Decision: 12.COM 11
343. The Chairperson turned to agenda item 11 and the Report of the Evaluation Body on its work in 2017, and the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, Mr Ahmed Skounti (Morocco), and the Rapporteur, Mr Saša Srećković (Serbia), joined the podium. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had established the Evaluation Body at its eleventh session to evaluate: i) nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List; ii) nominations to the Representative List; iii) the request for the transfer of an element from the Urgent Safeguarding List to the Representative List; iv) requests for International Assistance greater than US$100,000; and v) proposals to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices. The item would begin with the overall Report of the Evaluation Body on its work presented by the Rapporteur, reporting on a number of cross-cutting and specific issues raised during the Body’s work. Following the oral report, the floor would be opened for questions to the Evaluation Body concerning issues raised in its report. The general debate on this item would take place after all the individual files had been evaluated, followed by the adoption of the overall decision 12.COM 11. The order of examination of nominations would proceed as follows: i) the six nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List (item 11.a);
the thirty-four nominations to the Representative List (item 11.b); the one request for the transfer of an element from one List to another (item 11.c); the two requests for International Assistance greater than US$100,000 (item 11.d); and the two proposals to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices (item 11.e). All nominations would be the subject of a brief presentation by the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, justifying the draft decisions of the Body. Noting the heavy task ahead with forty-five files under examination, the Chairperson informed the Committee that the Bureau had agreed during its meeting on 3 October to adopt the same procedure as in the two previous years, i.e. to invite Members wishing to amend specific draft decisions to inform the Secretariat by 9 a.m., as a matter of organization. Members of the Committee were evidently not prevented from taking the floor on any decision if they so wished. The Bureau had also decided, through electronic consultation in November 2017, that the debate would be opened on all nine files for which the Evaluation Body had proposed two options. These were: i) the multinational nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List submitted by Colombia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; ii) the nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List submitted by Mongolia; and
iii) the seven nominations to the Representative List including the multinational file submitted by Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova and Romania; the nomination files respectively submitted by Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Indonesia, Ireland and Malawi; and a multinational file submitted by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. In addition, the Secretariat had received requests for debate concerning two nominations to the Representative List. In principle, the draft decisions, for which amendments were submitted, would be adopted on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. For other decisions, they were expected to be adopted as a whole. In either case, the submitting State would have two minutes for comments after adoption, as was customary.
344. The Chairperson further explained that for nominations recommended for referral, in conformity with Decision 9.COM 13.c in 2014, the Evaluation Body only recommended a referral in cases where information was lacking, whether of a technical or substantive nature. Depending on its own priorities, the submitting State might wish to resubmit the referred file during the subsequent cycle or another future cycle. In either case, files referred and later resubmitted would be considered as new nominations and would therefore be subject to the overall ceiling of files and the priority system, as per paragraph 34 of the Operational Directives. With regard to amendments to the draft decisions, in particular in light of Decision 11.COM 8, as well as the Committee’s debates during the examination of nominations in 2016, the Chairperson recalled that the decision-making process had been the subject of numerous discussions throughout 2017 during the meetings of the informal Ad Hoc Working Group, established during the Committee’s eleventh session in 2016. It was noted that the work of the informal Ad Hoc Working Group was ongoing, but its report would in fact be discussed under agenda item 13. Indeed, since the eleventh session in 2016, considerable progress had been made: i) in its report (document 11), the Evaluation Body pointed out that three nominations that had been referred by the Committee in previous cycles had been significantly improved and were now recommended for inscription in the present cycle, which demonstrated the positive impact of the referral option; ii) the Secretariat had revised Section 5 of the nomination forms for the Urgent Safeguarding List (Form ICH-01) and the Representative List (Form ICH-02) to reduce the likelihood of nominations being referred due to the absence of technical information; and iii) the innovative proposal by the Evaluation Body to use dual-option draft decisions for referred nominations based solely on missing factual or technical information under criterion 5. It was hoped that this dual option proposed for nine nominations would facilitate the Committee’s work in this session.
