Decision: 13.COM 10
377. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that in the previous day’s session it had adopted Decision 13.COM 10.b.41 to inscribe ‘Traditional Korean wrestling (Ssirum/Ssireum)’ on the Representative List, and he thanked everyone for the spirit of cooperation that made this historic inscription possible. The Chairperson then resumed the examination of item 10 and the report of the Evaluation Body on its work in 2018. He took the opportunity to note the generous contribution of the Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud Foundation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in support of Arabic interpretation during the examination of nominations, proposals and requests. The Chairperson then invited the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, Mr John Moogi Omare from Kenya, the Vice-Chairperson, Mr Eivind Falk from the Norwegian Crafts Institute, and the Rapporteur, Ms Eva Kuminkova from the Czech Ethnological Society to join the podium.
378. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had established the Evaluation Body at its twelfth session in Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, to evaluate: i) nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List; ii) nominations to the Representative List; iii) proposals to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices; and iv) requests for International Assistance greater than US$100,000. The Chairperson explained that the Committee would begin item 10 and its four sub-items with the oral report by Ms Eva Kuminkova on a number of cross-cutting and specific issues raised during the Body’s work on the four mechanisms. The floor would then be opened to Committee Members who were asked to restrict their interventions to concern
only issues raised in its report. The general debate on this item would take place after the evaluation of all the individual files, at which point the Committee would move to the adoption of the overall Decision 13.COM 10. The Committee was asked to first examine nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List (item 10.a), followed by nominations to the Representative List (item 10.b), proposals to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices (item 10.c), and requests for International Assistance greater than US$100,000 (item 10.d).
These would be accompanied by a brief presentation by the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body and an explanation justifying the draft decision, along with photos projected on the screen. Concerning nominations recommended for referral, the Chairperson recalled that in conformity with Decision 9.COM 13.c in 2014, the Evaluation Body would recommend a referral only in the case of information lacking in a nomination, whether of a technical or substantive nature. The submitting State could resubmit the referred file in the following or future cycle. It was noted that referred files that were resubmitted in another cycle would be considered as new nominations and therefore subject to the overall ceiling of files and the priority system described under paragraph 34 of the Operational Directives.
379. With the heavy task ahead with forty-six files to be examined, the Chairperson informed the Committee that during its meeting on 2 October, the Bureau had agreed to adopt the same procedure as previous years, that is, Committee Members wishing to discuss or amend specific draft decisions should inform the Secretariat prior to the session. In this regard, a message had been sent on 15 November [2018] by the Secretariat to all Committee Members informing them of this working method. The Chairperson reassured the Committee that this procedure did not prevent any Member from taking the floor on any decision. The Secretariat had confirmed that two nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and six nominations to the Representative List had received requests for debate, and two files had been withdrawn. Regarding the working method for the adoption of draft decisions, in principle, the Committee proceeded with the adoption of draft decisions for which amendments were submitted on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. For other decisions, they would be expected to be adopted as a whole. As was customary, the submitting State would be given two minutes for comments after adoption. The Chairperson also clarified the procedure with regard to amendments to the draft decisions on nominations, particularly in light of Decision 11.COM 8 , as well as the discussions of the informal ad hoc working group over the past two years and which had been the subject of numerous discussions during its meetings. These points would be further discussed under agenda item 16, which provided the opportunity to fully debate these ideas. Taking into consideration the outcomes of these meetings26, the Chairperson applied the following working method for the present examination of the nomination files under item 10 in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee. As reflected in Decision 11.COM 8, the spirit of consensus would prevail in the debates, and the Chairperson reminded the Committee that the draft decisions had been prepared by the Evaluation Body whose members were elected from candidates proposed by the Committee. The debates and the decision-making process should thus demonstrate respect towards the expertise and diligent work of the Evaluation Body.
