ich.unesco.org · web viewin this context, the word “promote” could be removed from the...

EXP

LHE/21/EXP/4Paris, 23 April 2021

Original: English

CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THEINTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

Expert meeting in the framework of the global reflectionon the listing mechanisms under the 2003 Convention for the

Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

Online7, 26 and 27 May 2021

13h00 – 16h00 (Paris time/ UTC+2)

Reflection on the Listing Mechanisms of the 2003Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

Perspective of Consultative Bodies 2009–2019

Eva Kuminková

LHE/21/EXP/4 – page 2

Introduction1. The three well-designed lists were created as complementary tools. They were

intended to serve the purposes of a new Convention to promote the effective safeguarding of the source of identity and continuity of human societies, to raise its visibility, highlight its role in maintaining the balance between man and his social as well as natural environment, and share tried and tested experiences which had proven successful in achieving the former two goals. The authors of the lists created a very sophisticated, complementary and mutually linked system. Over the span of ten years of its existence, this system has brought the Convention considerable popularity. It has led to a global recognition and acknowledgement of the significance of intangible cultural heritage (hereafter ‘ICH’) and of the need and benefits of its safeguarding in contemporary society. It has also aroused a discussion about the definition of ICH and its limits.

2. The aim of this paper is to look at three dimensions of the listing mechanisms from the perspective of a particular group of stakeholders – former and current members of the Consultative, Subsidiary and Evaluation Bodies (hereafter ‘consultative bodies’). Since 2009, around 140 individual experts and collective entities have devoted themselves to scrutinizing more than 600 files concerning nominations to the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding and programmes, projects and activities that best reflect the principles and objectives of the Convention (the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices). Over time, they have accumulated a tremendous amount of findings and experience, which have been preserved in their reports and will serve as the main points of reference for the analysis of:

1) the purpose of the Lists and the Register;

2) the inscription criteria;

3) the evaluation process.

3. Methodology: This paper is primarily based on a detailed analysis of the reports of all the consultative bodies between 2009 and 2019. The analysis focused on cross-cutting issues relating to individual criteria and evaluation methods which have been modified from year to year as the system matured and new experience was acquired. Apart from that, other documents related to the creation of the Lists and discussions of the Intergovernmental Committee have been taken into consideration. During the 14.COM meeting in Bogotá, interviews with eighteen current and former body members were carried out. The aim of these meetings was to identify which issues they considered to be crucial. Based on this information, an online survey with fifty-eight questions was created and an email was sent to all the addresses of the experts, NGOs and governmental agencies that had ever participated in the consultative bodies’ meetings with an invitation to share their views and ideas (hereafter ‘body members’ or ‘experts’). Altogether, thirty-four responses were obtained (eight experts participated in both – the interviews and the survey), which is approximately 24 per cent of all the body members. Although this number is not particularly high, extremely varied, deep and interesting insights have been collected. I would like to thank all forty-four experts for their inspirational contribution – as emerged during the analysis, consultative body members play a very important role in the continuous development of the framework of the Convention, which extends far beyond the evaluation exercise. Unfortunately, the scope of this paper does not allow all the ideas to be included. Hence, the information contained herein presents the majority’s opinions, some important individual observations as well as selected concrete proposals. Altogether, it strives to give a complex picture of the overall context of the consultative bodies’ experience.


4. Several statistics are annexed to this document, which may help us see important trends and developments. Their creation was complicated by the fact that information is scattered across dozens of documents and is sometimes missing altogether. Nonetheless, they provide interesting documentation of the development of the listing mechanisms and persisting problems.

I. THE PURPOSE OF THE LISTING MECHANISMS AND GENERAL ISSUES5. As already mentioned, the three Lists of the Convention were designed to fulfil different

functions while also being complementary (see Articles 16, 17 and 18). Safeguarding, raising visibility and sharing good practices may create a functional global framework that reflects and draws attention to the main goals and principles of the Convention. The majority of the body members believe that all three lists fulfil the purpose for which they were created, while 30 per cent, and even 42 per cent in the case of the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices, have substantial doubts about certain aspects of the listing procedures.

6. What worries some States Parties as well as experts is the radical disproportion in the use of all three mechanisms (Representative List: 463 items; Urgent Safeguarding List: 64 items; Register of Good Safeguarding Practices: 22 items1). However, the reasons are quite clear and understandable. If we set aside the political reasons, which are probably the most visible, the biggest obstacle for many countries seems to be the complexity of the nomination procedure. It is much more demanding for the Urgent Safeguarding List than for the Representative List, and the Evaluation Body also tends to look at compliance with individual criteria more strictly, being conscious that a wrongly designed safeguarding plan and low community engagement may ultimately lead to the destruction or extinction of an element. An inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List also demands a much greater commitment on the part of the State Party as well as all other stakeholders. The Register of Good Safeguarding Practices suffers from an overly bureaucratic procedure; many of the criteria must have been deemed very important at the time of their creation, but experience has shown that their simplification could elicit more interest in the use of this important Register.