345. Taking into account all these considerations, the Chairperson wished to apply the following working method: i) in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, he would maintain the ‘smooth conduct of the proceedings and the maintenance of order’; ii) as reflected in Decision 11.COM 8, the spirit of consensus would prevail in the debate; and iii) the Committee was reminded that the proposed draft decisions had been prepared by the Evaluation Body, a consultative body created to assist in the examination of nominations, comprising elected members. Therefore, debates and decision-making should demonstrate respect towards the expertise and diligent work of the Evaluation Body. In this regard, the Chairperson remarked that the decision-making process had an impact on the credibility not only of the Committee, but also of the Convention as a whole. With no comments or questions on the procedure proposed, the Chairperson recalled several other important points on the working methods adopted by the Committee: i) during the general debates, priority was given to Members of the Committee, but States Parties non-Members of the Committee and other Observers would also be given the floor, time permitting; ii) participation in the debates on draft decisions was limited to Committee Members; iii) Rule 22.4 of the Rules of Procedure stated that submitting States, whether or not a Member of the Committee, should not speak to advocate for the inclusion of their file but only to provide information in reply to questions raised by Committee Members, if any. The Chairperson reminded Members and Observers of the large numbers of people following its work through audiocast and videocast or through the
news media, and it was therefore important to keep to the schedule as closely as possible.
With no forthcoming comments or questions, the Chairperson gave the floor to the Rapporteur to present the Report of the Evaluation Body.
346. The Rapporteur of the Evaluation Body, Mr Saša Srećković, spoke of his honour in introducing the overall Report of the Evaluation Body on its work in 2017, which covered an overview of the files, the working methods, observations and recommendations concerning cross-cutting issues, as well as the draft decisions. Representing equitably all six regions, the Body was composed of twelve members, including six individual expert representatives of States Parties non-Members of the Committee: Ms Amélia Maria de Melo Frazão Moreira (Portugal); Ms Sonia Montecino Aguirre (Chile); Ms Hien Thi Nguyen (Viet Nam); Mr John Moogi Omare (Kenya); Mr Ahmed Skounti (Morocco); and Mr Saša Srećković (Serbia). In addition, there were another six persons representing six accredited NGOs: the Norwegian Crafts Institute; the Czech Ethnological Society; the Association of Friends of Brazilian Folk Art – Casa do Pontal Museum; the China Folklore Society (CFS); the Cross-Cultural Foundation of Uganda; and the Egyptian Society for Folk Traditions. The Evaluation Body met for the first time in March 2017 when Mr Ahmed Skounti was elected as Chairperson, Ms Amélia Maria de Melo Frazão Moreira as Vice-Chair, and Mr Saša Srećković as Rapporteur. The report thus presented the consensus on behalf of the twelve members of the Body. The Rapporteur noted that there was a total of forty-nine files evaluated, including the request from Viet Nam to transfer an element from the Urgent Safeguarding List to the Representative List. There were six nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List, thirty-five to the Representative List, four to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices, three for International Assistance, and one transfer from one List to another.
347. The Rapporteur remarked that in addition to the principles and guidelines already established in previous cycles and reflected in the aide-memoires and other relevant documents, he wished to outline some recurrent issues and newly emerging issues.
Regarding the working methods, the Body had again encountered a number of files lacking information or evidence related to criterion R.5/U.5. When all the other criteria were met, it regretted the recommended referral that was solely based on the absence of factual information related to the inclusion of the element in an inventory (R.5/U.5). Therefore, noting that nomination forms using a revised format for Section 5 would only be used from the 2018 cycle onward, the Evaluation Body had reached a consensus in these cases and proposed a form of dual system of draft decisions with two options: 1) to refer the file to the submitting State due to the missing information, as per the existing procedure; 2) to allow the State Party concerned to provide evidence of the missing information at the Committee meeting, so that it would not have to wait another two years to resubmit the nomination file.
