307.The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the examination of agenda items 9.a and 9.b had been completed, but that it still had to adopt draft decision 9.COM 9.b. Before the adoption, the Chairperson introduced a dance performance by Kenya.
[Isukuti dance presentation by members of
Isukha and Idakho communities of Western Kenya]
308.The Chairperson then turned to the adoption of draft decision 9.COM 9.b as a whole. With no objections or comments, the Chairperson declared Decision 9.COM 9.b adopted.
309.ITEM 9.c OF THE AGENDA:
EXAMINATION OF REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Decision 9.COM 9.c
310.The Chairperson then turned to the agenda item 9.c and the examination of requests for International Assistance. The examination of the three mechanisms entrusted to the Consultative Body would thus be completed and the Committee would then consider draft decision 9.COM 9, which covered a number of transversal issues common to the three different mechanisms. The Chairperson noted that there were only two requests for International Assistance to be examined, adding that it was very surprising considering the financial assistance needed for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage around the world. As the Rapporteur had already presented the general issues relating to international assistance, the Chairperson invited the Chairperson of the Consultative Body to introduce the two requests for the Committee’s consideration.
311.The Chairperson of the Consultative Body presented the first request for International Assistance on Establishing and promoting the inventory of intangible cultural heritage in Albania [draft decision 9.COM 9.c.1] submitted by Albania. The project aims to establish and promote an inventory of intangible cultural heritage in Albania. Activities would include the development of a national strategy for inventorying, promoting and disseminating intangible cultural heritage, followed by awareness-raising sessions to educate communities, policy-makers and the public about its importance. The project aims to build the capacities of local and national stakeholders through training sessions and fieldwork. The inventory would be accessible via a dedicated database and website, and published via brochures and an encyclopaedia. The Body was faced with difficulty considering the striking similarity of the two requests submitted for International Assistance to other requests that had previously been approved by the Committee. It discussed at length the need for each request to be aligned with the specific context of the country in order to address its specific needs, particularly considering Article 11 and Article 12 of the Convention in which States Parties shall draw up inventories in a manner geared to their own situations and with the participation of communities. The Body therefore proposed in paragraph 9 of the draft decision that the Committee reinforce the Body’s previous advice that ‘each file should have its own identity and cannot be the mere adaptation by analogy of previously successful files’. During its evaluation, the Body looked at the request in its totality, addressing both its strengths and shortcomings. Among the strengths, the project responded to criterion A.6, insofar as it aimed to establish an inventory of intangible cultural heritage in Albania and reinforce human and institutional capacity in the area of inventorying: the primary obligations of a State Party to the Convention. It also noted the will and commitment of the State to share 12 per cent of the costs of the proposed activities (A.5). Nevertheless, the Body considered that the request failed to meet a number of key criteria. One of its major weaknesses was the lack of community participation in its preparation and planning (A.1). The information about future community participation in the implementation stage did not inspire confidence: the request stated that the community representatives would be selected by government officials (mayors) to form a Steering Committee, but not the communities themselves. There was also little information on their role in the Steering Committee.
312.The Chairperson of the Consultative Body noted that it was clear that key activities in the development of the national inventory strategy would rely completely on expert consultants. Hence, in paragraph 8 of the draft decision, the Body recommended that the Committee encourage the State Party, if it wished to resubmit its request, to ensure the widest possible participation of concerned communities in the preparation, design and implementation of activities. Subsequently, the Body found a lack of details concerning the planning and organization of project activities, which made it difficult to determine how well-conceived or feasible they were, as required in criterion A.3. The proposed activities appeared top-down and did not correspond to the timetable or budget in areas such as field collection of data, which further questioned their feasibility. For example, the timeline indicated six months for inventory collection, whereas the budget indicated 15 months or 22 months. The Body thus suggested in paragraph 7 that the State attach greater attention to these aspects if it wished to submit a new request. Relating to the lack of details, the Body were unable to ascertain the appropriateness of the amount requested, as required for A.2. The budget also appeared to be top-down and had calculation errors and inconsistencies, and did not correspond well to the proposed activities and timetable. The main impression given was that the process of inventorying itself was the smallest part of the project. The Body also found it worrisome that remuneration was only foreseen for experts and officials, and the file was unclear about whether or how the community representatives conducting the inventory would be compensated. Despite the fact that a central part of the project was to build capacities among local and national stakeholders, the request did not demonstrate the sustainability of the project and its lasting results once the proposed activities had been completed (A.4). It was stated that the project would benefit from several partnerships at the local and national level, but potential actors were not clearly identified. Hence, the Body was unable to assess the real likelihood of future support for the updating of the inventory or other related safeguarding activities. The Body could not therefore recommend the approval of the request for International Assistance on Establishing and promoting the inventory of intangible cultural heritage in Albania. Paragraphs 7–9 of the draft decision offered suggestions the Committee might wish to bring to the attention of the State if it wishes to re-submit its request.
