Decision 7.COM 13.d
971. The Chairperson recalled that the item on a reflection on the use of the emblem of the Convention had been included in the agenda at the request of Belgium.
972. The delegation of Belgium explained that it sought to strike the right balance between raising awareness on intangible cultural heritage at the national level (without creating extra work for States Parties and the Secretariat) and the obligation to protect the credibility of the Convention by monitoring the proper use of the emblem. The delegation remarked on the frustration among stakeholders caused by a lack of information about and misunderstanding of the attribution of the emblem. For example, it was not known by Belgian authorities that the emblem could be used for a longer but limited time for a particular event or activity. The delegation did not agree with the proposal by the Secretariat to delegate the national use of the emblem to National Commissions for UNESCO, and thus submitted a proposal that took into account two aspects: i) the need for clear communication with States Parties on the use of the emblem; and ii) the need for proper reporting on the use of the emblem in line with Art. 15014 of the Operational Directives.
973. Representative of the Secretary, Mr Proschan explained that the Secretariat was aware of the frustration encountered by a number of requestors who wished to use the emblem of the Convention but were not authorized to do so. It was also regrettable that the Secretariat was unable to authorize its use due to late or technical deficiencies in the requests. The document proposed was therefore an effort to propose a mechanism resulting from the correspondence with Belgium, as well as the Secretariat’s experience in processing requests. Mr Proschan informed the Committee that a total of 27 inquiries had been received so far: 14 formal requests of which 12 had been granted. Thus, two formal requests were denied and 13 more were turned down at the initial inquiry stage.
Mr Proschan explained that a request to use the emblem that was completely inappropriate would be immediately reported to the submitting State by the Secretariat. Also, should the inquiry come less than 90 days before its planned use, the Secretariat would promptly decline the request. Thirteen requests out of a total of 27 received were thus declined at the initial screening stage. Twelve out of the 14 formal requests were however successful. Two requests from Belgium and Croatia were declined because they did not comply with the Operational Directives. Of the formal requests approved, the average time from receipt to the Director General’s signature was 42 calendar days or 6 weeks. The fastest being 26 days and the slowest 68 days – though still below the 90-day benchmark. Mr Proschan further explained that although the 6-week delay might appear long, it was by no means unprecedented. One third of the requests were for ongoing or permanent activities and were not punctual, as stipulated in the Operational Directives, as highlighted by Belgium.
Two-fifths arrived too late, others lacked the basic information required, and one-tenth were for inappropriate commercial activities. Noting that half of the original inquiries were declined because they were inappropriate, Belgium had requested the Secretariat to increase efforts to disseminate clear instructions and conditions on the use of the Convention emblem, currently available on the Convention website. Nevertheless, the Secretariat welcomed any suggestions that would improve visibility in the dissemination of information on the associated procedures.
974. The delegation of Brazil felt that it was a mistake to link the Convention emblem to the UNESCO emblem in the Operational Directives, which meant that the use of the emblem was somewhat restricted. The delegation believed that the emblem should be used and seen as many places as possible so as to increase the visibility of intangible cultural
14 . Art. 150 of the Operational Directives: The Secretariat and the States Parties should closely cooperate in order to prevent any unauthorized use of the emblem of the Convention at the national level, in liaison with competent national bodies and in line with the present Operational Directives.
heritage. The delegation agreed with the proposal by Belgium but that greater reflection was also necessary.
975. The delegation of Grenada agreed that greater visibility was needed, but that misuse of the emblem should be controlled and monitored through an appropriate mechanism. The delegation was aware that other conventions were not linked to the UNESCO logo, adding that the Committee could reflect on this issue and bring it to the attention of the General Assembly.
976. Moving to the adoption of the draft decision, the Chairperson invited Spain and Belgium to present their respective amendments.
977. The delegation of Spain had submitted an amendment to the Secretariat that would appear after the current paragraph 4, which dealt with the concern of over-commercialization and the organization of a working group to discuss the issue.
