Document ITH/12/7.COM/15 Decision 7.COM 15
1056. The Chairperson recalled that owing to a lack of time, the Committee in Bali in 2011 had been unable to consider item 15.
1057. The Secretary explained that the Secretariat had received correspondence in the 2010 cycle that raised concerns in a number of nominations to the Representative List. The Secretariat subsequently informed the Subsidiary Body when it met in May 2010 and it decided at that time that the letters should not be brought to the attention of the Subsidiary Body prior to it reaching a decision in order not to influence its recommendations, since decisions were solely based on the information provided in the nomination file. After the Subsidiary Body adopted its recommendations on the cases concerned, the Secretary revealed the content of the correspondence and the Subsidiary Body reconfirmed all its original decisions. It did however request that the Secretariat bring the letters to the attention of the Committee prior to the Committee’s evaluation of the nominations concerned. During the debate on the issue in Nairobi, the Committee welcomed these expressions of interest from civil society (associations or individuals), since transparency in the nomination process only benefitted the Convention. Nevertheless, the Committee expressed its opinion that such correspondence should be communicated to the States concerned in a timely manner so that they are able to respond to the concerns raised at the same time as the evaluation of the file by the Committee. By its Decision 5.COM 6, the Committee invited the Secretariat ‘to propose, for its sixth session, in light of the debate of the Committee, guidelines for the treatment of correspondence received by the Secretariat
from the public or other concerned parties on nominations, and for their prior communication to the submitting States’.
1058. The Secretary further explained that guidelines for the treatment of correspondence were outlined in the Annex to document 15 in which it proposed that upon reception of nominations (following the Secretariat’s requests for additional information), the Secretariat would make them available on the Convention website (to be replaced by revised nominations where applicable). Correspondence received up to four weeks prior to the meeting of the Subsidiary Body would immediately be sent to the Permanent Delegation of the State Party concerned for its response up to two weeks before the meeting of the Subsidiary Body. Correspondence and the response from the State Party would then be made available to the Subsidiary Body, and published on the Convention website together with the nomination concerned. The Secretariat also proposed that correspondence received after the deadline, or correspondence on an element already inscribed, would be transmitted to the Permanent Delegation of the State concerned so that any response could be communicated directly to the author of the correspondence, which would not be published. With regard to elements that were not yet nominated for inscription, the Secretariat proposed to inform the Permanent Delegation of any correspondence received, while informing its author that no such nomination had yet been received. The Secretary added that all such correspondence would be withdrawn from the website upon inscription of the element concerned.
1059. The delegation of Brazil appreciated the draft guidelines as it met the requirements for transparency, dialogue and access to information and therefore it fully endorsed the recommendation. However, it expressed concern that some Permanent Delegations had limited personnel and therefore wished to broaden the recipients to include National Commissions as well as the responsible focal point for the nomination concerned.
1060. The delegation of Indonesia noted that the draft decision proposed to publish nomination files on the website prior to their inscription, when according to the existing procedure such nomination files should remain confidential.
1061. The Secretary made clear that there were no provisions specifying that nomination files should remain confidential upon receipt, as only the Committee and the General Assembly could decide on the appropriateness of the measure. The Secretary explained that all working documents, including nomination files, were made public, adding that the Convention was the first instrument to apply such a release of documents to the public domain. Consequently, other conventions, i.e. the 2005 Convention, were considering introducing the same measure. The Secretary added that UNESCO’s Legal Office had already reviewed the draft decision and that no legal impediments to its adoption had been identified.
1062. Congratulating the Secretariat on its work, the delegation of Morocco wished to raise a point on paragraph 5 of the Annex. The Chairperson asked that the point be raised later.
1063. The delegation of Belgium felt that the Secretariat should nevertheless be informed of all correspondence, even if it is received after the Committee’s work and the inscription of the element concerned.
1064. The Secretary replied that the draft decision specifically referred to correspondence received by the Secretariat so that letters received on time would be shared with the State Party concerned so that it may respond in a timely manner. Letters not received on time would be shared with the Permanent Delegation. However, the Secretary agreed that should the State Party receive correspondence not initially addressed to the Secretariat, the Committee could decide that such correspondence be transmitted to the Secretariat, which would then enter the treatment process as outlined in the draft decision.
1065. The Chairperson turned to the draft decision and paragraphs 1–3, which were duly adopted.
1066. The delegation of Brazil proposed to include ‘National Commissions to UNESCO’
and ‘the contact person responsible for the nomination’ in each paragraph of the annex containing ‘Permanent Delegation’.
1067. The delegation of China understood and supported the point raised by Brazil but added that National Commissions were not always responsible for the nominations, and therefore wished to add ‘duly designated authority or institution’.
1068. The Chairperson noted the relevant point and suggested ‘the competent authorities’.
1069. The delegation of Morocco wished to retain the reference to the ‘Permanent Delegation’ and ‘the duly designated authority’, which referred to the responsible State authority submitting the nomination file, and to delete ‘National Commission’.
1070. The delegation of Latvia fully supported Brazil’s amendment and wished to retain the reference to the ‘National Commission’, because in many countries, the National Commission is a real forum for experts in implementing the Convention. The delegation of Grenada supported Brazil’s amendment, as amended by China. The delegation of Nicaragua believed that all the relevant bodies in the State Party should be informed, and therefore supported Brazil’s amendment, as endorsed by Grenada and Latvia. The delegation of Burkina Faso supported Brazil’s amendment, as amended by China since this would provide ample opportunities for the State Party concerned to be informed of the correspondence and therefore adequately respond. The delegation of Uganda also wished to retain the reference to ‘National Commission’. Noting the support to retain ‘National Commission’, Morocco withdrew its amendment. With no further objections, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Annex, as amended by Brazil, was adopted.
1071. With regard to paragraph 5 of the Annex, the delegation of Morocco wished to replace ‘after inscription’ with ‘in case of inscription’.
1072. The Chairperson noted support for the amendment proposed by Morocco from Grenada, Brazil, Belgium, Albania, Greece, Latvia, Czech Republic, Tunisia, Egypt, Burkina Faso and Nicaragua.
1073. The delegation of Brazil clarified that the adopted amendment in paragraph 3 should be repeated in paragraphs 6 and 7 [wherever ‘Permanent Delegation’ appeared].
1074. The delegation of Peru remarked that paragraph 5 implied that the correspondence would remain online should the element not be inscribed and suggested that it be removed from the website upon evaluation of the nomination file. The Secretary clarified that the correspondence remained online during the process of evaluation, but would be removed afterwards, regardless of whether the element is inscribed or not.
1075. The Legal Adviser suggested replacing ‘after inscription’ with ‘after the examination of the elements’. The delegation of Burkina Faso remarked that the wording should be ‘after the examination of the nomination files’.
1076. The Chairperson read out the amended paragraph, ‘After examination of the nomination files, correspondence and comments are removed from the website of the Convention’.
1077. With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced adopted paragraph 5 of the annex. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the annex were amended in line with paragraph 3, which were duly adopted.
1078. The delegation of China wondered whether the guidelines would also apply to correspondence received with regard to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices. The Secretary confirmed that this would also apply to this mechanism.
1079. With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson declared adopted 7.COM 15.
ITEM 16.a OF THE AGENDA :
ACCREDITATION OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS