REPORT OF THE CONSULTATIVE BODY ON ITS WORK IN 2014
Decision 9.COM 9
164.The Chairperson introduced the next agenda item 9 by inviting the Chairperson of the Consultative Body, Mr Egil Sigmund Bakka (Norway), and the Rapporteur, Ms Naila Ceribašić (International Council for Traditional Music (ICTM)), to join him on the podium. The Chairperson recalled that this Consultative Body was established by the Committee at its eighth session in Baku to evaluate: i) nominations to Urgent Safeguarding List; ii) proposals for Best Safeguarding Practices; and iii) requests for International Assistance of more than US$25,000. The Chairperson outlined the examination process in which the Rapporteur of the Consultative Body, Ms Ceribašić, would first present the Body’s general observations, followed by those specific to the Urgent Safeguarding List. The Committee would then be invited to debate agenda items 9 and 9.a, without examining draft decision 9.COM 9, which would be examined once all nominations and requests for all three mechanisms had been examined. Mr Bakka would introduce each nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List, summarizing the main points and recommendations of the Consultative Body. The Committee would discuss each nomination and adopt the corresponding draft decision. The same procedure would be followed for item 9.b (Best Safeguarding Practices) and item 9.c (requests for International Assistance). The draft decisions 9.COM 9.b and 9.COM 9.c would be discussed following the examination of the files concerned, which would be followed by the examination of the overall decision 9.COM 9. Recalling the working methods adopted by the Committee, the Chairperson recalled that the debate on the draft decisions was restricted to Members of the Committee. He also recalled Article 22.4 of the Rules of Procedure in which the submitting State, whether Member or not of the Committee, could not intervene to support its file, but only to provide information in response to the questions raised. Since the Committee’s sixth session in Bali in 2011, it was agreed that the Committee would not accept new or additional information presented by the submitting State during the session. Only clarification of information already included in the file evaluated by the Consultative Body would be permitted. This would ensure fair treatment of nomination files between submitting States. It was noted that some States had already withdrawn their files for revision and submission in a subsequent cycle. Finally, the submitting State would be granted two minutes to speak following the Committee’s decision on its file. With no comments forthcoming, Ms Ceribašić was invited to present her report.
165.The Rapporteur, Ms Naila Ceribašić, spoke of her pleasure in introducing the overall report of the Consultative Body on its work in 2014, explaining that the written report was comprised of four parts. She began with a brief overview of the working methods and the files examined by the Consultative Body. Part I.A: ‘Overview of 2014 files and working methods.’ The Body was composed of 12 members; six were individual experts and six persons representing accredited NGOs. At its first meeting in March 2013, the Body elected Mr Egil Sigmund Bakka (Norway) as Chairperson and Ms Emily Drani of the Cross-cultural Foundation of Uganda as Vice-Chairperson. Ms Ceribašić (from ICTM) was elected as Rapporteur. As for the previous cycles, the Secretariat evaluated the technical completeness of the nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and proposals to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, without entering into the substance of the files. However, the Secretariat gave more substantial feedback on the International Assistance requests. Altogether, 15 files were processed by the Secretariat and 14 were transmitted to the Consultative Body (eight for the Urgent Safeguarding List, four for the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices and two for International Assistance). Before meeting for the second time in September 2014, members of the Body submitted their evaluation reports directly through the dedicated website. Based on those evaluation reports, draft recommendations were elaborated by the Secretariat. During the meeting, the Body collectively evaluated each nomination, and debated and amended the recommendations on each criterion, deciding whether or not to recommend the nomination or request. As is the custom, the Body based its evaluations entirely on the information provided in the nomination. An unfavourable recommendation meant that the submitting State had not provided convincing information in the nomination file to satisfy one or more criteria. It was noted that Body members would not be permitted to participate in the evaluation of any nomination file submitted by the country of domiciliation of his or her NGO or by his or her country, and there were two such cases in this cycle. Moreover, of the members initially elected, Ms Kris Rampersad was unable to serve the Body due to her appointment as the representative of Trinidad and Tobago on the UNESCO Executive Board. Mr Anthony Parak Krond completed the evaluation of all the files but was unable to participate in the September meeting due to a visa problem.