380. The Chairperson further explained that in conformity with the decision made in 2017, he would seek to establish consensus by appreciating both supporting arguments and objections to amendments under consideration. To this end, when an amendment was proposed, he would first determine whether it received active relative support from the Committee, i.e. expression of support from at least one third of the Committee Members. In the case of an objection by a Committee Member to an amendment, he would then seek active broad support from the majority of Committee Members. This was deemed of prime importance as the decision-making process had an impact on the credibility of the work of this Committee, but also by inference on the Convention as a whole. It was therefore the duty and responsibility of the Committee to keep these considerations in mind. During the general debates, priority would be given to Members of the Committee, but the floor would 26 .Presented in the Report of the Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Informal Ad Hoc Working Group of the Committee
(Annex of Document ITH/18/13.COM/16).
also be given to States Parties non-Members of the Committee and other Observers, time permitting. However, the debates on draft decisions concerning specific nomination files would be limited to Committee Members. The Chairperson also recalled Rule 22.4 of the Rules of Procedure whereby submitting States, whether or not a Member of the Committee, shall not speak to advocate the inclusion of their file but only to provide information in reply to questions raised, if any. The Chairperson took the opportunity to remind Members and Observers that large numbers of people were following the Committee’s work through audiocast and videocast, or through the news media, and it was therefore important to keep to the schedule. He then invited the Rapporteur of the Evaluation Body, Ms Kuminkova, to present her report.
381. The Rapporteur of the Evaluation Body, Ms Eva Kuminkova, presented the final report of the Evaluation Body’s work in 2018 (document 10), which consisted of five parts. The other four documents were related to the four international mechanisms of the Convention: the Urgent Safeguarding List (document 10.a), the Representative List (document 10.b), the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices (document 10.c) and International Assistance (document 10.d), which would be presented by the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, Mr.
John Moogi Omare. In this cycle, fifty files were treated and submitted to the Committee for its recommendation, including six multinational nominations. One file concerned an inscription on an extended basis, eight files had been resubmitted after a referral or non-inscription in a previous cycle. The largest proportion concerned nominations to the Representative List (80 per cent), nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List (14 per cent), two proposals to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices (4 per cent), and a single International Assistance request. Out of the fifty files examined, a total of thirty-five files were recommended for inscription, selection or approval, twelve files were recommended for referral, and three files were not recommended for inscription, selection or approval. The twelve members of the Evaluation Body met three times in March, June and September. Each member studied every file so as to obtain a complete overview and for consistency. As only one quarter of the members are replaced each year, Evaluation Body members benefited from the experience gained in previous cycles. After submitting their individual assessments online, members of the Evaluation Body met in June to discuss all the files together. The evaluation of each file usually started with a diversity of opinions, but through intensive debates, all twelve members of the Body reached consensus, as presented in this report.
382. The Rapporteur reminded the Committee that membership of the Body respected equitable geographic distribution, allowing its debates to benefit from a wide range of expertise.
Although the report was drafted by the Rapporteur, all members of the Body participated in its elaboration. The Evaluation Body strictly adhered to the principle of exclusively evaluating the information and facts contained in the files, and not making any assumptions about information that the State Party had not explicitly articulated. When the information needed to assess a certain criterion was lacking, the Body recommended the referral option. Mindful that a referral often caused disappointment, particularly among the communities concerned, the Body reiterated that the referral option was not a negative assessment of a file. In fact, it allowed the State Party to revisit the file and improve its quality, which would cast good light on the work of the States Parties and the Committee. In 2017, the Evaluation Body used a ‘dual system of draft decisions with two options’ on an exceptional basis for criterion U.5/R.5. This was applied in cases recommended for a referral only because factual information related to the inventory was lacking. This year, for the first time, the Body had evaluated nomination files benefitting from the new ICH-01 and ICH-02 nomination forms, in which Section 5 was broken down into several subsections.
Consequently, it noted substantial improvements in the presentation of information compared with previous cycles. However, some files still lacked mandatory information, particularly concerning the periodicity and modality of inventory updating. The Body evaluated criterion U.5/R.5 positively when most of the information and an inventory extract were provided. However, in the draft decision, the Body suggested that the State Party clearly provide the information concerned in its periodic report. As a result of this approach,
no nomination was recommended for a referral on the basis of criterion U.5/R.5 alone, and the reason the ‘dual system of draft decisions with two options’ was considered to be unnecessary in this cycle.
