for such manifestations. The second discussion paper by Toshiyuko Kono ( Document ITH/12/7.COM WG/4) analysed a large sample of the elements inscribed on the Lists since 2009 (72 of the total of 169 such elements) and attempted to characterize them in terms of the membership of the element itself in one or more domains and within ten parameters chosen to highlight the various characteristics of the communities and the different ways in which communities consider their elements. Given the tremendous diversity of the world’s intangible cultural heritage, the data not surprisingly revealed wide variation across each of the parameters. The paper suggested that the parameters proposed might be applied to determine whether two manifestations could be consolidated as a single element if judged to share the same attributes. The working group welcomed with interest the methodology, which was said to be practical for the authorities and the communities concerned. The third discussion paper by Ahmed Skounti (Document ITH/12/7.COM WG/5) concerned the question of similarity and possible practical mechanisms to treat ‘similar’ elements in relation to inscription on the lists of the Convention. The paper traced the development of the procedures for serial inscriptions of World Heritage properties and the extension of the scope of an already inscribed property. The current Operational Directives for the 2003 Convention foresees the possibility of re-inscription on an extended basis of elements already inscribed in order to include one or more States. The paper suggested that a similar process of re-inscription might be warranted for elements found entirely within the territory of a single State Party. As the consent and aspirations of the communities concerned are of paramount importance, there was the inevitable possibility of re-inscribing an element on a reduced basis or bifurcating a nomination at the request of the communities concerned. The working group found pertinent the comparisons with the 1972 Convention, but nevertheless
found that serial nominations were better suited to tangible cultural heritage. The fourth discussion paper by Maria Cecilia Londres Fonseca (Document ITH/12/7.COM WG/6) examined various considerations at local, national or international levels that might determine the type of element to nominate for one of the lists or how to delimit an element when inventorying or preparing a safeguarding project. It drew upon examples and the extensive experience of Brazil in safeguarding and inventorying, as well as national registration and international listing. These Brazilian experiences revealed that although something might be right in one context it might not be for another, while respecting the wishes of the communities concerned in every aspect of the nomination process. Moreover, there was no one-size-fits-all model when determining the right scale or scope of an element.
937. The Chairperson of the Working Group recalled the lively debate that ensued on the second day, which was devoted to synthesizing the questions and considerations so that the working group could report to the Committee. In the ensuing discussion, many experts considered that it was preferable not to refer to ‘similar’ elements given that each manifestation was specific and unique to a given community. Experts suggested instead that reference be made to ‘shared heritage’ and to ‘elements with shared characteristics’;
others invoked the notion of ‘family’ as a potentially useful one. Certain experts considered that multinational files should be further promoted to highlight ‘shared intangible cultural heritage’. The issue of terminology was recurrent throughout the meeting and it was deemed essential that each State Party translate, adapt or develop the terminology of the Convention at the national level so that it can be clearly explained to the communities and other partners. For the purpose of implementing the Convention, a larger and more complex cultural reality often needed to be segmented, classified and labelled. The scale and scope of an element depended then on the particular context of the Convention’s mechanisms at the national and international levels. In this regard, the experts concurred that a one-size-fits-all solution should not be sought, but rather it should question the appropriate scale and scope when drawing up an inventory, and the scale and scope of an element most suited for promoting intangible cultural heritage in general (in line with the purpose of the Representative List), as well as the suitable scale and scope of an element requiring urgent safeguarding (in line with the purpose of the Urgent Safeguarding List).
The participants agreed that the scale and scope of an element depended on the different contexts of the mechanisms in the implementation of the Convention at both national and international levels. The working group therefore recommended that States Parties be attentive as to what scale is appropriate for what purposes.
938. The Chairperson of the Working Group also wished to draw attention to the fact that a number of States deemed that the communities best know the most appropriate scale and scope of a specific context. In this respect, States had a particularly important task to explain to the communities the purposes for which a certain element of their intangible cultural heritage is of interest. The working group also gave substantial attention to the question of extending the scope of an existing inscription on one of the Convention’s lists, concurring in the idea that a provision be made in the Operational Directives for the extension of an inscription within a single State Party, complementing the existing provision for one or more States to join an existing inscription. Such a directive would help States Parties define the appropriate scale and scope of an element corresponding to the objectives of the list concerned. The working group reached a consensus on the principle of welcoming the possibility of enlarging existing inscriptions. Certain experts expressed concern on the dissuasive aspects of the procedure for enlargement of multinational nomination files. Other experts believed that the extension of an element should not be a simple administrative exercise but rather involve broad consultations with all the communities concerned and obtain their free, prior and informed consent on the new extended nomination. The Committee could also consider the possibility that one or more of the communities concerned might withdraw their consent from an inscription of either a multinational or national file. The Chairperson reiterated his thanks to the government of Japan for its generous voluntary contribution to the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund that
enabled the meeting to take place, as well as the four experts for their work on the discussion papers, and the participants for their spirit of openness.
939. The Chairperson thanked Mr Tafuri for the report and his excellent leadership during the working group. He also congratulated the working group for its fruitful discussions, adding that it was crucial to reflect and exchange opinions separately from the Committee and other decision-making organs.
940. The delegation of Japan also wished to thank Mr Tafuri for the report and his excellent leadership, as well as the four international experts for their presentations. The delegation spoke of the fruitful discussions on the right scale and scope of an element and the mechanisms to treat similar elements. With regard to the procedure of extending an element, as provided for in paragraph 14 of the Operational Directives, the delegation welcomed the consensus in the working group that such procedures should be broadened to include elements found within the territory of a single State Party, which would allow States Parties to find elements of an appropriate scale or scope.
941. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the issue of extensions would be covered under item 13.c.
942. The delegation of Latvia highly appreciated the report as it reflected well the essential conclusions of the working group, and thanked Japan for making the meeting possible. Due to the differences in linguistics and policy frameworks, the delegation found it evident that national discourses on intangible cultural heritage should be developed in each State independently. The delegation found that the questions outlined in paragraph 10 of the document were good points of reference. With regard to the 10 parameters elaborated by Prof. Kono, the delegation found them useful in defining communities and the right scale and scope of elements. The delegation also supported the notion of ‘shared heritage’, which had a huge potential to create new platforms for building intercultural dialogue among countries that go beyond making lists.
943. The delegation of Indonesia thanked Mr Tafuri for his chairmanship of the working group and his excellent summary, adding that the meeting had stimulated those present to reflect upon on the important issue of scale and scope of an element.
944. The Chairperson remarked that States Parties seemed to be aware of the importance of defining properly proportioned elements based on their specific purpose, adding that the communities themselves had to be the primary actors in the identification process. The Chairperson then turned to the draft decision and its adoption as a whole. The delegation of Indonesia agreed with the adoption of the decision in its entirety.
945. With no objections, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 11.COM 13.b.
ITEM 13.c OF THE AGENDA :
REFLECTION ON THE PROCEDURE FOR EXTENDED INSCRIPTION OF AN ELEMENT THAT