166.The Rapporteur turned to the general observations and recommendations common to all three mechanisms. Part I.B:‘General observations and recommendations.’ The Body was impressed with the diversity of intangible cultural heritage, and a reasonable geographical balance that had been maintained, with all electoral groups represented by at least one file. But the limited number of files submitted to these three mechanisms continued to be a subject of concern. In this regard, the Body emphasized the importance of the global capacity-building programme, whose effects were increasingly visible. The Body was also pleased to learn that two African countries were benefitting from technical support through the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund to prepare International Assistance requests, and that others will follow. The Body observed that certain States expected an inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List to automatically result in International Assistance. It was noted that each mechanism in this cycle was independent with no gateway between them. However, this would change in the future, as a new joint form becomes introduced. Beginning with the 2016 cycle, a State may propose a nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List and simultaneously request International Assistance to support implementation of its safeguarding plan. During the meeting the Body had a chance to comment on the new joint form, and it was confident that this new procedure would be helpful. In terms of the presentation of files, the Body regretted a number of recurring problems such as poor linguistic quality, misplaced information, and incoherency across different sections of the nomination. Furthermore, there were several files demonstrating a lack of adequate knowledge of the Convention with the use of inappropriate vocabulary or references to concepts that were more in line with the 1972 Convention or the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
167.The Rapporteur further explained that the Body invited submitting States to carefully follow the instructions given in the form and to refer to advice made available in previous Committee decisions. In this regard, the newly published aide-mémoire, which summarized lessons learned, observations and recommendations, represented a useful tool and the Body thanked the Secretariat for its efforts in preparing this document. With regard to the content of the files, the definition of a ‘community’ continued to be a major discussion theme, given that the participation of the community, group or individuals is a common criterion for all three mechanisms. When the communities were not well defined, then unsurprisingly their widest possible participation was not easily demonstrated. It was also important as a prerequisite for satisfying other related criteria for all three mechanisms. The Body also reflected on the contours of a given community, and that external audiences, such as tourists, could not be automatically considered as part of the community concerned, although the Body was also aware that intangible cultural heritage was viable thanks to the intricate social dynamics of a diverse set of actors. The Body again highlighted the importance of clearly describing the role of each actor when preparing submissions.
168.The Rapporteur also noted that there were several files this year in which economic considerations appeared prioritized over safeguarding objectives. While recognizing their potential value, measures such as income generation, remuneration to practitioners or expansion of audiences could not automatically be considered safeguarding measures without clear argumentation. In a similar vein, the issue of de-contextualization was discussed in connection with proposed commercialization, tourism-related activities and the institutionalization of transmission. The Body felt strongly that respect for the social and cultural context must be the priority when it comes to safeguarding measures and that intangible cultural heritage should not be maintained only for the enjoyment of or profit for those outside the communities. In conformity with the decision adopted by the General Assembly at the fifth session, the Rapporteur confirmed that this was the last cycle in which the Body would evaluate the three mechanisms. A single body, the Evaluation Body, would in the future evaluate files for the Convention’s four mechanisms, including the Representative List. Based on experience obtained over the years, document 9 contained several points that the Body wished to highlight, which included the need to continue discussing recurrent issues, the larger implications of the 2003 Convention such as the role of intangible cultural heritage for sustainable development, and encouraging the future Evaluation Body to reflect on the best ways to evaluate the files submitted. The Body wished the very best for the new members of the Evaluation Body to be elected later in the week.
169.The Rapporteur introduced Part II: ‘Specific observations concerning the eight nominations evaluated for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List.’ Beginning with a brief summary of the observations concerning each criterion, the Rapporteur noted the main issue encountered in criterion U.1 was the recurrent problem of submitting States not clearly defining the element. In some cases the Body found that the scope of the element was too large or too vague. When the element is not clearly defined, then the contour of the community, the viability of the element, and the threats that it faced cannot be satisfactorily defined. In other words, a weak definition of Criterion U.1 has consequences in the evaluation of criteria U.2 and U.4. The Body thus invited the States to be attentive to the ‘right’ scale and scope of the element. Problems related to the definition of the element also included the question of the role of the various actors involved. The Body understood that communities concerned with an element could include the larger population, such as an external audience, but the lack of a clear definition in certain files was problematic in understanding their involvement and role in ensuring the viability of the element proposed. The Body also found cases in which the nomination concentrated on historical characteristics or technical aspects, while omitting to describe the social function and cultural meaning of the proposed element within the community in its contemporary context. There was also a case where economic benefit appeared to be the primary reason offered for safeguarding. The Body highlighted once again the need to strike a balance between cultural significance, social function and economic development.