313.Noting that there were no forthcoming comments or objections, the Chairperson turned to the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, which were duly adopted. The Chairperson declared adopted Decision 9.COM 9.c.1 not to approve International Assistance in the amount of US$158,200 for Establishing and promoting the inventory of intangible cultural heritage in Albania.
314.The delegation of Albania began by thanking the Secretariat for the great support it provided throughout the evaluation process, noting that it had received detailed letters of advice on how to improve the nomination file. Secondly, it thanked the Consultative Body for their evaluation work, adding that it took the comments and feedback very seriously and had created a working group that had already started to work on submitting a new request by the March 2015 deadline. Finally, it reiterated its commitment towards taking all the necessary measures to sustainably safeguard intangible cultural heritage in Albania.
315.The Chairperson of the Consultative Body presented the second request for International Assistance on Documentation and inventory of intangible cultural heritage in the Republic of the Sudan [draft decision 9.COM 9.c.2] submitted by Sudan. This project aims to carry out a pilot inventory of the intangible cultural heritage of Kordofan and Blue Nile states, thereby contributing to a larger inventory in Sudan. The project would review existing research, develop a national strategy, establish a database and website, purchase equipment for use by five specially trained inventory teams and build stakeholder capacity. It aims to raise awareness among and conduct fieldwork with local communities, classify the data collected, and elaborate and publish lists of each region’s heritage. As a related request was previously submitted for the 2012 cycle and received a negative recommendation by the Committee at that time, we regretted that in spite of substantial improvements in this resubmission, there were still several serious weaknesses affecting key criteria. The Body noted, like the previous request, that the request bore a striking similarity to others previously approved for other States. With regard to inventorying, which should be carried out ‘in a manner geared to its own situation’, as stipulated in the Convention, the Body found it odd that several countries would proceed in such similar ways. Hence paragraph 11 of the draft decision in which the Body invited the Committee to once more echo the need for each request to be based on its own specific country context in order to address that country’s specific needs. It recognized certain strengths in the request, particularly its aim to strengthen the capacities of all stakeholders (governmental institutions, coordination teams and communities). The project included several training activities to build awareness of the importance of intangible cultural heritage, as well as the skills and methodology necessary to enable them to participate in the documentation and establishment of an inventory, responding well to criterion A.6. Furthermore, it was expected that the pilot inventory would serve as the foundation for future work to establish a national inventory and a cultural map of Sudan. The State Party had demonstrated its commitment and shared the costs of about 11 per cent of the total project budget (A.5).