7. The lack of proper follow-up of the inscribed elements is seen as one of the most problematic aspects of the listing mechanism. The inscription procedure is very dynamic but the follow-up mechanism, i.e. periodic reporting, is extremely inflexible and weak in terms of its real effect on the inscribed elements. The main reason may be that States Parties are supposed to carry out a self-assessment. No external monitoring system ensures that the inscribed elements are followed and corrective steps taken when negative trends appear. Once inscribed, continual conformity with the inscription criteria is also not checked. Above all, States Parties are not accountable if the periodic reporting exercise brings negative results or when it is not accomplished at all; currently, only extreme public pressure can result in an element being removed from the List when the element ceases to contribute to its purpose (see the case of the Carnival of Aalst). The whole system loses its balance when States Parties strive to achieve more and more inscriptions but are not willing to take full responsibility for the inscribed elements and take care of them with the same vigour after the inscription has been achieved. In fact, doing so requires much more energy and resources with much less visible results. Body members have repeatedly pointed out that structures already exist, such as the network of facilitators, UNESCO chairs, regional centres and accredited NGOs, and called for ways to be found to involve them and utilize their experience in the follow-up exercise. At the same time, body members feel that the role of experts and governments significantly overshadows the voice of communities – principal to the Convention – which can be heard only “second-hand”.

1 As at December 2019

https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention


Moreover, their active role in the follow-up procedure (as well as in the nomination process) needs to be seriously considered and given priority.

The Representative List

8. The foremost accomplishment of the Representative List lies in achieving visibility and respect for ICH worldwide. The listed elements show the diversity of cultural expressions, integrating function of culture, and its role in building social cohesion and sustainable development. The visibility of the List is inspirational and States which are new to the Convention often learn about its principles thanks to it. The Convention has actually started a global ICH movement based on new definitions and principles, readily adopted by different social strata, and opened up new dimensions of international academic discourse. In this process, the Representative List has played a key role.

9. From the perspective of experts, the greatest weakness of the Representative List is the heavy political and diplomatic context of new inscriptions. Particularly in the case of this List, top-down approaches to drafting nomination files are often encountered. Many body members have described the inscription process as a race or competition between States with a view to raising their own visibility and promoting tourism in their countries. However, politicization of the List is a fact, which cannot easily be changed and must be accepted. Furthermore, as States are the only entities responsible for submitting nominations, the relationship between communities and UNESCO is indirect and inflexible, and within the system of priorities set out in paragraph 34 of the Operational Directives, communities are practically excluded from certain decision-making processes.

10. In practice, the visibility factor of the Representative List overshadows its safeguarding purpose, which does not necessarily need to be seen in a negative way if we consider the main goal of the List set out in Article 16 of the Convention.

11. The current content of the Representative List indicates three serious imbalances, which should be part of the overall reflection on the listing mechanism – geographical, in terms of ICH domains and thematic. As representativeness is not supposed to lie in a value judgement of ICH elements and in favouring certain elements over others, the Representative List currently works as a register that is uncontrolled in terms of geographic and thematic representativeness, limited only in terms of the annual increase of inscriptions and regulated by a set of defined inscription criteria.

12. Possible ways forward

- Carry out an in-depth study of the content of the List and an evaluation of its representativeness;

- Conduct a global survey of the impacts of the inscriptions – positive and negative – to evaluate the contribution of the List to safeguarding;

- Strengthen the role of periodic reporting in the serious monitoring of the inscribed elements with a view to checking the continuous legitimacy of individual inscriptions and signalling potential threats to the inscribed elements;

- Concentrate on finding ways to achieve a geographical and thematic balance to make the List truly representative and to deal with the growing number of complaints about practices related to the elements or their safeguarding which go against the principles of the Convention.

The Urgent Safeguarding List

13. Unlike for the Representative List, effective safeguarding is the central mission of the Urgent Safeguarding List. This mechanism draws attention to important problems,


which are often shared globally, and offers a powerful framework for mobilizing communities, committing States Parties and encouraging the effective organization of safeguarding plans. Although the listing per se does not provide any factual protection and does not automatically imply financial help, once the element has been listed, fundraising and attracting human resources may become easier, as the moral value of a UNESCO inscription seems to be very strong. According to the body members, some States Parties unfortunately seem to mistake the purpose of the Urgent Safeguarding List with the purpose of the List of World Heritage in Danger operated under the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Since nominating elements may be seen by some people as a manifestation of poor care for ICH in the country in question, some States may avoid it.

14. The main problem with the Urgent Safeguarding List lies in the complexity of the nomination procedure, the demands on correct needs assessment and the proper specification of safeguarding plans. This exercise sometimes exceeds the realistic possibilities of some States Parties, which do not have sufficient financial and trained human resources at their disposal. When encountering a badly drafted nomination file for the Urgent Safeguarding List, the Evaluation Body is more inclined than in the case of the Representative List to scrutinize certain criteria in order to make sure that the needs assessment, safeguarding methodologies, timeframes, resources and community involvement are realistic and will indeed ensure the effective safeguarding of the element. As a result, approximately half of all files have been recommended by the bodies for rejection or referral based on U.3. In such situation, some States Parties may naturally be more likely to invest their resources directly in safeguarding or may choose to submit their files to the Representative List, where their chances are higher, the preparation process is much less complicated, accountability is lower and reporting is not so frequent.

15. Finally, the effectiveness of the Urgent Safeguarding List can be proved by a single act – the removal of successfully safeguarded elements, which have been strengthened to such an extent that they are no longer endangered. This has happened only once so far. The current system places a very strong emphasis on the proper elaboration of safeguarding plans and nomination files, but the monitoring of the results becomes a much more formal matter. Even when a State Party does not submit the obligatory periodic report, this does not affect the inscription or the stakeholders in any way. This is a limiting factor, which could potentially undermine the ultimate effectiveness of the Urgent Safeguarding List.


- Analyse the state of currently inscribed elements and evaluate the effectiveness of their inscription in terms of successful safeguarding; if negative results are obtained, search for the reasons why the Urgent Safeguarding List has produced so few success stories;

- Discuss the optimal period and procedure for determining whether an element should be removed from the List, as no element should stay there ad vitam aeternam;

- Revise the strict evaluation process and find creative ways to help countries prepare functional safeguarding plans; for example, simplify the procedure by allowing States Parties to correct their referred files and submit them to the Bureau of the Committee in an accelerated process;

- Find ways to strengthen the monitoring of inscribed elements which would offer States Parties useful feedback on the effectiveness of their safeguarding efforts;


- Promote the List and show the positive role it plays in fulfilling the goals of the Convention.