170.As regards criterion U.2, the Rapporteur reported that the Body regretted that in more than half of the submitted nominations the viability of the element and the frequency of its practice were not sufficiently demonstrated. The submitting States were encouraged to describe the current status and situation of the element; information considered essential when evaluating safeguarding measures. The Body also observed that there was a tendency for States to list the threats in an overly generic way, for example evoking an ageing population, disinterest of the younger generation, and diminishing number of bearers. The Body recalled the need for the threats to be identified at the community level, which must be specific to the element. The threats also need to correspond to the measures proposed under criterion U.3. The Body often had prolonged discussion on criterion U.3, even though the criterion was satisfied in half of the nomination files. The numerous issues include concerns over choosing top-down or generic safeguarding measures, not fully involving communities in developing the safeguarding plan, as well as using out-dated historical information for planning. The Body reiterated the importance of identifying realistic resources and providing a detailed budget for the safeguarding plan, recalling that an inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List did not automatically result in the granting of international assistance. Although it was not possible to standardize a format for budgets in the safeguarding plan, the Body requested the Secretariat to share examples of good budgets. Another set of questions in U.3 concerned the issue of traditional transmission versus integration into the formal school curriculum. The Body was of view that the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage required new ways of transmission that should be done in context, and communities should not be dispossessed of their own transmission processes.
171.The Rapporteur moved to criterion U.4, and the recurrent problem in the lack of community participation in the elaboration of the safeguarding plan. The Body wished to remind submitting States that the widest possible participation of the community, group or individuals should be ensured throughout the whole file: in the definition of the element; the assessment of its viability; the identification of threats; the planning and design of safeguarding measures; and in the elaboration of the inventory. Concerning the communities free, prior and informed consent, the Body regretted that submitting States continued to submit uniform consents and declarations rather than individualized and diverse evidence of consent. It highlighted the need to demonstrate consent from various actors within the community and not only by institutions or associations. Moreover, the Body often found scant information or none at all on customary restrictions on access to certain esoteric knowledge. There was also one case where the Body noticed a discrepancy between the written consent and what was shown in the film. Criterion U.5 continued to be problematic, affecting half of the nomination files. The Body recalled that U.5 has three parts. In line with Article 11 and Article 12 of the Convention, submitting States should demonstrate: i) that the element is included in an inventory; ii) that it was drawn up with the participation of communities; and iii) that it is regularly updated. The Body attempted to apply consistency in the evaluation of U.5 across all nomination files, but decided that deficiencies in one or more parts of this three-part criterion could not alone be the basis for rejection. It should nevertheless be emphasized that the participation of community members in the nomination process does not automatically mean that they were involved in the inventory process and vice versa. Several aspects of the video also attracted the attention of the Body. The video should help viewers understand the social functions and cultural meanings of the element in its context, and to meet its practitioners and experience the element. In this regard, submitting States should strive to provide information to contextualize what is shown in the video; care must be taken not to cut the flow of a selected excerpt and to avoid using soundtracks that are not related to the context of the practice. The Body also reiterated the importance of mobilizing all actors involved in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage, including those outside the culture sector. It encouraged States to ensure that nominated elements respect existing international human rights instruments, which was sometimes not addressed in the files.
172.Taking all eight files submitted for the Urgent Safeguarding List, the Rapporteur concluded that the Body was happy to note evidence of the commitment of States to the well-being of small, rural and indigenous communities that are under social and economic stress, as well as their efforts in demonstrating the role played by intangible cultural heritage in sustainable development, cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue, and links between nature and the environment. On the issues of transmission of intangible cultural heritage from generation to generation, the Body was also pleased to see a nomination that demonstrated cross-gender transmission from father to daughter.
173.The Chairperson thanked the Rapporteur for the pertinent points raised, opening the floor for a general debate on the first part of the report.