316.The Chairperson of the Consultative Body reported that despite these commendable intentions, the Body noted several limitations with key criteria. The file did not provide detailed information about the tasks in the pilot process that would allow the Body or the Committee to determine what they entailed and thus whether they would be feasible (A.3). The timetable of 15 months did not seem realistic for the activities proposed. With regard to the activities, a reader would not know the outputs generated from them or how they would contribute to safeguarding. As with the previous nomination, the Body also questioned the extent of community participation in the preparation of the requests (A.1). Although community representatives of Kordofan and Blue Nile participated in the elaboration of the request and gave their consent to it, the file did not well demonstrate how they were going to be included in the actual planning and inventorying process. The approach again appeared to be top-down and did not provide the community with an active role, with the local authorities deciding which community representatives would be involved in the process and how. The Body therefore recommended (in paragraph 9) that the Committee remind the State Party of the essential role of the communities and the need to ensure their active participation in all stages of the preparation and implementation of activities, including the inventory process. Owing to the lack of description of the planned tasks, the Body was unable to assess the appropriateness of the requested amount (A.2). The budget had several inconsistencies and in some cases did not correspond to the duration of activities in the timetable. The Body was surprised to see that the actual inventory fieldwork had a relatively low budget compared to the services of experts and the purchase of equipment. In its view, this was not justified considering the aim of the project, hence its recommendation in paragraph 8. The Body did not doubt that a project of this nature could potentially have lasting results (A.4) and serve as the foundation for future inventory work in Sudan. However, the request did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the feasibility of its activities and outcomes beyond the date of its completion. There was no strategy to take the project forward and the request did not address future possibilities for funding. As a result, the Body could not therefore recommend the approval of the request for International Assistance on Documentation and inventory of intangible cultural heritage in the Republic of the Sudan. The draft decision invited the Committee to draw the attention of the State Party to the concerns mentioned in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the draft decision if it wishes to re-submit its request.
317.The delegation of Algeria thanked the Consultative Body for its work and recommendations. Having examined the request for International Assistance, it wished to draw the Committee’s attention to the important efforts made by Sudan to safeguard its intangible heritage, asking the Sudan delegation to explain its efforts to improve the nomination since its referral in 2012, particularly with regard to the participation of communities in the process.
318.The delegation of Egypt thanked the Consultative Body for its exhaustive report that covered every detail of the nomination file, adding that the Committee benefitted a great deal from these reports for which it was grateful. The delegation wished to recall that Sudan was going through very difficult times, which was well known, and that some of the observations might be linked to its current situation. It believed that it was a race against time to collect the intangible cultural heritage in the two regions of Kordofan and Blue Nile. The delegation knew that Sudan had a number of prominent experts in the field of inventorying and collecting cultural heritage, some of whom were well known in the Arab world, having studied in American and other universities. Sudan therefore had the necessary scientific and technical knowledge and field expertise, and the delegation had no doubt of the capabilities of the Sudanese experts in collecting and preparing an inventory of their intangible cultural heritage. Moreover, the submission of the file raised the issue of the participation of the local communities, which in turn was linked to the prevailing political situation. The delegation spoke of the great instability in Sudan, and it feared that the cultural heritage in these two provinces was threatened if nothing was done to help Sudan prepare a database of their intangible cultural heritage and establish an inventory. It suggested that the Chairperson allow the delegation of Sudan to speak in order to dispel any worries or doubts about the submitted file.
319.The delegation of Turkey concurred that it was of vital importance for every State Party to prepare its national inventories, which constituted the essence of the implementation of the Convention. This was particularly true for those countries that lacked the expertise, resources, and capacity to prepare national inventories, and the reason the Committee should act in solidarity to support those nations’ capacities for inventorying-making. From that perspective, the delegation believed Sudan’s request was justified and had a very relevant place among the top priorities of the Convention. Having carefully examined the observations of the Consultative Body, the delegation understood the shortcomings, yet the request came at a time when there were sufficient resources to meet such requests. Thus, the States Parties that were more capable of fulfilling the requirements of the Convention should support such requests. It welcomed the comments by Sudan, suggesting that afterwards the Committee look once more into the possibility of providing assistance.