The Register of Good Safeguarding Practices17. Some body members consider the Register to be the most important of all three listing

mechanisms. Regretfully, to this day, the Register has been the most underused and the least visible of the three mechanisms. It is not even possible to evaluate the positive effects of its existence as we have done with the previous two Lists because there is no research or evidence documented. The original visions that led to its creation, include sharing knowledge, highlighting success stories, which clearly reflect the principles of the Convention, and strengthening international cooperation and coordination.

18. Since the Representative List has been perfectly serving its purpose in terms of raising the visibility of the Convention and the Urgent Safeguarding List has been slowly but steadily raising new safeguarding challenges, it is the Register which should reflect the success of the former and offer inspiration for the latter. Thus, it may become the mainstay that reflects the principles of the Convention and ensures its constant progress.

19. The Register, as it currently works, suffers from two major weaknesses: firstly, the complicated set of criteria and strict evaluation process; and secondly, the lack of visibility. As has already been discussed on different platforms, the Register would benefit from a simpler selection procedure. Although the Evaluation Body may again appear to be too strict when it comes to the Register (44 per cent of proposals have been recommended for rejection or referral), its role in fact proves very important, as not all proposed programmes, projects and activities are suited to being presented as best reflecting the principles and goals of the Convention, and some kind of a filter is preferable and even necessary before an open source platform.

20. As the Register receives far less attention than the Representative List, it is much less well-known and very probably underused. That is why the main change arising from the reflection exercise should involve a visibility campaign. The website www.nordicsafeguardingpractices.org can serve as a very interesting example of an existing online platform for sharing good safeguarding practices among North European countries. Ideally, by promoting the selection of good safeguarding practices to something highly prestigious, manifesting and rewarding countries’ and communities’ work and efforts, part of the attention currently devoted to the Representative List could be redirected to the Register. Thus, the inclusion in this “success list” would become more desirable. Finally, the inclusion of good practices from the Register in the global capacity-building materials may be appropriate.


- Conduct a survey on the utilization of the Register to ascertain whether it has any impact and what the reasons are;

- Simplify the nomination procedure by revising the inscription criteria;

- Create an attractive online platform which presents selected programmes, projects and activities in a “user-friendly” way – current nomination forms cannot serve this purpose; fill it with the assistance of the communities, presenting their good practices, and let them communicate interactively on this web space;

- Systematically promote the Register at the UNESCO level and encourage its promotion at the national level;

- Employ the NGO forum as an official partner of the Committee in designing and implementing the promotional campaign.

http://www.nordicsafeguardingpractices.org/


II. INSCRIPTION CRITERIA

22. In the following section, individual inscription criteria will be analysed. The criteria for the Representative and Urgent Safeguarding Lists will be examined together, while the criteria for the Register will be examined using a different methodology.

23. Generally speaking, it turns out that the problem of so many files failing cannot be attributed to wrongly set criteria. The overwhelming majority of body members believe that most of the criteria for inscription on the Representative and Urgent Safeguarding Lists are adequately comprehensive and that their nature reflects the principles of the Convention very well. They even allow those who work with them to understand and learn these principles. However, they contain some concepts which may be considered as too general, complicated or even abstract, for example “the widest possible participation of communities, groups and individuals”. These concepts allow for multiple interpretations, which lead to misunderstandings and, ultimately, disappointment on all sides.

24. The reports of the consultative bodies imply that the main problem does not lie in the formulation of the criteria but rather in their interpretation by the States Parties and communities. One of the most persistent remarks to emerge in almost all the bodies’ reports is that the submitting States constantly ignore previous experiences and aids which have been acquired over the years, even though they are very easily accessible, manifold, explain the nature of each criterion and the expected outcomes of the nomination forms (i.e. documents on cross-cutting issues, reports of the bodies, aide-memoires, and guidance notes). Even experienced States Parties repeat the same mistakes. Hence, constant and tireless awareness raising is an important task, which will not be eliminated by any changes to the nomination mechanism.

25. To facilitate understanding, body members would like to see the language of the criteria simplified, to ensure it is understandable by ordinary community members. Existing aids and even the nomination forms could be enriched with simple explanations and concrete examples. More cultural sensitivity is also expected by some, because the form of the nomination process and formulation of the questions in the nomination forms seem to be more accessible and comprehensible for “western developed countries” than for local communities in other parts of the world with limited access to technologies and advanced education. This fact is mirrored by the current composition of the inscriptions.

Criterion U.1/R.126. This is the only criterion which goes to the core of the element and allows the

reader to understand its features, values and inner processes. If the submitting State fails to provide a clear description of all its aspects, the element cannot serve the purposes of the Lists. According to the recommendations of the consultative bodies, a total of 20 per cent of submitted files do not fulfil this criterion. All the other criteria are rather technical or procedural, not substantial. That is why the majority of the body members consider U.1/R.1 to be the most important criterion for both Lists.

27. The most frequent problems related to criterion U.1/R.1 include:

- The lack of a clear description of an element;

- An excessive historical or technical description of an element, omitting its current state;

- The lack of a description of its social and cultural functions;

- The lack of a clear and consistent definition and description of the communities.

