Decision 9.COM 9
151. The Chairperson introduced the next agenda item 9 by inviting the Chairperson of the Consultative Body, Mr Egil Sigmund Bakka (Norway), and the Rapporteur, Ms Naila Ceribašić (International Council for Traditional Music (ICTM)), to join him on the podium.
The Chairperson recalled that this Consultative Body was established by the Committee at its eighth session in Baku to evaluate: i) nominations to Urgent Safeguarding List; ii)
proposals for Best Safeguarding Practices; and iii) requests for International Assistance of more than US$25,000. The Chairperson outlined the examination process in which the Rapporteur of the Consultative Body, Ms Ceribašić, would first present the Body’s general observations, followed by those specific to the Urgent Safeguarding List. The Committee would then be invited to debate agenda items 9 and 9.a, without examining draft decision 9.COM 9, which would be examined once all nominations and requests for all three mechanisms had been examined. Mr Bakka would introduce each nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List, summarizing the main points and recommendations of the Consultative Body. The Committee would discuss each nomination and adopt the corresponding draft decision. The same procedure would be followed for item 9.b (Best Safeguarding Practices) and item 9.c (requests for International Assistance). The draft decisions 9.COM 9.b and 9.COM 9.c would be discussed following the examination of the files concerned, which would be followed by the examination of the overall decision 9.COM 9. Recalling the working methods adopted by the Committee, the Chairperson recalled that the debate on the draft decisions was restricted to Members of the Committee. He also recalled Article 22.4 of the Rules of Procedure in which the submitting State, whether Member or not of the Committee, could not intervene to support its file, but only to provide information in response to the questions raised. Since the Committee’s sixth session in Bali in 2011, it was agreed that the Committee would not accept new or additional information presented by the submitting State during the session.
Only clarification of information already included in the file evaluated by the Consultative Body would be permitted. This would ensure fair treatment of nomination files between submitting States. It was noted that some States had already withdrawn their files for revision and submission in a subsequent cycle. Finally, the submitting State would be granted two minutes to speak following the Committee’s decision on its file. With no comments forthcoming, Ms Ceribašić was invited to present her report.
152. The Rapporteur, Ms Naila Ceribašić, spoke of her pleasure in introducing the overall report of the Consultative Body on its work in 2014, explaining that the written report was comprised of four parts. She began with a brief overview of the working methods and the files examined by the Consultative Body. Part I.A: ‘Overview of 2014 files and working methods.’ The Body was composed of 12 members; six were individual experts and six persons representing accredited NGOs. At its first meeting in March 2013, the Body elected Mr Egil Sigmund Bakka (Norway) as Chairperson and Ms Emily Drani of the Cross-cultural Foundation of Uganda as Vice-Chairperson. Ms Ceribašić (from ICTM) was elected as Rapporteur. As for the previous cycles, the Secretariat evaluated the technical completeness of the nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and proposals to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, without entering into the substance of the files.
However, the Secretariat gave more substantial feedback on the International Assistance requests. Altogether, 15 files were processed by the Secretariat and 14 were transmitted to the Consultative Body (eight for the Urgent Safeguarding List, four for the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices and two for International Assistance). Before meeting for the second time in September 2014, members of the Body submitted their evaluation reports directly through the dedicated website. Based on those evaluation reports, draft recommendations were elaborated by the Secretariat. During the meeting, the Body collectively evaluated each nomination, and debated and amended the recommendations on each criterion, deciding whether or not to recommend the nomination or request. As is the custom, the Body based its evaluations entirely on the information provided in the nomination. An unfavourable recommendation meant that the submitting State had not provided convincing information in the nomination file to satisfy one or more criteria. It was noted that Body members would not be permitted to participate in the evaluation of any nomination file submitted by the country of domiciliation of his or her NGO or by his or her country, and there were two such cases in this cycle. Moreover, of the members initially elected, Ms Kris Rampersad was unable to serve the Body due to her appointment as the representative of Trinidad and Tobago on the UNESCO Executive Board. Mr Anthony
Parak Krond completed the evaluation of all the files but was unable to participate in the September meeting due to a visa problem.
153. The Rapporteur turned to the general observations and recommendations common to all three mechanisms. Part I.B: ‘General observations and recommendations.’ The Body was impressed with the diversity of intangible cultural heritage, and a reasonable geographical balance that had been maintained, with all electoral groups represented by at least one file.
But the limited number of files submitted to these three mechanisms continued to be a subject of concern. In this regard, the Body emphasized the importance of the global capacity-building programme, whose effects were increasingly visible. The Body was also pleased to learn that two African countries were benefitting from technical support through the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund to prepare International Assistance requests, and that others will follow. The Body observed that certain States expected an inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List to automatically result in International Assistance. It was noted that each mechanism in this cycle was independent with no gateway between them.
However, this would change in the future, as a new joint form becomes introduced.