320.The delegation of Brazil remarked on the earlier comments that spoke of the difficulties faced by States Parties in having their proposals accepted for financial support from the Fund, adding that this was one of those cases where it regretted that the proposal by a State Party, which was greatly in need of resources, had its proposal rejected, perhaps because of the strict interpretation of the rules. The delegation was not against the financial rules for UNESCO funding, but felt that the interpretation of some of the Convention criteria was perhaps too tough on States Parties, especially with lesser resources and who need financial support in order to fulfil their obligations to the Convention such as inventorying and documentation. In the case of Sudan, it had already presented a request for financial support, which was not accepted, and thus it revised its request, presenting it a second time. However, despite the country’s efforts, and the fact that it had received support from the Secretariat in order to present a proposal that would be deemed adequate, it did not succeed. The delegation asked that Sudan clarify whether the required information was contained within the file, perhaps not in a manner that was considered sufficient, but maybe the information was in the file and that it was just a matter of interpretation. For example, with regard to the training activities, the Consultative Body considered that there was insufficient information about the content of training activities. The delegation therefore asked Sudan to clarify whether this information was contained in the file. In addition, it sought clarification on the involvement of communities in the inventorying and the elaboration of the proposal. A third point was related to the lack of a detailed description of the tasks, while the timetable was considered inaccurate. Finally, the delegation sought clarification on the outcomes of the project, even though it was evident that it sought to establish a regional inventory for the Kordofan and Blue Nile regions, which was accepted as important. Another comment requiring clarity concerned the reason behind the attribution of resources between fieldwork and the services of experts and equipment, which appeared to be imbalanced.
321.The delegation of Ethiopia also mentioned the fact that there were only two proposals under examination, with one already being rejected, and it fully supported the concerns raised by Brazil, the Republic of Korea and Congo in this regard. It also concurred with the comments by Algeria, Egypt, Turkey and Brazil in the case of Sudan, which clearly sought to document its intangible cultural heritage by establishing an inventory, which was the first step towards the implementation of the Convention. Moreover, it was noted that the request dealt with the development of its national inventory strategy on awareness-raising and capacity-building, and that despite a negative recommendation in 2012, the Consultative Body had observed substantial improvements compared to its initial request, albeit there were still some shortcomings. The delegation therefore wished to ask Sudan to explain how they rectified the gaps and responded to the earlier concerns in its 2012 request. In this way, the Committee would have a balanced overview of the amendments made and thus base its decision to help the State Party implement the basic steps towards documenting and inventorying its intangible cultural heritage.
322.The delegation of Tunisia noted that the report had revealed various shortcomings in the file, particularly related to the participation of local communities and the incoherence between the various tasks and the 15-month timeframe. However, it believed that these factors were related to the formulation of the file and did not affect the value of the project. The delegation spoke of how the region and its cultural heritage was at risk, adding that a positive response to the request would convey a positive message to this part of the world that would later have a positive impact. It therefore asked the Committee to consider sending an encouraging message to Sudan, and to allow it to respond to the concerns.
323.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire remarked that only two requests for international assistance had been presented, both receiving negative recommendations. It therefore considered that there were issues regarding the presentation of nomination files. In the case of Sudan, the delegation felt the situation in the country deserved a message of hope, as expressed by Tunisia. It therefore requested that Sudan be given the opportunity to respond to the questions raised by the Consultative Body. The delegation made reference to paragraph 4.d in the draft decision, which states, ‘the request does not sufficiently describe how the outcomes of the project will last beyond its completion date’, suggesting that the lack of a complete description could be attributed to the limited word count.
324.The delegation of Uganda appreciated the observations made by the Consultative Body, adding that it had noted some inadequacies and inconsistencies, but it also agreed with the previous speakers that the proposal submitted by Sudan was pertinent, especially in view of the turbulences within Sudan that could contribute to the loss of its intangible cultural heritage. The delegation remarked on the observation by the Consultative Body that States Parties encountered difficulties in presenting International Assistance requests, and as such strongly believed that this request could be salvaged. It therefore requested that Sudan be allowed to respond to some of these issues.
325.The Chairperson noted that all the interventions had followed the same direction, inviting Sudan to respond to the questions.