28. While most files are referred because of the lack or unclarity of the submitted information, some files are also rejected because the information provided simply


shows that the element does not constitute ICH as defined by the Convention. Still, the number of unsuccessful files due to U.1/R.1 is the second lowest and no concrete modification of this criterion is proposed. Instead, permanent awareness raising and capacity building is recommended.

Criterion U.229. This criterion received the least attention from the body members participating in the

survey and the interviews – most of them believe that the criterion is clearly formulated and does not need any revision.

30. The persisting problems emerging in the reports include:

- Inadequate needs assessment;

- The identification of generic threats instead of those which are specific to the element in question.

Criterion R.231. On the contrary, R.2 is the only criterion which the vast majority of body members

consider to be completely dysfunctional. If we look at the statistics, we can see that the number of files which fail to meet criterion R.2 is not as high as would be expected. The reports reveal a consistent use of a “flexible approach” towards R.2 by the bodies. Except for six cases in the entire decade, files have normally not been referred or rejected solely based on criterion R.2. If they were, the proportion of unsuccessful files would rapidly increase.

32. Criterion R.2 embodies the mission and purpose of the Representative List; it expresses its core values as well as important principles of the Convention. That is why the expert community is not in agreement regarding its future existence. While some people believe that R.2 is the foundation of the List and must be retained, others would like to see this criterion deleted. Most people would like it to be modified. A misunderstanding of R.2 constitutes the most frequent problem – States Parties (even experienced ones) fail to explain how the inscription of their elements will raise the visibility of ICH in general and instead focus on the benefits of the inscription for the element and its custodians. This issue affects all the sub-sections in the nomination form.

33. While in all the other sections they are asked to describe the element from the community perspective, R.2 expects the authors of the nomination file to take an external and abstracted point of view and to predict what is going to happen in the future, although they have no power to influence it. Such a task would belong, rather, to external experts who, based on the other information contained in the file, should be able to assess the possible contribution of the inscription to the purpose of the List. Some aspects of the criterion are even extremely vague and unspecific, for example the encouragement of “dialogue”. What kind of dialogue? Who should lead it and why? How should it be carried out? It is for this reason that the revision and reformulation of criterion R.2 are the most important of all the possible revisions to the inscription criteria for the Representative List.

34. How should we approach the modification of this criterion, though? The basic requirements are:

- to make it more concrete, so that concrete answers can be obtained; and

- to make it understandable for everyone.

35. Option 1 would be to retain the criterion but remove Section 2 from the nomination form, and leave it up to the Evaluation Body and the Committee to decide whether the element does or does not have the potential to raise the visibility and awareness of ICH in general, encourage dialogue, reflect cultural diversity and testify to human creativity.


36. Option 2 would involve either rewording the criterion, which should be done only after a thorough and complex debate, rewording the texts in the nomination form, or rewording both. The questions should no longer ask about unpredictable future possibilities and should not expect a rhetoric exercise resulting in texts that could essentially be used for many different files. On the contrary, the criterion should ask about the innate qualities of the element and their concrete demonstrations. What makes the element a very good and representative example of ICH? What kind of qualities does the element have that can raise awareness of the significance of ICH among other peoples? Why might it inspire others to safeguard their ICH? Such questions are concrete and refer to the existing state of the element.

37. These kinds of questions may not be highly sophisticated and theoretical and they may not perfectly respond to each and every section of the sentences currently quoted in Article 16 of the Convention and paragraph 1.2 of the Operational Directives, but they may be more understandable for the communities and easier for the evaluators to grasp.

38. Option 3 would entail the deletion of the criterion – an option which would be the least desirable as R.2 actually justifies the existence of the Representative List.

39. A final remark from the survey needs to be made: the Representative List has already fulfilled its goal of raising the visibility and awareness of ICH in general. The time has come now to concentrate on other aspects of R.2.

Criterion U.3

40. This criterion is a frequent reason for referrals, because the correct focus of the proposed safeguarding measures and strong community involvement are crucial factors for the successful safeguarding of an element. The instructions provided in the nomination form are very detailed and logical, but their fulfilment requires quite a comprehensive intellectual input. The question is: does the energy which communities and States Parties need to invest in the elaboration of their safeguarding plans to have an element inscribed equal the energy devoted to the evaluation and monitoring of their implementation by the Intergovernmental Committee, which are comparably important? These two levels of the same mechanism may need to be more balanced. The current monitoring of the inscribed elements and non-existing accountability of the States Parties when they fail to ensure the successful implementation of the safeguarding plan do not match the arduous task of preparing an urgent safeguarding nomination file, particularly the safeguarding plan, which should work independently in the case of an inscription or non-inscription alike. The U.3 factor may be one of the reasons why so few elements are nominated to the Urgent Safeguarding List on an annual basis.

41. The most frequent issues encountered in the files include:

- Unclear and occasionally unsuitable safeguarding measures;

- Safeguarding measures that do not correspond to identified threats;

- Top-down approaches, a lack of community participation in the preparation and implementation of the safeguarding plans;

- A mismatch between objectives, activities, budget and timetable;

- A lack of identified sources of financing;

- The expectation of automatic financial support from UNESCO.

42. The Evaluation Body often regrets referring a file on U3, as it recognizes the urgent need for safeguarding. Nevertheless, by this act it gives the State Party a chance to improve its safeguarding methodologies and make the plan functional and effective.