Beginning with the 2016 cycle, a State may propose a nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List and simultaneously request International Assistance to support implementation of its safeguarding plan. During the meeting the Body had a chance to comment on the new joint form, and it was confident that this new procedure would be helpful. In terms of the presentation of files, the Body regretted a number of recurring problems such as poor linguistic quality, misplaced information, and incoherency across different sections of the nomination. Furthermore, there were several files demonstrating a lack of adequate knowledge of the Convention with the use of inappropriate vocabulary or references to concepts that were more in line with the 1972 Convention or the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
154. The Rapporteur further explained that the Body invited submitting States to carefully follow the instructions given in the form and to refer to advice made available in previous Committee decisions. In this regard, the newly published aide-mémoire, which summarized lessons learned, observations and recommendations, represented a useful tool and the Body thanked the Secretariat for its efforts in preparing this document. With regard to the content of the files, the definition of a ‘community’ continued to be a major discussion theme, given that the participation of the community, group or individuals is a common criterion for all three mechanisms. When the communities were not well defined, then unsurprisingly their widest possible participation was not easily demonstrated. It was also important as a prerequisite for satisfying other related criteria for all three mechanisms. The Body also reflected on the contours of a given community, and that external audiences, such as tourists, could not be automatically considered as part of the community concerned, although the Body was also aware that intangible cultural heritage was viable thanks to the intricate social dynamics of a diverse set of actors. The Body again highlighted the importance of clearly describing the role of each actor when preparing submissions.
155. The Rapporteur also noted that there were several files this year in which economic considerations appeared prioritized over safeguarding objectives. While recognizing their potential value, measures such as income generation, remuneration to practitioners or expansion of audiences could not automatically be considered safeguarding measures without clear argumentation. In a similar vein, the issue of de-contextualization was discussed in connection with proposed commercialization, tourism-related activities and the institutionalization of transmission. The Body felt strongly that respect for the social and cultural context must be the priority when it comes to safeguarding measures and that intangible cultural heritage should not be maintained only for the enjoyment of or profit for those outside the communities. In conformity with the decision adopted by the General Assembly at the fifth session, the Rapporteur confirmed that this was the last cycle in which the Body would evaluate the three mechanisms. A single body, the Evaluation Body, would in the future evaluate files for the Convention’s four mechanisms, including the Representative List. Based on experience obtained over the years, document 9 contained
several points that the Body wished to highlight, which included the need to continue discussing recurrent issues, the larger implications of the 2003 Convention such as the role of intangible cultural heritage for sustainable development, and encouraging the future Evaluation Body to reflect on the best ways to evaluate the files submitted. The Body wished the very best for the new members of the Evaluation Body to be elected later in the week.
156. The Rapporteur introduced Part II: ‘Specific observations concerning the eight nominations evaluated for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List.’ Beginning with a brief summary of the observations concerning each criterion, the Rapporteur noted the main issue encountered in criterion U.1 was the recurrent problem of submitting States not clearly defining the element. In some cases the Body found that the scope of the element was too large or too vague. When the element is not clearly defined, then the contour of the community, the viability of the element, and the threats that it faced cannot be satisfactorily defined. In other words, a weak definition of Criterion U.1 has consequences in the evaluation of criteria U.2 and U.4. The Body thus invited the States to be attentive to the
‘right’ scale and scope of the element. Problems related to the definition of the element also included the question of the role of the various actors involved. The Body understood that communities concerned with an element could include the larger population, such as an external audience, but the lack of a clear definition in certain files was problematic in understanding their involvement and role in ensuring the viability of the element proposed.
The Body also found cases in which the nomination concentrated on historical characteristics or technical aspects, while omitting to describe the social function and cultural meaning of the proposed element within the community in its contemporary context.
There was also a case where economic benefit appeared to be the primary reason offered for safeguarding. The Body highlighted once again the need to strike a balance between cultural significance, social function and economic development.
157. As regards criterion U.2, the Rapporteur reported that the Body regretted that in more than half of the submitted nominations the viability of the element and the frequency of its practice were not sufficiently demonstrated. The submitting States were encouraged to describe the current status and situation of the element; information considered essential when evaluating safeguarding measures. The Body also observed that there was a tendency for States to list the threats in an overly generic way, for example evoking an ageing population, disinterest of the younger generation, and diminishing number of bearers. The Body recalled the need for the threats to be identified at the community level, which must be specific to the element. The threats also need to correspond to the measures proposed under criterion U.3. The Body often had prolonged discussion on criterion U.3, even though the criterion was satisfied in half of the nomination files. The numerous issues include concerns over choosing top-down or generic safeguarding measures, not fully involving communities in developing the safeguarding plan, as well as using out-dated historical information for planning. The Body reiterated the importance of identifying realistic resources and providing a detailed budget for the safeguarding plan, recalling that an inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List did not automatically result in the granting of international assistance. Although it was not possible to standardize a format for budgets in the safeguarding plan, the Body requested the Secretariat to share examples of good budgets. Another set of questions in U.3 concerned the issue of traditional transmission versus integration into the formal school curriculum. The Body was of view that the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage required new ways of transmission that should be done in context, and communities should not be dispossessed of their own transmission processes.