326.The delegation of Sudan was happy to be given the opportunity to address the Committee, and was equally happy to hear the support of its Members at this sensitive stage of the country’s history. In order to understand the reasons behind its request, the delegation wished to express its reservations concerning a number of recommendations made by the Consultative Body. It asserted that the intangible cultural heritage in the regions of the Blue Nile and Kordofan were given the highest priority in the country because of the high risk of the intangible cultural heritage becoming undermined if urgent steps were not taken to collect data in an inventory. The delegation spoke of the common borders with many countries that exceeded 1,000 km, adding that these were the most vulnerable regions in an area prone to conflict and thus a grave threat to its cultural heritage. It also spoke of Sudan’s involvement at the forefront of countries advocating for the safeguarding of cultural heritage. It had many experts, and had established in the University of Khartoum in 1964 a centre specializing in intangible cultural heritage, which produced a number of experts who were well known to UNESCO. Sudan was now putting into practice the necessary provisions in order to produce an inventory of its intangible cultural heritage, in line with the need to promote cooperation with Sudan and to promote peace and eliminate all sources of conflict. Indeed, UNESCO had provided support to Sudan through regular funding and extrabudgetary resources. It hoped that the Committee would reconsider its decision and provide the support it needed to protect its cultural heritage.
327.Following the comments, the Chairperson turned to the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. With no comments or proposed amendments to paragraphs 1–3, they were duly adopted. The Chairperson then turned to sub-paragraphs 4.a through to 4.f, and with no comments or objections, they were duly adopted.
328.In light of the discussion, the delegation of Turkey proposed to reconsider paragraph 5.
329.The delegation of Uruguay agreed with the position proposed by Turkey.
330.The delegation of Ethiopia was satisfied with the explanation provided by Sudan regarding the risks that undermined its cultural heritage unless there was urgent intervention. In light of the discussion, the delegation reiterated the observation from the Consultative Body that there was a substantial improvement in the content of the file, in which case, the Committee should reconsider the case, as had been expressed by the Committee Members.
331.The Chairperson asked Turkey to submit its amendment to paragraph 5.
332.Having heard the explanation provided by the State Party, the delegation of Turkey proposed, ‘Decides to approve the International Assistance request from Sudan and encourages the government of Sudan to complete the missing elements in line with the observations made by the Consultative Body’.
333.The delegation of Brazil wished to propose an amendment along the same lines as Turkey, and approve the International Assistance request. It also proposed a second paragraph that would encourage the government of Sudan to work with the Secretariat to complete the missing information in line with the recommendations by the Consultative Body, as proposed by Turkey. The delegation recalled that this was the second time Sudan had made a request, and was thus very urgent. Nevertheless, the State Party would be asked to work with the Secretariat to complete the necessary information in the file so as to have a complete plan for the utilization of the resources.
334.The Chairperson noted that there were two complementary proposals.
335.The delegation of Ethiopia remarked that the important point was to approve the request by the State Party, while recommending that Sudan work with the Secretariat. It therefore supported the proposal by Brazil.
336.The delegation of Uganda agreed with Brazil that Sudan work with the Secretariat and the Bureau to complete the missing information.
337.The delegation of Namibia supported the proposed revision of paragraph 5.
338.The delegation of Algeria also supported the proposal by Brazil.
339.The delegation of Turkey also endorsed the second paragraph, as proposed by Brazil.
340.The delegation of Belgium noted that there was now a huge discrepancy between paragraph 4 and paragraph 5, and thus suggested that the amendment by Brazil be inserted between these paragraphs. It also remarked that the approval of the request by the Committee would be a huge precedent and therefore, if accepted, should be clearly mentioned in the decision that this was made on a very exceptional basis. In this way, the precedent would not become a rule. The delegation also referred to paragraph 4.e, which stated, ‘In the absence of detailed description of planned tasks, the amount requested cannot be assessed as appropriate’. Thus, the Committee was deciding positively despite the previous paragraph stating that there was insufficient information. This implied that more work had to be done than simply accepting the proposal, and in any case, a paragraph had to be included between paragraphs 4 and 5 that clearly stated that this could not be a precedent in future decisions.
341.The delegation of Nigeria also endorsed the proposal by Brazil.
342.The delegation of Republic of Korea agreed to go along with the proposed paragraph 5, however, as indicated by Belgium, there was a discrepancy between paragraphs 4 and 5, so the new paragraph 6 would provide a good link between the two paragraphs. It therefore supported the proposal for paragraph 6, adding that the comments by Belgium was also very valid, and therefore required a sentence to indicate that this was an exceptional case.