Criterion R.3

43. While the majority of body members do not expect any changes to R.3, some of them believe the criterion needs to be revised. The reason is that the Representative List expects mostly well-safeguarded elements to be inscribed. In some cases, newly introduced safeguarding measures developed only for the purpose of fulfilling the conditions of inscription may harm rather than support fully viable and functional elements. The act of inscription itself may pose an unexpected challenge. Part of the responsibility is suddenly transferred from community members to institutions – governmental, research and educational. Increased interest from the media, the general public and tourists brings new demands and changes the “living conditions” of an element. Such changes may suffice to change the natural balance and bring unintended negative impacts which irreversibly modify the character of the element in question. When the increased interest of public institutions adds to this pressure, in extreme cases this balance can be totally destroyed. In this context, the word “promote” could be removed from the criterion, as the inscription itself guarantees ample popularity.

44. It may be appropriate to ask about the current state of the element and what has been done in the past to safeguard it. The proposal of new safeguarding measures could be voluntary, in accordance with the actual state of an element. The permanently underestimated question of measures that prevent the potential negative impacts of the inscription may, on the contrary, become obligatory.

45. The most common issues raised by the bodies in relation to R.3 include:

- Inadequately defined safeguarding measures expressing no real commitment from the stakeholders;

- The incapability to distinguish between past, current and future safeguarding measures;

- A lack of safeguarding measures preventing potential negative impacts of the inscription, particularly increased tourism and commercialization of the element;

- Top-down approaches, a lack of community participation in the preparation and implementation of safeguarding measures.

Criterion U.4/R.4

46. This criterion is among the most problematic and widely discussed criteria among body members. Community participation lies at the heart of the Convention; submitting States, however, seem to have serious problems grasping it and meeting this criterion. The weakest point of U.4/R.4 is the fact that every community is different and so are its customs and acceptable ways of conduct. This criterion seems to be the most culturally-sensitive one. The files are mostly reproached for the following reasons:

- Invisibility of the community in the nomination process or unsatisfactory description of their participation;

- The forms and scope of free, prior and informed consent; and

- The selection of community representatives and identification of signatories.

47. Any revision of the criterion should be preceded by a thorough discussion on its cultural dimension. The main problem lies in the interpretation of the individual requirements of the nomination form. The notion of active participation of the communities, groups and individuals has also been problematic and unclear. More lucid explanations may be needed. A guidance note for obtaining free, prior and informed consent approached from different cultural perspectives, particularly


non-European ones, as well as guidance on the right measure of community participation and gender balance would be useful not only for the submitting States but also for the debates of the Evaluation Body.

Criterion U.5/R.5

48. U.5/R.5 is a purely technical criterion which refers to the obligation of the States Parties to draw up inventories of ICH in their territories. Perhaps because of its technicality, States Parties find it extremely challenging to include all the information requested within the form. Only rarely does the Body conclude that the inventory does not seem to be drawn up in conformity with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention. Mostly the problem lies in the lack of practical information, such as the mode and periodicity of updating, how the communities participated in the inventory process or proper identification of the inventory and the registered element (registration date, number, name of the inventory, etc.). Sometimes, the documentary evidence is not convincing or understandable. It often happens that the Evaluation Body comes up against a lack of information with regard to inventories which had been already accepted in previous cycles and U.5/R.5 had been satisfied. In such cases, a referral seems completely pointless. For all these reasons, U5/R5 also benefits from a flexible approach and is not evaluated as strictly as U.1/R.1, U.2, U.3/R.3 or U.4/R.4.

49. Some body members believe that U.5/R.5 is a superfluous criterion, as States Parties are supposed to report on their inventory routines in their periodic reports . Once these have been approved as adequate, their inventory processes should not be further questioned in nomination files, where their poor description causes considerable disappointment among body and Committee members and ultimately among the submitting States.

50. The way out of this problem may be a different system of verifying the compatibility of inventories with the requirements of Articles 11 and 12, either through periodic reporting or – because not all States have submitted their periodic reports yet – through a database which would be regularly updated and approved by the Intergovernmental Committee.

Criteria for the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices

51. Proposals for the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices are probably the most complicated ones to evaluate. As noted by former bodies, some criteria seem to be obligatory, while others do not need to be met and the programme, project or activity can still be selected. In the first years of the Register’s operation, the Consultative Body struggled with an important question – how to separate good safeguarding practices from the best ones. This problem was solved by renaming the Register and thus changing its exclusive character.

52. Altogether, the criteria as they are designed now overlap and some have even proved to be redundant. As the annual number of proposals is minimal, the comments from the Evaluation Body also tend to be much less extensive than in the case of the other Lists, so there are very few truly cross-cutting issues mentioned in the Body’s reports. Let us now look at each criterion and its rationale and suggest how they could be reorganized to facilitate the understanding of the States Parties and the work of the Evaluation Body and the Committee.

P.1

53. This criterion is most important for understanding the safeguarding methodologies involved. It should be retained as it is; however, sub-section 1.b of the nomination form may benefit from a more illustrative explanation, as some countries find it difficult to describe their safeguarding measures in a clear and instructive way.


P.254. P.2 is one of the non-obligatory criteria. It seems redundant, as this question can easily

be posed in the form of a simple checkbox field in the introductory section of the form. Apart from that, information about coordinating efforts will certainly be mentioned in different parts of the file or it can be included under P.1.

P.355. The consultative bodies’ experience confirms that the reflection of the principles of the

Convention is not automatic and that it is important to make sure that selected programmes, projects or activities meet this criterion. Some programmes may confuse the goals of the 2003 Convention with the protection of heritage sites or natural environment without any direct and demonstrable link with concrete ICH elements.

P.4 and P.856. P.4 is a very important criterion and should be retained. Ideally, it should be merged

with criterion P.8, to also include the aspect of monitoring and evaluating the results. Criterion P.8 is not very clear and could be deleted after the transfer of the assessment to P.4.