383. The Rapporteur further reported that the Evaluation Body had once again noted that some States Parties found criterion R.2 particularly challenging and that its purpose was still unclear, even to experienced submitting States. The Body had come to the conclusion that in all the other criteria the State Party was asked to justify the inscription of an element from a community perspective, whereas in R.2, an external and abstracted point of view was expected. Instead of explaining how the inscription can promote intangible cultural heritage in general and raise awareness outside the community, a large proportion of nomination files tended to address the impact of the inscription on the element itself and within its community. The Body had discussed this issue at length and suggested that the criterion was directly related to the purpose of the Representative List and was therefore highly relevant and important. For these reasons, the Body welcomed and encouraged the reflection on the nature of the Lists and the relevance of the criteria, particularly criterion R.2. The Rapporteur then turned to selected cross-cutting issues, which raised particularly serious discussions among Body members. In several cases, the States concerned attempted to claim or justify ownership of an element, mostly in sections corresponding to criteria R.1/U.1 or R2. The Body also noted that the titles of nominated elements sometimes implied claims of ownership. In such cases, the Secretariat was asked to propose to the submitting country a change in the title, such that it did not inadvertently provoke sentiments contrary to the Convention’s principle of mutual respect and international cooperation. Specifically, when formulating a title, it was generally advisable to identify elements as being practised in a country rather than being of a country.
384. The Rapporteur also noted, as in previous cycles, that some nominations showed poor language quality with many typographical errors and inconsistencies. Considering that this affected the understanding of the element, and as nomination files are made public and serve to promote the Convention, it was important that States ensure clear and coherent written explanations in the files and pay particular attention to correct translation. States were also reminded not to use expressions implying the immutability, excellence or uniqueness of elements, such as ‘authenticity’, ‘unique’, ‘original’ or ‘extraordinary’. Such expressions implied an externally imposed hierarchy of elements, whereas the Convention encourages equitable expressions. In several cases, States also proposed safeguarding measures aimed at protecting the authenticity of an element or to ensure that the element is conserved and unchanged in the future. Such an approach is considered contrary to the definition of intangible cultural heritage and the goals of the Convention, which emphasizes the living, dynamic and ever-changing nature of intangible cultural heritage, reacting to the needs and preferences of the practitioners. The Evaluation Body had encountered difficulties with nominations of generally well-known elements referring to different concepts not known to the Body’s members, and which were not explained in the file. The description of an element should be written in such a way that even someone with no prior knowledge of it would understand its nature. Due to the word limit, States also tended to use acronyms, but they should first be clarified. With regard to multinational files, the Evaluation Body had examined six multinational nominations in the 2018 cycle, and it encouraged States Parties to do their utmost in considering the submission of multinational nominations in the future, given their largely untapped potential. The multinational file that joined the element shared by North and South Korea the previous day was a good example of this. Preparing a joint nomination always requires a lot of coordination. Sometimes, these efforts are successful in demonstrating the principles of international cooperation. Occasionally, however, collaboration seems rather formal and does not reflect upstream joint efforts. In some cases, the Body had noted that the amount and quality of information from each country in the multinational nomination process differed, such that one country’s contribution hindered the entire nomination and caused disappointment among all the other countries and communities involved. States Parties should therefore strive to submit balanced files.
Nevertheless, the involvement of communities, particularly in the planning and
implementation of the safeguarding measures, must in these cases be treated with even greater care and attention.