343.In light of the response by Sudan, the delegation of Tunisia also supported the proposal by Brazil.
344.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire supported the proposal by Brazil, noting that the amendments proposed were necessary so as to ensure that the rules were followed. It noted that the Committee wished to help Sudan, but at the same time, it did not want to set a precedent. Thus, it supported the proposed amendments on the understanding that this was an exceptional situation.
345.The delegation of Uruguay agreed with the new paragraphs 5 and 6, but it also wished to see mentioned in the decision that this constituted an exceptional case due to the very special circumstances in Sudan. Finally, it appreciated having a timeline for the online presentation of the missing information by Sudan with the help of the Secretariat. In this regard, the delegation asked that the Secretariat provide an appropriate timetable for this presentation.
346.The delegation of India also supported the proposition by Brazil and Turkey to approve the International Assistance to Sudan, requesting the State Party to work with the Secretariat to complete all the necessary work as recommended by the Consultative Body.
347.The delegation of Greece concurred that the proposed amendments by Brazil and Turkey should stand owing to the exceptional circumstances on the ground. However, there was a need for consistency between the paragraphs and decisions. The delegation regretted that the draft decision was not formulated on a criterion-by-criterion basis, as this created confusion in the Committee’s debates. It understood that this may be better for the evaluating bodies to examine files in this way, but that this did not facilitate the findings when presented to the Committee, as was seen in the discussions earlier in the day. The result being that the Committee had a decision in which there were contradictions. Nevertheless, it felt compelled by the situation on the ground to support the amendments.
348.The delegation of Congo supported the amendment by Turkey and Brazil as explained.
349.The delegation of Saint Lucia supported paragraph 5, as amended by Brazil, and it also supported the remarks made by Côte d’Ivoire, Greece and Uruguay, adding that it expected Members wishing to amend paragraph 5 to amend paragraph 4. However, there was now a big contradiction in the decision and yet the Committee had to be credible. The delegation therefore insisted that the Committee add the paragraph, suggested by Belgium, which mentioned the exceptional nature of the decision owing to particular circumstances in Sudan, otherwise, the decision not to approve Albania’s request would be inconsistent.
350.The delegation of Egypt agreed to Brazil’s proposal, adding that the Committee must show flexibility in its work, but at the same time, it must respect the rules. This was an exceptional situation in a country that wants to preserve its intangible cultural heritage under very difficult circumstances. Thus, the Committee should demonstrate a certain degree of flexibility, and it reiterated its support for the proposal of Brazil.
351.The delegation of Uruguay also wished to be included among those Members wishing to highlight the exceptional nature of the approval.
352.The delegation of the Republic of Korea noted the discrepancies in the draft decision and proposed a formulation to facilitate understanding of the draft. Firstly, it believed that in paragraph 4 ‘acknowledges’ should replace ‘decides’, as the Committee acknowledges the limitations contained in Sudan’s proposal. The delegation could also go along with Belgium’s proposal, but with an improved formulation, which would read, ‘taking into account Sudan’s special circumstances on an exceptional basis despite paragraph 4’.
353.Before making a decision on paragraph 5, the Chairperson invited the Secretary to read the proposal.
354.The Secretary presented the current wording for paragraph 5, which read: ‘Decides to approve on an exceptional basis due to the special circumstances in Sudan, the International Assistance request from Sudan for ‘Documentation and inventory of intangible cultural heritage in the Republic of Sudan’.’
355.Noting the broad support for the amendment in paragraph 5, and with no objections, the Chairperson pronounced the amended paragraph 5 adopted.
356.In the new proposed paragraph 6, the delegation of Côte d’Ivoire suggested to replace ‘Encourages the submitting State’ with ‘Requests the submitting State’, as this had a greater sense of obligation.