This process would only apply in the current cycle and would be limited to U.5/R.5.
Nevertheless, the Body was pleased to note the high quality of the nominations, which appeared to grow constantly with each new cycle, and it commended States Parties for the work well done. Generally speaking, the Body appreciated the noteworthy diversity of the nominations, which included elements belonging to particular subdomains that had been under-represented in previous cycles, such as traditional games or know-how on managing natural resources. Likewise, some new perspectives had emerged, such as nominations in which children were the main practitioners, or practices such as rituals derived from memories associated with recent historic events that had previously been carried out by heritage mechanisms and institutions rather than communities. The files also included practices closely related to specific cultural and natural spaces, phenomena of urban heritage, elements integrating ritual journeys, an increasing number of culinary practices and other associated aspects. The Body was pleased to recommend some nominations to the Representative List as overall good examples. In addition, three files were also commended for specific aspects, such as community participation, the quality of safeguarding measures, and the monitoring of the possible effects of inscription. The Body was also pleased to note that three nominations that had been referred by the Committee in previous cycles, some based on several criteria, had been significantly improved and were thus recommended for inscription. While the referral option had only recently been
introduced, the Body found that this positive outcome showed that this option was already reaping benefits. States Parties were reminded of the need to use language that adhered to the principles and spirit of the Convention when preparing nominations, and to be cautious when making statements about the origins of an element, especially with regard to certain titles of nomination files that might imply appropriation even though the element was shared by different communities and States. The role of videos as supporting documentation was found to be helpful thanks to the additional insight they provided, and which was able to allay certain doubts or dilemmas about the status of elements of intangible heritage when they arose.
348. Turning to thematic issues, the Rapporteur further reported that the Body had expressed concerns about files referring to ‘counterfeiting’, as such notions were not relevant to the Convention (indeed, they were even contrary to it) and this may instead refer to issues of intellectual property rights. States Parties were reminded that the inscription of an element did not imply exclusive rights over that element nor did it prevent other States Parties from doing the same. In this regard, States Parties were further reminded that the Convention did not seek to establish a system of protection based on geographic origin or geographic indication. In one case, the issue of licensing a practice of intangible cultural heritage had arisen, which might be interpreted differently according to specific contexts. Under the Convention, a license is acceptable only if it served as an acknowledgement for the bearers of the tradition, but not if it was used as a restrictive measure to prevent other practitioners from engaging in the practice of the element. Concerns were also raised regarding measures that might encourage over-commercialization, such as in some cases concerning culinary traditions. Elements of intangible cultural heritage were often practised in different ways, some of which brought commercial benefits, such as tourist programmes and performances during festivals. However, the element was more likely to be commercialized if the audiences of the element were situated outside of the local communities. It was thus essential to indicate in the file whether or not the practitioners were salaried employees and in what way the element formed part of an economic process. Likewise, there were cases where specific companies were named, advertising specific products related to the element, which was not in line with the Convention. In addition, the Body drew attention to the distinction between traditional games as practices of intangible cultural heritage and professional sports. The Body had also encountered issues in cases where it was unclear whether women’s participation in certain practices was voluntary. For example, when the purpose of young girls’ participation involved finding a suitor for marriage, there was the issue of whether the girls had agreed of their own free will or whether coercion was involved. While some elements of intangible cultural heritage attribute gender-specific roles, without necessarily contributing to gender inequalities, other intangible cultural heritage practices might in fact be seen as reinforcing gender inequalities. Regarding the issue of economic revitalization, the efforts to restore certain traditions for the economic benefit of communities were not necessarily linked to promoting gender equality or empowering women. A project could be successful in economic terms but might still fail to achieve the empowerment or emancipation of women, who are the tradition bearers. It was therefore important to follow up on the real impact of such practices within the community in the long term.