978. The delegation of Belgium thanked the Secretariat for the information given on the emblem requests, adding that the low number of requests only strengthened its resolve to propose the amendment, which would delete the existing paragraph 5 and introduce two new paragraphs 6 and 7. Paragraph 6 sought better communication with States Parties on the procedures for the use of the emblem, and paragraph 7 reminded States Parties of their reporting requirements in this regard, which may also be included in the periodic reports.
979. The delegation of Indonesia spoke of its surprise at the two amendments presented, as they contravened the present Operational Directives, particularly as the issue of the emblem had been thoroughly debated since 2007. The delegation was satisfied with the explanation by the Secretariat in that those correctly applying to use the emblem are granted the authorization. The delegation suggested that those wishing to revise the Operational Directives should propose to discuss the issue at another meeting, but that an open-ended intergovernmental working group was unnecessary.
980. The delegation of Nigeria welcomed any productive discussion as well as the open-ended working group initiative, but that the source of the financial voluntary contributions for the meeting should be explicit specified.
981. The delegation of Brazil felt that there was some confusion between paragraphs 116 and 117 of the Operational Directives (on commercial activities and commercial misappropriation respectively) relative to the second part of the paragraph with regard to the use of the emblem. The delegation welcomed the opportunity of the working group to discuss commercial activities related to intangible cultural heritage, but felt that the decision was not the right place to initiate the recommendation.
982. The delegation of Grenada wondered which amendments were under discussion.
983. The Chairperson proposed to move to the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis and open the debate when comments were forthcoming.
984. The delegation of Czech Republic thanked Belgium for its proposal to set some clear rules with regard to the use of the emblem, but felt that it might complicate the situation even further, suggesting that the directives be clearly highlighted and recalled.
985. The Chairperson turned to paragraphs 1–3 of the draft decision, which were duly adopted.
986. With regard to the new paragraph 4, the delegation of Grenada found the word
‘complex’ unnecessary, as the procedures would not be ‘complex’ once clearly understood.
The delegation of Indonesia supported Grenada’s revision to the paragraph.
987. With no further comments or objections the Chairperson pronounced the new paragraph 4 adopted, and turned to paragraph 5 and the amendment proposed by Spain.
988. The delegation of Latvia supported Spain’s proposal, but wished to delete the latter part of the sentence after ‘Convention’.
989. The delegation of Grenada did not see the need for an open-ended working group to further discuss the issue when paragraphs 116 and 117 dealt specifically with the commercial activities related to intangible cultural heritage.
990. Agreeing with Latvia’s proposal, the delegation of Peru welcomed Spain’s initiative for an open-ended working group, but that the latter part of the sentence should be dealt with elsewhere.
991. The delegation of Brazil proposed the following,’ to discuss about the use of the emblem of the Convention, including its commercialization’.
992. The delegation of Czech Republic wished to include a sentence that reminded States Parties to reflect on the definition of the use of the emblem and then convene the working group. However, with time and resource limitations, the delegation wondered whether it was a good time to convene the meeting.
993. The delegation of Indonesia supported Grenada earlier amendment to delete the paragraph based on the fact that the provision was already contained in the Operational Directives.
994. The delegation of Belgium clarified that its amendment was based on the circulation of information and that it did not wish to change the current Operational Directives. It therefore proposed to delete the paragraph on the working group meeting, but if maintained it should be placed as the final paragraph and begin with ‘encourages’, while keeping the reference to voluntary contributions.
995. Referring to paragraphs 140 and 143 of the Operational Directives, the delegation of Madagascar noted that the conditions covering the commercial use of the emblem were already covered and defined. It therefore did not consider the moment to convene the working group as opportune.
996. The delegation of Spain explained that its amendment addressed a voiced concern on the issue, which was not fully covered in the Operational Directives, but was willing to withdraw its proposal.
997. The delegation of Azerbaijan also supported the position by Grenada and Indonesia.
998. The Chairperson turned to the new paragraph 5 proposed by Belgium.
999. The delegation of Brazil wished to retain the original text that requested the Secretariat to propose possible amendments to the Operational Directives, which would have benefitted from inputs from the working group, but to stop at ‘session’. The delegation also suggested alternative phrasing to the Belgium proposal, which would read, ‘Requests the Secretariat to make available the information to the States Parties on the use of the emblem of the Convention’.