P.5 and P.757. Again, these two criteria could be merged, as they both refer to the communities,

groups and individuals who are the resource people for the dissemination of good safeguarding practices. Sub-section 5.b requires free, prior and informed consent. Willingness to share and disseminate the practice, once the project is selected, should be an integral part of this requirement.

P.658. Some body members consider this criterion to be superfluous. Every good practice can

serve as an inspiration for another community, while expecting the transfer of complete methodologies into a different context may seem a bit exaggerated.

P.959. Virtually every Consultative and Evaluation Body has devoted a lengthy discussion to

analysing what particular needs of developing countries actually means. At the beginning, the authors of the Register were undoubtedly led by good intentions to provide tried and tested models particularly for those who seemed to need them most. However, after ten years of testing, it seems that when it comes to good safeguarding practices, dividing the world into developing and developed countries might be a bit artificial. Many types of ICH in developed countries suffer more than ICH in traditional communities elsewhere. And other regions undoubtedly have a great deal of knowledge and experience to share. That is why the deletion of this criterion and the promotion of good safeguarding practices globally without any preferences is recommended.

60. A serious simplification of the criteria and hence also of the selection process has been proposed. If this were combined with an effective promotional campaign and raising the prestige of the Register, it may bring more popularity and applicability to the Register, which could then better serve the purpose for which it was created.

III. EVALUATION PROCESS61. The changes to the nomination processes proposed above entail the continuation of

the current system with a set of criteria and an Evaluation Body that thoroughly studies the documentation and offers its recommendations to the Intergovernmental Committee for approval. Voices have already been heard to suggest that a different,


lighter and more fluid inscription system should be designed. Such a step, however, requires the determination of the purposes we want to pursue and the goals we want to achieve. These may differ from those we have followed so far. This should be the starting point for any further debate and other options than retaining the current system should also be considered and discussed. The following part of the paper is devoted to the analysis of the current evaluation process.

General observations 62. Members of the former and current consultative bodies were asked how they felt after

their membership had come to an end. Most of them expressed their delight and satisfaction with the way the body worked, especially meeting with other experts from different cultural areas, working in a friendly and inquiring atmosphere where everyone is dedicated to a common goal, and striving to make the best decisions possible. Some members, though, acknowledged that even in such an inspiring environment, human weaknesses, mistakes and different levels of activity may emerge and from time to time these may negatively affect the deliberations. Membership in a consultative body provides invaluable capacity building for everyone who experiences it. Hence, these experts take home their new expertise and become important points of reference for the communities as well as governments in their countries.

63. The greatest source of frustration for most body members is the discrepancy between their recommendations and the decisions of the Intergovernmental Committee (see Annex 1). Being aware of the demanding and wearing task, with tight schedules, body members often feel that by overturning their recommendation, the Committee is wasting their energy and devotion, especially when serious issues rather than technical details are at stake. Many body members also regret that their evaluation is tied by a rigid set of criteria and a piece of paper containing information which cannot be verified, with communities behind them who cannot be discussed. Hence, the nomination and evaluation process may seem removed from real life. However, we need to be aware that this is a nomination process concerning listing, not safeguarding per se. As such, it needs unifying rules and limits. Discretion concerning the individual conditions of each and every community and element then fully depends on the human factor.

64. Another questionable aspect is the amount of energy invested in the nomination and evaluation process on the part of States Parties, the Secretariat, the Evaluation Body and the Intergovernmental Committee, especially with the persisting trend of trying to have all elements inscribed, and not only those that successfully pass the evaluation process. Should these resources not be invested instead in the global capacity-building programme or directly in the safeguarding of ICH?

Current evaluation process

65. Let us look now at the current evaluation practice. Since 2015, the Evaluation Body has consisted of six NGOs and six governmental experts from States Parties which are not members of the Intergovernmental Committee. The difference between this Body and the previous Consultative and Subsidiary Bodies is not deemed to be major, although the system change has undeniably contributed to improving the efficiency of the evaluation process and strengthening the consistency of the recommendations to the Committee. NGO members seem to be advantaged compared to individual experts, as their representatives can be replaced and they can share the workload with other colleagues within their NGO. On the contrary, individual members complain that working alone for four years in a row is very exhausting for a single expert and that the period should be reduced. Over the years, a manageable annual evaluation cycle has been developed which is currently rather tight, but feasible. As long as the ceiling


for the annual number of files remains the same, it is hard to imagine any reorganization which would lead to greater efficiency.

66. The ruling principle of the Evaluation Body’s work is consensus building. Even when consensus cannot be achieved, the Body must always find solutions which are acceptable for everyone. Another important principle is the amount of time and attention devoted to every single file. Every member of the Body is obliged to study each file carefully and to provide his or her own view on each and every criterion. Only then can all the Body members compare their views and start building consensus. Such a system decreases the level of subjectivity to a minimum, as twelve different voices need to unite and provide a single recommendation.

67. As already discussed, the current evaluation system is based on a set of criteria and the evaluators are obliged to take into consideration only the information contained in the files. More than 80 per cent of all the respondents would prefer to have a chance to use their own knowledge or other resources during the evaluation process. However, it is hard to imagine how such a procedure should work and what would the impacts be. Formal mistakes or the incapability to follow instructions in the nomination form seem to be the most frequent reasons for a referral. Body members can perfectly understand the Committee’s desire to see all elements inscribed. However, the Evaluation Body, unlike the Committee, is completely bound by the information included in the file.