174.The delegation of Belgium congratulated the Consultative Body for its excellent work and its very interesting recommendations and conclusions, adding that it had a number of small points for further discussion. Firstly, regarding paragraph 24 of document ITH/14/9.COM/9.a on consent, the delegation felt that various actors in the community, not only institutions or associations, act as mediators or community representatives and should provide their consent. It believed that the Committee should develop these ideas further because mediators were often shown in a negative light when in fact they could really contribute to the safeguarding plans and programmes. Moreover, mediators could serve as cultural brokers and translators, and therefore the whole concept of who could represent the community in terms of the safeguarding procedure could be further reflected upon. Secondly, regarding paragraphs 36 and 37 of the afore mentioned document on human rights, especially gender issues, the delegation wondered about the definition of gender being applied, i.e. was it only the difference between men and women, or could it also relate to the gay or lesbian community, and was the definition of masculinity covered by the gender dimension. The delegation raised another more general question about sustainable development, especially when talking about the role a particular element could play in sustainable development. It felt that there were larger possibilities to rethink the relations between safeguarding and sustainable development, and it agreed with the comments that perhaps the very limited amount of words provided in the form did not really allow State Parties to develop these arguments, and therefore it welcomed further reflection in this regard. The delegation understood that these points would be discussed later in the agenda, but it wished to hear comments and conclusions on examining the relationship between intangible heritage, safeguarding and sustainable development.
175.The delegation of Congo joined Belgium in commending the Consultative Body on the objective and unbiased nature of its work based on the specific criteria. In this way, it had provided a great service to the Convention. It believed that the Evaluation Body would continue to work with the same determination in a same spirit of objectivity. With regard to paragraph 36 of document ITH/14/9.COM/9, it wondered whether the Consultative Body, in its evaluation of a nomination, should carry out field observations or whether should it be satisfied with the submitted files.
176.The delegation of Brazil also wished to congratulate the Consultative Body for its excellent report and work, adding that it had three specific questions. The first was in line with the question by Congo on paragraph 36 of the report about on-site observations. It sought a reply from the representative of the Consultative Body on the need for on-site observations in cases where the Committee might want to identify best practices or verify the need for urgent safeguarding. The second question was on the issue mentioned in paragraph 21 of the same report in which certain nominations proposed very interesting safeguarding measures, but the funding resources were not well identified. In a certain way this was a core problem of elements that were under threat of disappearance and required urgent safeguarding, but were under threat largely owing to a lack of financial resources. However, it understood that some countries presented nominations with the expectation that inscription would lead to new resources, either from international cooperation or from the ICH Fund; a problem that needed to be addressed. The third question also related to the Urgent Safeguarding List, with the delegation believing that once an element was inscribed on this List there should be a medium- or long-term plan of overturning the situation: either because the safeguarding measures implemented were sufficient to solve the problems posed by the threat, or because the circumstances had deteriorated to the point where the element was actually disappearing and the safeguarding measures were not sufficient to solve the problem. It therefore wished to hear further comments on how these issues could help project the future for those elements on the Urgent Safeguarding List. Finally, the delegation felt that it was important to mention in the decision that the new Evaluation Body would continue to benefit from this accumulated mass of experience and jurisprudence created by both the Committee and the Consultative Body.
177.The delegation of Afghanistan expressed its great interest in having listened to the Rapporteur explain the different facets of a submitted file, adding that it was like a presentation on anthropology that exposed profound knowledge. The delegation spoke of how every time it had wanted to prepare a file it was almost compelled to write a thesis on the subject and the diverse and profound questions raised. It was perhaps easier in developed countries, where these aspects of sociology and anthropology had already been studied, but so difficult in less developed countries where there was less experience in this approach and therefore in responding to these issues. Moreover, involving the community in the different phases of nominations, transmission, inventories, and so on, was difficult work, particularly if the community was not defined, for which the delegation had yet to find a very clear definition. In this case, everything was made possible to answer the questions through research with the diverse populations. Nevertheless, there was one truly important fact: the community could not do anything without the State. It was noted that the State was often associated in this work, and that if the State did not undertake the procedure the community alone would not be able to take on such a difficult task, which meant that there was an imbalance. The delegation remarked that there were States Parties that had many inscribed elements, while there were countries that did not yet have a single element inscribed. Thus, how could membership to the Convention be justified when certain Member States had no elements inscribed? The delegation remarked that its attention was directed to these States in order to redress the balance, as they were somehow excluded. It called for a rethink of the situation in order to build capacity in these countries so that they would at least have one element inscribed. It also spoke of the diversity of the societies and communities in the world with multiple situations and actors that had varying capacities and resources. The delegation urged the Secretariat – notwithstanding its truly extraordinary efforts so far – to further facilitate the evaluations because in many of the cases it studied there appeared to be minor differences between the responses by the submitting States and the appreciation of the file by the Committee.
