ITH/12/7.COM/INF.7 Decision 7.COM 7
405. The Chairperson then turned to the draft decision 7.COM 7, recalling that the decision was a result of the observations made by the Consultative Body on the three mechanisms it examined, as presented by the Rapporteur in her report on Monday. It also presented a number of general issues raised during the debates. The Chairperson summarized them as follows: i) the increasing number of States Parties emphasizing the contribution of intangible cultural heritage to sustainable development; ii) the importance of taking into account the relevant decisions of the Committee and reports of its two advisory bodies when preparing and submitting files; iii) the importance of not only providing all the necessary information but of providing it in the proper place; iv) the spirit of mutual respect that should guide the preparation of files; v) the key role that communities play in both the preparation of files and the planning and implementation of safeguarding measures, and the need for States Parties to find creative ways to ensure their widest possible participation; vi) the request to the Secretariat to filter out any file that has been substituted in place of the original file midway through the process.
406. With regard to the second point, the Chairperson recalled that the Secretariat had compiled an information document, which indexed the previous reports of the advisory bodies as well as the previous decisions of the Committee concerning a number of transversal issues, adding that States should take heed of that history. The Secretariat would duly update the document to reflect all the decisions taken during the present session. The Chairperson also recalled that a general debate on the above issues had already taken place [on Monday] following the Consultative Body’s oral report. The Chairperson therefore invited Committee members to consider any general considerations on the three mechanisms that they would like to introduce into the draft decision.
407. The delegation of Brazil spoke of the meticulous work of the Consultative Body that was going in the right direction with regard to Best Safeguarding Practices and Urgent Safeguarding List. However, despite the good evaluations by the Consultative Body on the international assistance requests, the delegation felt that the guidelines were too strict, arising in a situation where funds were available but the requests were not approved. The delegation felt unhappy that a number of States Parties in real need of resources had found their requests declined, adding that the Committee should reflect on a possible revision of the guidelines or how to better assist States Parties in submitting more successful files.
408. The delegation of Belgium recalled the long discussions on commercial activities, safeguarding and sustainable development, noting Morocco proposal to refer to paragraphs 116 and 117 of the Operational Directives under the chapeau of commercial activities related to intangible cultural heritage. The delegation believed that more guidance was needed and proposed to insert a new paragraph 6 to the draft decision, which would read:
‘Taking note of the discussions about safeguarding, commercialization and sustainable development, the Committee invites the Secretariat to propose draft directives about this topic for the next session of the Committee, elaborating among others paragraphs 116 and 117 of the Operational Directives’.
409. The Chairperson remarked that the proposals would be dealt with when going through the individual paragraphs.
410. Returning to the decision on Nigeria’s request for international assistance, the delegation of Nigeria reassured the Committee that all the observations would be taken into account in the resubmission of its file.
411. Approving the spirit of the decision, the delegation of Grenada noted the reference to former decisions and reports when preparing files, adding that it was not always easy for States Parties. The delegation wished to introduce two recommendations that had been apparent during the examination of the two files, namely, that States Parties develop a more sustainable safeguarding plan with focused activities within a feasible timeline and clearly identified budget sources, as well as to recall that inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List did not imply the granting of financial assistance from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund.
412. The delegation of Indonesia concurred with Brazil’s remarks regarding the non-disbursement of available funds for international assistance requests. However, it recognized the strict rules in UNESCO in this regard, which could not be modified. In this way, emphasis should be placed on capacity-building and information-sharing in the preparation of requests for international assistance.
413. The Chairperson then turned to the draft decision 7.COM 7 on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. There was no change to paragraph-by-paragraphs 1–5, which were duly adopted. The Chairperson then introduced the proposal by Belgium [new paragraph 6]. The delegation of Morocco supported Belgium’s proposal.
414. The delegation of Latvia also supported Belgium’s proposal, adding that the issue of sustainability was indeed a recurrent issue. The delegation of China supported Belgium’s proposal with an amendment to delete ‘the Committee’ as the decision itself was taken on behalf of the Committee. The delegation of Grenada supported the amendment.
415. With no further comments or amendments, the Chairperson pronounced paragraph 6 adopted. There was no change to new paragraphs 7–9, which were duly adopted.
416. The delegation of Grenada referred to the decisions from the two files 7.COM 8.5 and 7.COM 8.9 and sought to introduce them into the draft decision, which would read:
‘Invites the State Party to develop sustainable safeguarding plans with more focused activities, feasible timeline and clearly identified sources of budget.’
417. The delegation of Egypt sought an explanation on the rationale of the amendment.
418. The delegation of Grenada explained that the issue was a recurrent problem in many submitted files, with the amendment recalling the importance of being attentive to these points. The delegations of Belgium and Latvia supported the proposal. The delegation of Indonesia also supported the proposal and suggested ‘timelines’.
419. The delegation of Uganda also supported the proposal and suggested ‘further encourages’, which was supported by Japan. The delegation of Morocco agreed with the proposal but had a slight reservation about the reference to ‘sustainable safeguarding’, as the term did not exist in the Convention and as such had not been defined, suggesting instead ‘a sustainable plan of safeguarding’.