357.The Secretary wished to make a proposal based on the request by Uruguay to set a deadline, as well as taking into account the various interventions, which proposed that the Secretariat work with the State, while the Bureau formally adopts the revised request. Paragraph 6 would thus read: ‘Requests the submitting State to work with the Secretariat in order to submit to the Bureau within a maximum timeframe of six months a revised request, including the missing information, in line with the recommendations of the Consultative Body’. The Secretary asked that Sudan confirm that it agreed with the 6-month period.
358.The delegation of Brazil expressed its gratitude and support for the excellent suggestion.
359.The delegation of Uruguay also thanked the Secretary for her suggestion, and agreed with the new paragraph 6.
360.The delegation of Egypt also thanked the Secretary for her suggestion, which was in line with the spirit of the Convention. It also thanked the Secretariat and the Consultative Body.
361.The delegation of Congo remarked that it was a good proposal and offered its support.
362.The delegation of Turkey commended the Secretariat for the wording, and for the sake of drafting, suggested to replace the second ‘submit’ with ‘to present to the Bureau’.
363.The delegation of Uganda agreed with Brazil, Uruguay, Egypt and Turkey, however, it suggested deleting ‘including the missing information’ since the ‘missing information’ was already cited in the recommendations of the Consultative Body.
364.The Secretary repeated the proposed new paragraph 6, which read: ‘Requests the submitting State to work with the Secretariat in order to present to the Bureau within a maximum time-frame of six months a revised request in line with the recommendations of the Consultative Body.’
365.Noting the consensus, and with no further comments or amendments, the Chairperson pronounced the new paragraph 6 adopted. The Chairperson then proceeded with the adoption of paragraphs 7 and 8, which were duly adopted. As a result of the adopted amendments, paragraph 9 was deleted, and the original paragraphs – the new paragraphs 10 and 11, were duly pronounced adopted. With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 9.COM 9.c.2 to approve International Assistance in the amount of US$174,480 for Documentation and inventory of intangible cultural heritage in the Republic of the Sudan.
366.The delegation of Sudan expressed its deepest thanks to the Committee for its approval of its request on an exceptional basis so that it could prepare an inventory for its intangible cultural heritage, which would act as a spring for many ethnicities and many cultural heritage manifestations, which have accumulated over decades and centuries. The decision conveyed a positive message to Sudan, a country that is the crown jewel in Nubian culture with a deeply rooted history and a melting pot for African and Islamic culture, and a cradle for a number of cultures. Sudan therefore reiterated its commitment towards cooperating with the Secretariat in submitting the additional information, adding that it would meet the requests submitted by the Consultative Body.
367.The Chairperson thanked Sudan before proceeding to the adoption of the draft decision 9.COM 9.c on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. It was noted that the draft decision tackled the transversal issues presented by the Rapporteur of the Consultative Body. With no objections or comments in paragraphs 1–6, they were adopted. With no objections to the adoption of the decision as a whole, the Chairperson declared Decision 9.COM 9.c adopted. Having evaluated the nominations, proposals and requests examined by the Consultative Body, the Chairperson suggested moving to the overall decision 9.COM 9 on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis.
368.The delegation of Turkey would intervene later in paragraph 6.
369.The delegation of Greece commended the work of examinations by the Consultative Body, and had two observations. The first concerned the compilation of the criteria for the two later mechanisms, which were not formulated as have been the case in previous years on a criterion-by-criterion basis. This was said to have caused confusion in the debates, which could have been avoided if the criteria had been laid out separately instead of compiled in a consolidated text. The second point related to certain expressions employed such as folklorization or museumification.
370.The Chairperson asked that the Members of the Committee present their amendments at the time of its corresponding paragraph, he then proceeded to the adoption of the draft decision 9.COM 9. With no comments or objections in paragraphs 1–5, they were duly adopted.
371.The delegation of Turkey proposed a new paragraph 6, which read: ‘Takes note that despite broad consensus on promoting the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding as well as the Best Safeguarding Practices, the number of files submitted have been rather limited and encourages States Parties to present nominations in these areas.’
372.The Chairperson invited comments to the new paragraph 6, as projected onto the screen.