1000. The Chairperson noted that the proposal would become the new paragraph 6.
The delegation of Belgium accepted the new wording.
1001. The delegation of Grenada wondered whether the Secretariat was clear on how it would be expected to ‘make available the information’ since the information was already online and contained in the Operational Directives. The delegation also supported the amendment by Brazil to stop at ‘session’, i.e. deleting ‘in order that such amended Directives might facilitate the use of the Convention emblem alongside the logo of a National Commission for UNESCO (which incorporates the UNESCO logo)’, adding that the two emblems were already linked, particularly as the emblem was known with the UNESCO logo.
1002. The Legal Adviser clarified that the Convention emblem and the UNESCO logo were already protected by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Under the Operational Directives, the Convention’s emblem should be associated with the UNESCO logo. Any dissociation required a change in the Operational Directives, which had
been largely debated at the General Conference and the General Assembly. Referring to Belgium’s proposal, the Legal Adviser explained that the dissemination of information was a general request and that the Secretariat could work on ways to facilitate its circulation. He considered however that it was too early to discuss the issue, even though the Secretariat was available to entertain suggestions. Nevertheless, the Legal Adviser found no judicial impediment to the amendments proposed.
1003. With regard to the question of information dissemination, the Secretary suggested that States Parties manage their own national internal communication, while the Secretariat disseminated the information, i.e. through the website, which was already available as a step-by-step guide. Nonetheless, the Secretariat was open to any suggestion that would improve the circulation of information.
1004. The Chairperson then turned to the new paragraph 5 proposed by Belgium. The delegation of China supported the new paragraph, but explained that the mention of ‘States Parties, national commissions and/or duly designated authorities’ was incorrect since national commissions and authorities are within States Parties, suggesting instead ‘States Parties through National Commissions’.
1005. The Chairperson thanked China for the clarification, and with no further comments or objections, paragraph 5 as amended was adopted.
1006. With regard to paragraph 6 proposed by Brazil, the delegation of Belgium wished to clarify whether the Committee sought to facilitate the use of the emblem or wish to have further discussion on its use. The delegation of Brazil clarified that the proposal was to maintain the original wording of the draft decision and thus referred to facilitating the use of the emblem.
1007. The delegation of Grenada remarked that the Committee had not accepted the concrete proposal in the original paragraph, and that any revision of the Operational Directives required a thorough discussion in order to guide any possible modifications. The delegation proposed stopping at ‘present session’.
1008. The delegation of Madagascar remarked that the Secretariat was already
‘requested’ in paragraph 5 to provide clear instructions on the use of the emblem, which would involve a summary of paragraphs 140–143 of the Operational Directives, such that paragraph 6 was contradictory. The Chairperson agreed with Madagascar that there was a slight contradiction in the two paragraphs.
1009. The delegation of Peru remarked that paragraph 5 already requested the Secretariat to provide clear information, whose feedback would help the Secretariat propose possible amendments, suggesting that the proposal be deleted.
1010. In light of the discussion, the delegation of Brazil withdrew its proposal.
1011. With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 7.COM 13.d.
1012. Following a number of announcements, the Chairperson adjourned the session.
[Friday 6 December, morning session]
ITEM 12.c OF THE AGENDA (CONT.) :
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR THE 2013 CYCLE (PARAGRAPH 29 OF THE OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVES) AND ADOPTION OF ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE
Document ITH/12/7.COM/12.c Decision 7.COM 12.c
1013. Thanking Mr Ahmed Skounti for his chairmanship of the previous evening’s session, the Chairperson turned to the unfinished business of draft decision 7.COM 12.c
regarding the establishment of the Subsidiary Body for the 2013 cycle, with electoral Group IV having reached consensus.
1014. The delegation of China proposed Japan as member of the Subsidiary Body.
1015. With no objections, the Chairperson declared 7.COM 12.c adopted.
ITEM 14 OF THE AGENDA :
MECHANISM FOR SHARING INFORMATION TO ENCOURAGE MULTINATIONAL