158. The Rapporteur moved to criterion U.4, and the recurrent problem in the lack of community participation in the elaboration of the safeguarding plan. The Body wished to remind submitting States that the widest possible participation of the community, group or individuals should be ensured throughout the whole file: in the definition of the element; the assessment of its viability; the identification of threats; the planning and design of safeguarding measures; and in the elaboration of the inventory. Concerning the
communities free, prior and informed consent, the Body regretted that submitting States continued to submit uniform consents and declarations rather than individualized and diverse evidence of consent. It highlighted the need to demonstrate consent from various actors within the community and not only by institutions or associations. Moreover, the Body often found scant information or none at all on customary restrictions on access to certain esoteric knowledge. There was also one case where the Body noticed a discrepancy between the written consent and what was shown in the film. Criterion U.5 continued to be problematic, affecting half of the nomination files. The Body recalled that U.5 has three parts. In line with Article 11 and Article 12 of the Convention, submitting States should demonstrate: i) that the element is included in an inventory; ii) that it was drawn up with the participation of communities; and iii) that it is regularly updated. The Body attempted to apply consistency in the evaluation of U.5 across all nomination files, but decided that deficiencies in one or more parts of this three-part criterion could not alone be the basis for rejection. It should nevertheless be emphasized that the participation of community members in the nomination process does not automatically mean that they were involved in the inventory process and vice versa. Several aspects of the video also attracted the attention of the Body. The video should help viewers understand the social functions and cultural meanings of the element in its context, and to meet its practitioners and experience the element. In this regard, submitting States should strive to provide information to contextualize what is shown in the video; care must be taken not to cut the flow of a selected excerpt and to avoid using soundtracks that are not related to the context of the practice. The Body also reiterated the importance of mobilizing all actors involved in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage, including those outside the culture sector. It encouraged States to ensure that nominated elements respect existing international human rights instruments, which was sometimes not addressed in the files.
159. Taking all eight files submitted for the Urgent Safeguarding List, the Rapporteur concluded that the Body was happy to note evidence of the commitment of States to the well-being of small, rural and indigenous communities that are under social and economic stress, as well as their efforts in demonstrating the role played by intangible cultural heritage in sustainable development, cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue, and links between nature and the environment. On the issues of transmission of intangible cultural heritage from generation to generation, the Body was also pleased to see a nomination that demonstrated cross-gender transmission from father to daughter.
160. The Chairperson thanked the Rapporteur for the pertinent points raised, opening the floor for a general debate on the first part of the report.
161. The delegation of Belgium congratulated the Consultative Body for its excellent work and its very interesting recommendations and conclusions, adding that it had a number of small points for further discussion. Firstly, regarding paragraph 24 of document ITH/14/9.COM/9.a on consent, the delegation felt that various actors in the community, not only institutions or associations, act as mediators or community representatives and should provide their consent. It believed that the Committee should develop these ideas further because mediators were often shown in a negative light when in fact they could really contribute to the safeguarding plans and programmes. Moreover, mediators could serve as cultural brokers and translators, and therefore the whole concept of who could represent the community in terms of the safeguarding procedure could be further reflected upon.
Secondly, regarding paragraphs 36 and 37 of the afore mentioned document on human rights, especially gender issues, the delegation wondered about the definition of gender being applied, i.e. was it only the difference between men and women, or could it also relate to the gay or lesbian community, and was the definition of masculinity covered by the gender dimension. The delegation raised another more general question about sustainable development, especially when talking about the role a particular element could play in sustainable development. It felt that there were larger possibilities to rethink the relations between safeguarding and sustainable development, and it agreed with the comments that perhaps the very limited amount of words provided in the form did not really allow State Parties to develop these arguments, and therefore it welcomed further reflection in this
regard. The delegation understood that these points would be discussed later in the agenda, but it wished to hear comments and conclusions on examining the relationship between intangible heritage, safeguarding and sustainable development.
162. The delegation of Congo joined Belgium in commending the Consultative Body on the objective and unbiased nature of its work based on the specific criteria. In this way, it had provided a great service to the Convention. It believed that the Evaluation Body would continue to work with the same determination in a same spirit of objectivity. With regard to paragraph 36 of document ITH/14/9.COM/9, it wondered whether the Consultative Body, in its evaluation of a nomination, should carry out field observations or whether should it be satisfied with the submitted files.
163. The delegation of Brazil also wished to congratulate the Consultative Body for its excellent report and work, adding that it had three specific questions. The first was in line with the
163. The delegation of Brazil also wished to congratulate the Consultative Body for its excellent report and work, adding that it had three specific questions. The first was in line with the