373.The Secretary asked Turkey whether it had intentionally only wished to mention the two mechanisms when it had also been noted that there were so few requests for International Assistance.
374.The delegation of Turkey had no objections in including International Assistance.
375.The delegation of Bulgaria suggested removing ‘as well as’ because International Assistance was now added, and perhaps mentioning requests for International Assistance.
376.The delegation of Brazil remarked that this was a very good suggestion by Turkey, though wondered if in addition to encouraging States Parties to present files, the paragraph could also include the support to States Parties by the Secretariat, especially in the case of International Assistance. The delegation asked the Secretary whether this was indeed possible. In any case, it supported the amendment by Turkey.
377.The Secretary repeated the recommendation that States Parties should give greater attention to these mechanisms, adding that it was already clear that the Secretariat provided substantial technical support on International Assistance and that it would continue to do so in a serious manner.
378.With no comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced the new paragraph 6 adopted. The Chairperson then proceeded to paragraph 7, which was duly adopted.
379.The delegation of Turkey proposed a new paragraph 8, which read: ‘Further recalls paragraph 38 of the Aide-mémoire, which recognizes the need to elaborate nomination files with utmost care in order to avoid provoking misunderstanding among communities in any way, with a view to encouraging dialogue and mutual respect.’
380.The Chairperson opened the floor for comments on the new paragraph 8.
381.The delegation of Brazil proposed a slight modification to the proposal by Turkey, which would read ‘further recalls the need to elaborate’ without mentioning the specific paragraph in the aide-mémoire, as this alluded to another State Party. The delegation remarked that the recommendation was not directed to one specific State Party, as it was a general recommendation for all States Parties to follow.
382.With no further comments or amendments, the Chairperson pronounced the new paragraph 8 adopted, and then proceeded to paragraph 9, which was also duly adopted.
383.With regard to paragraph 10, the delegation of Belgium proposed to include after ‘communities’, ‘groups and if applicable, individuals concerned’, as they were always mentioned together.
384.The delegation of Turkey supported the proposal by Belgium and suggested that the Secretariat made it an unwritten rule that all texts have the same approach and same wording.
385.With no further comments or objections to paragraph 10, as proposed, the Chairperson pronounced it adopted. He then proceeded to the new paragraphs 11 and 12, which were duly adopted.
386.The delegation of Greece proposed two new paragraphs that would relate to its earlier remarks, and which referred to the new Evaluation Body that would read in paragraph 13: ‘Invites the Evaluation Body to follow the practice of presenting their draft decisions criterion-by-criterion and not in consolidated text’ and in another new paragraph 14: ‘Further invites the Evaluation Body to refrain from using elusive and not fully substantiated terms like ‘‘folklorization’’ and ‘‘museumification’’.’
387.The Chairperson noted the new proposed paragraphs, as projected on the screen.
388.The delegation of Belgium fully supported paragraph 13, but proposed to delete paragraph 14.
389.The delegation of Brazil also supported in paragraph 13, but felt that the language used in paragraph 14 was inappropriate, as it appeared to criticize the Consultative Body, adding that this message belonged in an oral report and not in a decision.
390.The delegation of Latvia supported the proposal by Belgium and Brazil to delete paragraph 14, adding that paragraph 12 already mentioned the conceptual issues, which could also apply to these terms.
391.The delegation of Saint Lucia supported the statement by Brazil.
392.The delegation of Hungary also supported the statements.
393.The Chairperson proceeded with paragraph 13, which was duly adopted. With no support for paragraph 14, it was duly withdrawn. With no objections to the adoption of the decision as a whole, the Chairperson declared Decision 9.COM 9 adopted.
394.The Chairperson noted that the Committee’s task relating to the work of the Consultative Body was now complete, and he congratulated its members for their thorough evaluation of all the files within the very tight deadline. The Chairperson was certain that the future Evaluation Body could rely upon the solid foundation created by the advisory bodies over the years. He thanked the Rapporteur and the Chairperson of the Consultative Body for having led the Committee so professionally through the many complex issues faced by the Body during its evaluation of the files.