349. The Rapporteur advised States Parties to take heed of the implications for a practice that acquired greater visibility if inscribed, particularly in cases of good practices in which economic interest constitutes an important objective, such as craft workshops. For example, if the labour regulations within the workshops do not grant due rights to workers and practitioners, the visibility of the heritage might convey negative messages. Some intangible cultural heritage practices also pose risks to environmental sustainability owing to different factors, such as pollution and the over-exploitation of the natural resources needed to sustain the element. However, there were cases in which practices promoted environmentally-friendly measures, such as those making use of natural energy sources and traditional technologies. The Body had also identified some cases in which States Parties had confused the 1972 Convention and the 2003 Convention, and therefore States
Parties were advised to abstain from designating elements of intangible cultural heritage as
‘world heritage’.
350. With regard to specific issues related to inscription criteria, the Rapporteur spoke of whether an element could actually be in need of urgent safeguarding when it has a relatively large number of identified practitioners. At times, the number of bearers was over-estimated owing to an inability to distinguish between people who are aware of an element, its audiences, and those who actively practise it. Compared to 2016, fewer files failed to meet criterion R.2, but the challenge remained. The Body was aware of the difficulties faced by people working in the communities and at the regional and local levels in understanding and expressing how the inscription of an element could increase the visibility of living heritage at the international level and raise awareness of intangible cultural heritage in general. The Body felt that the formulation of the questions in this section of the nomination form might not be fully adequate, and it had identified a few possible ways forward. One option would be to divide the questions on the form into sub-questions, while another option could be to provide separate boxes in which to place the answers. It was also proposed that States Parties be requested to provide information on concrete cases that could illustrate the statements provided on the form, which by themselves were mostly rhetorical and overly abstract. The Body discussed whether generic threats could be considered sufficient in identifying whether an element was in need of urgent safeguarding, and whether targeted safeguarding actions could feasibly be undertaken in response. Ideally, these threats should be as specific to the element as possible. It was also difficult to assess whether threats were generic or specific, as they were often interconnected within a given context.
In addition, the Body mentioned the need to determine the severity of threats within specific contexts. If the threats identified were too generic, it was not possible to assess the appropriateness of the safeguarding plan. Even large-scale threats had targeted and concrete socioeconomic consequences, but the safeguarding plan could not be expected to address them in all their aspects; there needed to be a precise correspondence between the factors threatening the viability of the element identified in U.2 and the safeguarding plan proposed in U.3. Occasionally, there was some confusion over the difference between safeguarding measures (required under R.3) and the safeguarding plan (required under U.3). The criterion U.3 should be precisely formulated and articulated as a whole, and should identify the objectives, activities, expected results, detailed budget and responsible bodies. A detailed budget and plan was not required for safeguarding measures, as required for criterion U.3. The Body further noted that some safeguarding measures were led entirely by governmental bodies. In some cases, such an approach was useful at particular stages of implementation. However, States should ensure that communities were involved to the largest extent possible so they could work proactively on and take a leading role in carrying out safeguarding measures. For some files, the Body had encountered
In addition, the Body mentioned the need to determine the severity of threats within specific contexts. If the threats identified were too generic, it was not possible to assess the appropriateness of the safeguarding plan. Even large-scale threats had targeted and concrete socioeconomic consequences, but the safeguarding plan could not be expected to address them in all their aspects; there needed to be a precise correspondence between the factors threatening the viability of the element identified in U.2 and the safeguarding plan proposed in U.3. Occasionally, there was some confusion over the difference between safeguarding measures (required under R.3) and the safeguarding plan (required under U.3). The criterion U.3 should be precisely formulated and articulated as a whole, and should identify the objectives, activities, expected results, detailed budget and responsible bodies. A detailed budget and plan was not required for safeguarding measures, as required for criterion U.3. The Body further noted that some safeguarding measures were led entirely by governmental bodies. In some cases, such an approach was useful at particular stages of implementation. However, States should ensure that communities were involved to the largest extent possible so they could work proactively on and take a leading role in carrying out safeguarding measures. For some files, the Body had encountered