420. Noting a consensus for Grenada’s proposal with the amendment by Uganda, the Chairperson pronounced adopted the new paragraph 10.
421. The delegation of Grenada wished to propose a second amendment as paragraph 11 taken from decision 7.COM 8.6 and 7.COM 8.9, which would read: ‘Recalls that the inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding does not imply the granting of financial assistance from the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund’.
422. The Chairperson noted support for the proposal from Peru, Belgium, Nigeria, Czech Republic and Indonesia. With no objections, paragraph 10 was adopted.
423. The Chairperson turned to the new paragraph 12 [former paragraph 9], which was duly adopted. With no change to the new paragraph 13, it was also adopted.
424. The delegation of Peru proposed a final paragraph, which read: ‘Encourages the States Parties to request preparatory assistance for the development of proposals in accordance with paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Operational Directives’.
425. The delegation of Spain thanked Peru for the proposal, which was in line with its own proposal and also covered Brazil’s earlier remark on international assistance. The delegation was similarly disheartened to note that only two requests had been approved from the ten requests submitted, particularly from those countries needing urgent assistance to safeguard their intangible cultural heritage. The delegation suggested a series of training options be developed for the preparation of the application requests.
426. The delegation of Morocco supported the proposal by Peru, adding that the Committee should also regret the limited number of inscriptions and approvals, while emphasizing the importance of capacity-building in this regard. The delegation also suggested ‘nominations’ in place of ‘proposals’.
427. Supporting Peru’s proposal, the delegation of Grenada noted that capacity-building was not the sole problem, adding that nomination forms should be clear in the information they sought, as information not contained under the right section was not considered in the evaluation. The delegation therefore suggested that the Secretariat look into clarifying the instructions under the sections of the nomination form.
428. The delegation of Brazil concurred with the remarks by Spain on international assistance, and supported the proposal by Peru. The delegation of Kyrgyzstan also supported Peru’s proposal. The delegation of Namibia supported Peru’s proposal and endorsed the remarks made by Spain on strengthening the capacity of States Parties in the preparation of good application requests.
429. The delegation of Uruguay supported Spain’s position and others who considered that the approval of requests should be the rule and not the exception, which would ultimately fulfil the objectives of the Convention.
430. For the sake of clarity, the Secretary explained that ‘preparatory assistance’ was a financial assistance under the Operational Directives, which was granted solely under two mechanisms: the preparation of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices. Additionally, the wording ‘development of nominations’ referred specifically to the two lists; the Secretary surmising that the proposal
wished to make reference to requests for international assistance. With this in mind, the Secretary suggested changing the wording to reflect the idea that the Committee encourages the Secretariat to facilitate the submission by States Parties of international assistance requests.
431. The delegation of Tunisia agreed that the formulation could resolve the problems encountered in the preparation of the nominations, while clarifying that the assistance sought was of a technical nature.
432. The delegation of Japan suggested the ‘elaboration of nominations’.
433. The delegation of Belgium drew attention to inconsistencies in the wording, for example ‘candidatures’ in the French version was not a term officially used in the texts.
434. Taking into consideration Peru’s proposal, as well as the suggestions from Committee members, the Secretary suggested the following, ‘Encourages States Parties to request technical assistance from the Secretariat and from other States Parties for the elaboration of nominations, proposals and particularly requests for international assistance’.
435. The delegation of Burkina Faso expressed slight reservations about the paragraph as it suggested that the Secretariat did not at present offer technical assistance to States Parties. The delegation remarked on the success of its own file, which had been greatly aided by the assistance and availability of the Secretariat, while commenting on the welcome addition of ‘States Parties’ in offering assistance.
436. The Chairperson thanked Burkina Faso for its thoughtful observation. The delegation of Burkina Faso nevertheless supported the proposal.
437. The delegation of Grenada concurred with the remarks by Burkina Faso, noting that the amendment was not in line with Peru’s proposal, and suggested alternative wording, which was subsequently withdrawn.
438. The delegation of Indonesia concurred with the remarks by the Secretariat on preparatory assistance, and supported the paragraph proposed. The delegations of Nigeria and Uganda also supported the proposal.
439. The delegation of Peru remarked that its original proposal focused on Art. 18 and Art. 19 of the Operational Directives in which States Parties were encouraged to seek preparatory assistance for the drafting of nominations, which best reflected the spirit of the Convention.
440. The Chairperson suggested a paragraph that introduced the reference to the stated articles.
441. In light of the remarks by Burkina Faso, the delegation of Morocco proposed,
‘Reminds States Parties that the Secretariat is available to provide assistance in the preparation of nominations, proposals and requests submitted to the Committee’. The delegation added that ‘proposals for inscription’ had not been used in the 2003 Convention so as to distinguish it from the 1972 Convention.
442. The Chairperson was unhappy with the proposed wording, requesting a representative of the Secretariat, Burkina Faso, Peru and Indonesia to form a small sub-committee to draft a paragraph that reflected the discussion and to return later in the session with its proposal.
ITEM 11 OF THE AGENDA:
REPORT OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODY ON ITS WORK IN 2012 AND EXAMINATION OF