68. From the experts’ perspective, there are two types of overturned recommendations. The first group concerns decisions to inscribe elements which have been recommended for a referral based on technical matters, such as the inclusion in an inventory, the lack of certain documentary evidence, etc. Such reversals are frustrating for the Evaluation Body, but not that painful. The Evaluation Body often regrets that a rather minor but important detail would prevent an inscription. However, whenever the Intergovernmental Committee decides to reverse a file on a substantial issue, such as an unsuitable or unfeasible safeguarding plan or the lack of community participation, it inevitably takes away a chance for the community and the State Party to reflect on their mistakes and improve the file for the sake of effective safeguarding. Simultaneously, a message is sent to the world that such nomination files are exemplary as they are published on the UNESCO website and never corrected. Together with the lack of proper follow-up, more damage than profit can ensue. Such a procedure naturally arouses bitterness among Body members and other experts.

69. In 2019, an upstream dialogue process was introduced for the first time.2 Although it provoked a complicated discussion and led to some difficult decisions, Evaluation Body members agreed that a dialogue process, which makes it possible to bring new information and ensures that such information is reflected in the public presentation of the element is desirable and valuable. The Body chose to use dialogue exclusively for issues which could be resolved through a simple question-and-answer process and would not entail changing the file. As such, not many files benefitted from the new system because normally, in the case of minor technical details, the Evaluation Body adopts a lenient approach and prefers not to refer a file at all. This agreed principle was obviously misunderstood by the Committee, whose members at the 14.COM meeting kept asking why the dialogue process could not be used for all referred files. It would certainly be welcomed if, after some more testing, the upstream dialogue process were intensified and extended. Then all files could benefit from this process and all issues could be resolved before the nomination files come in front of the Intergovernmental

2 . The first form of a dialogue process was introduced back in 2009, during the first evaluation cycle. At that time, the Secretariat would send detailed letters to the States Parties requesting additions and corrections to their files. This was extremely time-consuming and the Secretariat was forced to abandon this practice after a few initial years. This procedure and its practical results documents that no matter how detailed a dialogue process is, it can never ensure that all files are perfected and eventually inscribed.


Committee. However, this might entail lowering the annual ceiling of nomination files or changing (prolonging) the overall procedure, as the current procedures and schedules do not allow for such an extension.

70. The former and current body members also discussed the use of external information resources and were very creative. They identified, among preferred research sources, public information such as articles, news or websites, the creation of an online system for exchanging information with submitting States or the communities concerned, the organization of surveys, dispatching members from the region of the file to collect information, and, of course, on-site visits. However, body members simultaneously feared that accepting external information during the evaluation process would be a double-edged sword and that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to control such a process and make it fair for all countries.

71. Finally, looking at the communication between the Intergovernmental Committee and the Evaluation Body, we can see that it is rather limited to exchanges between the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body and the Committee members during the Committee sessions. On the one hand, it is important to separate these two entities and secure their mutual neutrality. On the other hand, several meetings with the ad hoc working group during the past three years have showed how beneficial it is for Evaluation Body members and representatives of States Parties to sit together and discuss important issues in a non-formal atmosphere. Such exchanges allow both parties to understand each other’s positions and ideas and to find solutions, while respecting their mutual independence. The upstream dialogue process is a concrete result of such a debate.


- Keep testing the upstream dialogue process;

- Based on deliberations concerning the purpose of the Lists, take a decision as to whether the system will only be revised or changed, then discuss possible changes to the evaluation procedures;

- Prepare more illustrative and attractive instructions and aids with concrete examples to guide the submitting States when drafting their nomination files.

LHE/21/EXP/4 – page 16 ANNEX 1

Comparison of the Evaluation Body’s recommendations and the Committee’s decisions to inscribe, refer or reject elements on the Lists between 2009 and 2019

Year List Number of files withdrawn

Consultative bodies' recommendation

Intergovernmental Committee's decision

YES REFER NO dual option YES REFER NO dual

option

2009

Urgent 15 1 12 12Representative 76 0 76 76

RGP 3 0 3 3total 94 1 91 0 0 0 91 0 0 0

2010

Urgent 4 0 3 1 4Representative 47 0 46 1 47

RGP 0 0total 51 0 49 0 1 1 51 0 0 0

2011

Urgent 23 6 5 15 3 11 6Representative 49 11 24 19 5 1 18 20

RGP 12 4 5 7 5 3total 84 21 34 19 27 4 34 20 9 0

2012

Urgent 8 1 3 5 4 3Representative 36 4 18 16 1 1 27 5

RGP 2 0 2 2total 46 5 23 16 6 1 33 5 3 0

2013

Urgent 12 2 3 9 4 6Representative 31 3 23 1 7 25 3

RGP 2 0 2 1 1total 45 5 28 1 16 0 30 3 7 0

2014


RGP 4 2 1 3 1 1total 58 13 36 6 16 0 38 5 2 0

2015


RGP 0 0total 43 3 22 15 6 0 28 11 1 0

2016

Urgent 6 1 4 2 4 1Representative 37 0 18 19 33 4

RGP 7 0 3 2 2 5 1 1total 50 1 25 23 2 0 42 6 1 0

2017 Urgent 6 0 4 2 6


Representative 35 1 23 5 7 34 1RGP 4 2 2 2 2total 45 3 29 5 2 9 42 1 0 0

2018

Urgent 7 0 5 2 7Representative 40 1 29 9 2 32 5 2

RGP 2 1 1 1 1total 49 2 35 11 3 0 40 5 2 0

2019

Urgent 6 1 1 5 5Representative 42 3 28 12 2 35 5

RGP 3 1 2 1 2total 51 5 31 18 2 0 42 5 0 0

2009-2019

Urgent 103 18 46 9 39 6 65 1 17Representative 474 31 336 102 27 9 384 59 2

RGP 39 10 21 3 15 0 22 1 6total 616 59 403 114 81 15 471 61 25 0

* The numbers of inscribed elements do not correspond with actual numbers in the lists, as some inscriptions have been extended and thus the same files appear in multiple cycles, some elements have been transferred or deleted.