178.The delegation of the Republic of Korea appreciated the Consultative Body’s efforts to improve the quality of the nomination files, as reflected in its report. It believed that the Consultative Body had accumulated a great deal of experience and know-how in evaluating nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List, hoping that this experience would be fully extended to the new Evaluation Body through their close coordination. With regard to the new form ICH-01bis, mentioned in paragraph 21 and 22 of the report, it understood that the new form was designed to allow States Parties to request International Assistance in their nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List. However, it felt that the form would introduce further procedures to the nomination process. It therefore asked the Secretariat to clarify this point, adding that more study was needed on the integration of the two separate procedures and their possible implications.
179.The delegation of Tunisia thanked the Consultative Body for its efforts, noting that some of the comments in the report were also mentioned in previous reports, including the difficulty of defining an element, reflecting the nature of intangible cultural heritage. There was also the issue of disparities in technical expertise among submitting States. Another issue was related to defining the concept of local communities, and that without an exact definition the Body could not evaluate their participation in the preparation of nomination files to the Urgent Safeguarding List. With regard to urgent safeguarding, the delegation believed that one safeguarding programme was not better than another, and therefore information could also be taken into account from field observations so that nominations were not solely based on theoretical considerations.
180.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire joined the other Members in congratulating the Consultative Body for the quality of its work. The delegation noted that there was some confusion about commercial exploitation and tourism development in the report for which it sought an explanation. It explained that it wished to know at what point did safeguarding measures become measures of commercial exploitation, and tourist development become a safeguard measure, as there appeared to a fine line that should not be crossed.
181.The Chairperson invited the Rapporteur to respond to the questions and comments.
182.In response to the question by Belgium on the consent of different actors, the Rapporteur did not wish to imply that the Consultative Body was negative about mediators, only that it sought consent from other community members such as the bearers and practitioners. Regarding the gender and human rights issues, the Rapporteur remarked that references had been made to the decisions of the Committee, and its emphasis on greater recognition of women and youth within the nomination, which was the same case for human rights. With regard to sustainability, it was true that it was not only an issue of economics, and that the Body also placed emphasis on the importance of involving a greater number of the various actors within the community in the project of safeguarding, as this would provide a better chance for the sustainability of the safeguarding programme. With regard to the question of on-site observations raised by Congo and Brazil, the Rapporteur remarked that the Body’s examination was solely based on the files and not the reality on the ground. This is specific to the 2003 Convention compared to other conventions. In this way, it was up to the Committee to determine the type of development it wished to take. The Body was encouraging the forthcoming Evaluation Body to be in a constant process of reflection on the criteria and their interpretation. As for the definition of a community, the Rapporteur noted that there were several Members that commented that communities were not defined by the Convention and although true, the Committee had at its disposal a large body of knowledge through decisions by the Committee and General Assembly, as well as Operational Directives, which was reflected in the aide-mémoire that compiled this accumulated knowledge over the years. Moreover, there was a huge diversity among communities, but there was still enough information for the Body to know whether the community is well defined and to understand how it participated in the safeguarding plan and the inventorying process. The Rapporteur concluded by saying that site visits were not in the spirit of this Convention, or at least not part of the evaluation of nominations, proposals and requests.
183.The Chairperson invited the Secretary to respond to the other questions raised.