385. The Rapporteur then turned to the thematic issues debated by the Evaluation Body. The Body noticed an increasing number of nominations related to sports, discussing the boundary between traditional sports and games and their professional forms. The Body was particularly concerned when a State focused on the rules and system of organization instead of their value as cultural practices and on the community roles. As community-based practices with a clear cultural meaning, traditional sports and games can be considered as expressions of intangible cultural heritage. However, when they become strongly professionalized, it can undermine their status as intangible cultural heritage. The Body was pleased to see that States were aware of the close linkages between intangible heritage and its tangible environment, deciding to safeguard living traditions in complement with the protection of associated World Heritage sites. Unfortunately, in some cases, the safeguarding plans prioritized the protection of tangible before intangible heritage, while not considering that the 2003 Convention applies a different approach and criteria. During the evaluation process, several serious issues linked to the commercialization of intangible cultural heritage had arisen, mostly in relation to its promotion. The Body expressed concerns when tourism promotion and commercialization were considered as key safeguarding objectives. Although sustainable tourism can be an important source of income for custodians, viewing the inscription of an element as a tool for attracting more tourists or creating a leisure park demonstrates a lack of understanding of the principles of the Convention and the objective of its Lists. If negative impacts following an inscription are foreseen, a monitoring mechanism should be designed that would allow the community to take appropriate measures when excessive numbers of tourists started negatively influencing the practice. It was encouraging that several nominations included such monitoring mechanisms. Some elements, particularly associated with traditional crafts, could have a strong commercial aspect, which is generally neither unusual nor undesirable when commercialization provides practitioners with a permanent source of income and thus sustainability. However, nominations should not concentrate primarily on the commercial aspects, particularly in terms of safeguarding measures, but rather highlight their social and cultural roles and features. The inscription should also not be seen as an excellence label granted by UNESCO to help promote the products. In several cases, the purposes of the Convention seemed to be confused with other UNESCO standard-setting instruments in the field of culture, particularly in terms of the economic significance of nominated elements.
386. The Rapporteur then turned to community involvement and consent; another major and recurrent issue. First and foremost, the communities and practitioners identified in each section of the nomination file should be coherent, i.e. the communities identified in Section C should also be those involved in safeguarding and expressing consent. States Parties should also bear in mind that criteria U.3/R.3 and U.4/R.4 both require detailed descriptions of community participation; however, they are different in context and perspective, though both equally important. As far as criterion U.3/R.3 is concerned, the communities and practitioners are expected to be the driving forces of safeguarding measures, not mere beneficiaries of top-down safeguarding. The Body often encountered situations in which community participation under criterion U.4/R.4 was declared but not demonstrated in the file. Despite long lists of workshops and meetings between stakeholders, the Body was unable to identify the nature of these meetings and the kinds of roles the practitioners actually played in the nomination process. This raised doubts as to the level of awareness among the communities about the purpose of the nomination, the meaning of inscription, and the expression of their free, prior and informed consent. Issues also arose in relation to the form and content of the consent letters. The Operational Directives require that a nominated element should have the widest possible participation of the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned. As no particular number of expressions of consent is prescribed, the Body studied their representativeness, information value and the process
386. The Rapporteur then turned to community involvement and consent; another major and recurrent issue. First and foremost, the communities and practitioners identified in each section of the nomination file should be coherent, i.e. the communities identified in Section C should also be those involved in safeguarding and expressing consent. States Parties should also bear in mind that criteria U.3/R.3 and U.4/R.4 both require detailed descriptions of community participation; however, they are different in context and perspective, though both equally important. As far as criterion U.3/R.3 is concerned, the communities and practitioners are expected to be the driving forces of safeguarding measures, not mere beneficiaries of top-down safeguarding. The Body often encountered situations in which community participation under criterion U.4/R.4 was declared but not demonstrated in the file. Despite long lists of workshops and meetings between stakeholders, the Body was unable to identify the nature of these meetings and the kinds of roles the practitioners actually played in the nomination process. This raised doubts as to the level of awareness among the communities about the purpose of the nomination, the meaning of inscription, and the expression of their free, prior and informed consent. Issues also arose in relation to the form and content of the consent letters. The Operational Directives require that a nominated element should have the widest possible participation of the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned. As no particular number of expressions of consent is prescribed, the Body studied their representativeness, information value and the process