85%

11%4%

Decisions of Intergovernmental Committee

Decision to inscribe Decision to referDecision not to inscribe

66%19%

13% 2%

Recommendations of consultative bodiesRecommended for inscriptionRecommended for referralRecommended for non inscriptionDual option

LHE/21/EXP/4 – page 18 ANNEX 2

Recommendations for referral/non inscription based on criteria forthe Urgent Safeguarding List and the Representative List

U113%

U212%

U339%

U428%

U58%

NOs and REFERRALs based on criteriaURGENT SAFEGUARDING LIST

R120%

R223%

R322%

R418%

R517%

NOs and REFERRALs based on criteriaREPRESENTATIVE LIST

U1/R119%

U2/R221%

U3/R325%

U4/R420%

U5/R515%

NOs and REFERRALs for USL and RL

* Proposals for the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices are not included, as each file is explicitly evaluated by YES/NO/REFER option as a whole, not based on individual criteria.

In case of a dual option, both options have been included.

LHE/21/EXP/4 – page 19ANNEX 3

Overview of issues repeatedly identified by consultative bodies within all evaluation cycles

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TotalSB SB CB SB CB SB CB SB CB SB EB EB EB EB EB

CONCEPTUAL issuesRight scope and scale of an element 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8Linkages between all criteria 1 1 1 1 1 5Linkages between criteria with respect to communities 1 1 1 1 1 5

Conflicting/contradictory/incoherent information 1 1 1 1 1 5U1/R1 - Identification of domains vs. description of an element (checkboxes) 1 1 1 1 1 5

U1/R1 - Clear and consistent definition and description of communities 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

U1/R1 - Lack of clear description of an element 1 1 1 1 1 1 6U1/R1 - Focusing on historical or technical description while omitting current state of an element

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

U1/R1 - Lack of clear description of social and cultural functions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

U1/R1 - Absence of (the description of) community-based transmission 1 1 1 3

R1 - Emphasizing fragility and endangerment 1 1 1 3Link between R1 and R2 (if R1 is not satisfied, R2 cannot be either) 1 1 1 1 4

U2 - Inadequate needs assessment 1 1 1 3U2 - General threats vs. specific ones 1 1 1 1 4R2 - Misunderstanding the concept of the criterion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

U3/R3 - Prior attention to safeguarding 1 1 2U3/R3 - Generic safeguarding measures vs. specific ones 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

R3 - Safeguarding only specific parts of an element; overlooking issues affecting an element but not directly related to it (language loss,

1 1 1 1 4


scarcity of materials, environmental issues, etc.)

U3/R3 - Differences between safeguarding plans and measures

1 1 2

U3/R3 - Community participation in planning and implementation of safeguarding measures

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

U3/R3 - Inadequately specified safeguarding measures; safeguarding measures not corresponding to identified threats

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

U3/R3 – Lack of safeguarding measures addressing expected possible negative consequences of inscription

1 1 1 1 1 1 6

U3/R3 - Lack of commitment of the State Party 1 1 2U3 - Specification and coherence between objectives/activities/budgets/timetables 1 1 1 1 1 5

U3 - Unidentified financial resources/expectation of automatic funding by the UNESCO 1 1 1 1 4

Linkages between U2 and U3 1 1 1 1 4U4/R4 - Community participation in the nomination process 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

U4/R4 - Forms and scope of free, prior and informed consent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

U4/R4 - Selection of community representatives, identification of signatories 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

R5 - Inclusion of elements in inventories and the degree of information completeness (periodicity and modality of updating, community participation, documentation)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

Top-down driven files or safeguarding measures 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Multinational files - lack of balance in States Parties' contribution 1 1 1 1 1 5

Degree of sharing heritage in multinational files 1 1 1 3Focus on safeguarding physical space instead of ICH; balance between these two in safeguarding measures

1 1 1 1 4


SUPPORTING issuesInappropriate vocabulary or formulations, misunderstanding of concepts and principles of the Convention, notions of exclusivity or ownership

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

Commercialization of ICH elements 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12Tourism 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9Institutionalization and professionalization 1 1 2Decontextualization, festivization, freezing of elements 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Licensing or labelling elements 1 1 1 3Dealing with elements having roots in war/conflict 1 1 1 1 4

Involvement of children and youth and their consent 1 1 1 3

Gender 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Issues concerning sustainable development 1 1 1 1 4Characterization of practices in another country 1 1 2Videos - information value, coherence with the rest of the file 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

Assertions instead of demonstrations; evidence and explanations missing 1 1 2

Missing explanation concerning compatibility with human rights 1 1 1 1 4

Demonstrating respect for customary practices 1 1 2Use of animals 1 1 1 1 4Confusion between different UNESCO mechanisms (2005 and 1972 conventions) 1 1 1 3

Boundary between community-based and professional sports 1 1 1 1 1 5


TECHNICAL issuesLinguistic quality of files 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11Misplaced information 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Poor translation, careless drafting 1 1 1 1 1 5Copy - paste, identical texts in files 1 1 1 1 4Respecting word limits 1 1 1 3Unexplained terms and acronyms 1 1 2Ignoring prior decisions of the Committee, transversal issue documents and aids prepared by the Secretariat

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Titles of elements 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

* All issues which appeared at least twice and were discussed more extensively than merely mentioned are listed in the table. As issues often overlap, similar topics have been merged.

ich.unesco.org · web viewin this context, the word “promote” could be removed from the...

Documents