184.Regarding site visits, the Secretary wished to elaborate on the problems it posed in financial terms, remarking that it was generally agreed that – in the spirit of the Convention – intangible cultural heritage was determined by the communities, and that site visits would not alter this fact. It was the community that decides, and it was not the expert’s task to determine whether it was confronted with intangible cultural heritage. However, the State had a duty to demonstrate in the nomination that the submitted element matched the criteria, i.e. it was a demonstration exercise and not the reality, which is solely determined by the communities. Thus, it was the duty of the actors working on the submission of nomination files to gather all the information necessary. In addition, some of the elements occurred every 7 years, some every 25 years, such that it would be almost impossible to organize visits, coupled with the costs of such visits. It thus became the practice of the Convention and the Committee to base their decisions only on information contained in the nomination file. This did not imply that the reality on the ground was inexistent if it was not contained in the file. Simply put, all the elements necessary for inscription must be contained in the file. The Secretary underscored the importance of understanding that when an element was not recommended for inscription it was the nomination file under scrutiny not the intangible cultural heritage itself. The Secretary understood that it was very difficult to comprehend that it was the nomination file being considered by the Committee, not the element, especially for the communities concerned. She also spoke of the fate of the element listed on the Urgent Safeguarding List, i.e. for how long would they remain on the list. She explained that the purpose of the List was also to approve the safeguarding plan that accompanied these nominations so as to eventually remove the element from the List, though admittedly this process had not yet been established. The Operational Directives very clearly state that when an element no longer meets the criteria of a List, it should no longer be on that List, and of course if it meets the criteria of another List, it should be on that List. Thus, there were two options: either the element is transferred from one List to another, or the element is removed from the List altogether, as was mentioned by Mexico in its remark concerning the Masterpieces in which some elements were automatically inscribed to the Representative List while others corresponded better to the criteria of the Urgent Safeguarding List. A worse scenario faced on several occasions by the Subsidiary Body occurred when it found that an element would be better suited to the Urgent Safeguarding List rather than on the Representative List, but that there was no tangible mechanism to suggest the transfer. The Secretary explained that nothing in the criteria prohibited an element under threat to be inscribed on the Representative List, i.e. the criteria for the Representative List did not require the element to demonstrate that its viability was satisfactory. In addition, States preferred to submit their nominations to the Representative List, for whatever reason, even though their element was fully in line with criteria of the Urgent Safeguarding List. The Secretary agreed that this point deserved further reflection, especially if an element on the Urgent Safeguarding List no longer corresponded to that reality, and with an effective safeguarding plan, deserved to be placed on the Representative List. The question was whether this scenario could be considered as part of the ceiling of all nominations examined by the Committee. Or would it be an extra task to be added to the workload. In any case, while seeking to encourage States to consider the right List that corresponded to the reality, all elements – if they are to be inscribed – must meet all the criteria of the corresponding List, and would go through an evaluation by the Evaluation Body, the Committee and the Secretariat, all of which added to the workload. The Secretary conceded that a reflection on the entire mechanism was rather complicated, requiring creativity and flexibility – as mentioned by Afghanistan – but at the same time, States needed to continue to be rigorous when submitting elements for inscription on different Lists. Finally, on the question posed by the Republic of Korea on the mechanism that combined a nomination to the Urgent Safeguarding List with a request for International Assistance, the Secretary recalled that a decision was taken by the Committee in 2013 to encourage the Secretariat to create a combined form ICH-01bis. It was noted that nominations were often rejected because the safeguarding plan proposed had not yet requested funds from UNESCO, and thus the funds required to implement the safeguarding were not yet in place. It was thus understandable that the Committee would wish to combine the two mechanisms. Moreover, the form would already be available for the first time for nominations in the 2016 cycle, though not for the 2015 cycle, which was launched in March 2014. It was noted that the combined nomination would only count as one, which was an added advantage. It was noted that the submitting State might obtain both the inscription and the approval of funds, but it might also obtain one but not the other, or neither.
185.The Chairperson thanked the Secretary for the interesting and constructive debate, adding that the evaluation of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List would begin tomorrow.
186.The Secretary made a number of announcements, recalling the meetings organized for the following day, namely the NGO meeting in morning and the meeting for the facilitators of capacity-building during the lunch time for the Electoral Group V(a) and V(b). She also informed that the delegates would be able to enjoy breakfast before the session thanks to the generousity of Turkey.
187.The Chairperson reminded the Committee that it would elect the Bureau of the tenth session of the Committee, comprising a Chairperson, one or more Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur, at the end of the week. Thus, it was expected that Electoral Groups conduct consultations within their groups. Bidding the delegates a good evening, the Chairperson adjourned the day’s session.