Chairperson remarked that Belgium had made a point of order on the fact that paragraph 2 had already been adopted, adding that the solution could be to adopt paragraph 3 with the amendments by Brazil. Moreover, it was a matter of procedure that did not change the substance. The Chairperson asked Belgium if it would accept to reconsider the amendment of Brazil in paragraph 2. Otherwise, it would be examined in a new paragraph 3.
476.The delegation of Belgium felt that it would be useful to have a third paragraph so that at least there was an indication that there had been a discussion, and that criteria R.2 and R.5 had been revisited. It therefore proposed a new paragraph to reflect how the decision came about and to make clear that the Committee was creating a precedent, while maintaining the adopted paragraph 2.
477.The delegation of Brazil wished to clarify that the amendment it submitted in written form to the Secretariat included a new sub-paragraph on criteria R.2 and R.5 in paragraph 2. When paragraph 2 was being discussed, it had not raised the flag because the Committee was not modifying the three criteria in the original paragraph 2. However, the amendments were mentioned once the Chairperson moved to paragraph 3. Moreover, the Secretariat had already inserted the text in the right place. The delegation concurred that a new paragraph 3 could also be created that ‘further decides that the information included in the file also satisfy the following criteria’, but that this would create a precedent, as this was not the Committee’s usual practice when a decision on a criterion was reversed. It believed that a criterion that was not initially considered satisfied, but was later found to be satisfied should be put in the right place. If the Committee adopted the suggestion by Belgium then it would create a precedent, which would have to be adopted in every other future decision whenever the original proposal by the Subsidiary Body was reversed. The delegation remarked that it was the Committee that made the final decision and as such, the Committee should maintain its practice whenever it changed a proposal by the Subsidiary Body to ensure that it was made in the right place.
478.The delegation of Afghanistan was of the understanding that the Subsidiary Body did not adopt a decision, and that the Committee had not approved the text as a whole. From a legal point of view, the Committee had the authority to change the recommendation. If this was not the case, then why seek explanations from Algeria or the reasons behind the amendments by Brazil? The fact remained that the text was submitted to the Committee for the first time, and the Committee had the authority to bring about amendments. The delegation found this procedure to be quite normal and it did not see why this would cause a precedent, as it was fully in compliance with the legal rules for such debates.
479.The delegation of Belgium felt that this procedure would make discussions difficult if the Committee adopted parts of the text only to revisit them whenever it so wished. The proposal by Belgium was seen as a compromise, with the same result. In this way, at least the decision would indicate that the information on three of the criteria proposed by the Subsidiary Body was found in the file. The delegation found it perfectly acceptable to include another paragraph that ‘further decides that the information included…’ as this would recall the discussions, while the Committee would still conclude to inscribe the element.
480.The Secretary noted that two options were put before the Committee, adding that it was important to follow the Rules of Procedure, as it was true that the Committee had already adopted paragraph 2, which should have been amended beforehand. The Secretary explained that a third paragraph that used the exact or slightly modified wording of the chapeau of paragraph 2 could be inserted for the other two criteria. Apprehending advice by the Legal Advisor who was absent, she cautioned against diverging from the strict procedural rules to justify the adoption of decisions, not least because there would be other nominations of this type in the future. She therefore suggested that the Committee consider the wording of the sub-paragraphs in criteria R.2 and R.5, as well as the chapeau of paragraph 3, as proposed by Belgium. In any case, the overall decision would be the same, while respecting the Committee’s procedural rules. As a final note, the Secretary remarked that since Belgium had called a point of order, the Chairperson could not ignore it.
481.The delegation of Brazil recalled that it had presented the amendments in written form and in accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure, adding that when the amendment was proposed it should have been discussed under paragraph 2. It was noted that the Committee had adopted paragraph 2 in good faith, while the delegation thought that the appropriate moment to discuss criteria R.2 and R.5 would be once the criteria in paragraph 2 had been dealt with. However, the delegation was willing to call for a motion to reopen paragraph 2, as the decision had not been approved as a whole. It did not think that it was a good idea to have a separate paragraph 3, as it would not change the overall decision, adding that additions to a proposal by the Subsidiary Body did not require a new paragraph. The delegation sought the opinion of Algeria on this matter on whether it was comfortable with paragraph 3, before moving to reopen paragraph 2 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, Rule 25 regarding voting on amendments had not been respected, as the proposal had been given to the Secretariat in written form.
482.The Chairperson asked Belgium whether it accepted the solution as proposed by Brazil.
483.The delegation of Belgium consented to reopening paragraph 2, if the Committee agreed.
484.The Chairperson asked the Committee whether it agreed to open paragraph 2 to make its corresponding decision, noting that Brazil’s proposal on R.2 was projected onto the screen.
485.The Secretary presented the new sub-paragraph for R.2, which read: ‘The inscription of the element on the Representative List can contribute to increasing the visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general and, beyond, to fostering social cohesion and dialogue.’
486.With no forthcoming comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced adopted the new sub-paragraph for R.2, before turning to R.5.
487.The Secretary presented the new sub-paragraph for R.5, which read: ‘The element is included in the national database of the intangible cultural heritage of Algeria maintained by the Ministry of Culture which is regularly updated and accessible on the Internet.’
488.Noting that there were no comments, the Chairperson pronounced adopted the new sub-paragraph for R.5, before turning to the new paragraph 3.
489.The Secretary then read the new paragraph 3: ‘Inscribes Ritual and ceremonies of Sebeïba in the oasis of Djanet, Algeria on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.’
490.For practical reasons, the delegation of Turkey wished to incorporate in the last paragraph the use of appropriate vocabulary in the spirit of the Convention to avoid expressions such as ‘unique’ and ‘exceptional’.
491.The Chairperson noted that the comment was related to paragraph 4, and that the Committee was still considering paragraph 3. With no comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced paragraph 3 adopted.
492.The delegation of Afghanistan wished to point out that the proposed paragraph was inappropriate in this instance, as this was a general recommendation for all nominations files and not just Algeria now that it had been decided to inscribe the element. It therefore proposed its deletion.
493.The delegation of Saint Lucia concurred with Afghanistan that this was a general recommendation, one that the Subsidiary Body had made in its general comments. However, the delegation felt that it was still relevant in this case, adding that if the file had been referred, these issues would have been dealt with in the revised nomination, but since it was inscribed, it should be included in case of publications in the future concerning this nomination. This highlighted the fact that such language as ‘uniqueness’ was not appropriate in this Convention or in any documents related to intangible cultural heritage.
494.The delegation of Brazil agreed with Afghanistan that the right place for such a paragraph would be in the overall Decision 9.COM 10 that provided general guidelines on the evaluation process of nominations. Thus, it preferred to delete the paragraph and to include it in Decision 9.COM 10.
495.Instead of deleting the principle of the paragraph, the delegation of Turkey proposed: ‘Invites the State Party to use the vocabulary appropriate to the spirit of the Convention and avoiding expressions such as ‘‘unique’’ and ‘‘exceptional’’.’
496.The delegation of Peru associated with the remarks by Saint Lucia to maintain paragraph 4. It agreed that the issue of appropriate vocabulary should be recalled overall, but also that it should be maintained in the present decision as it related to a specific nomination file. Moreover, the State Party should not be ‘invited’ as such because the element was already inscribed. However, it should be recalled that words such as ‘unique’, ‘outstanding’ and ‘universal value’ did not correspond to intangible cultural heritage. It proposed to maintain the paragraph, as seen in previous decisions, and maintain the paragraph as proposed by the Subsidiary Body.
497.The delegation of Uganda requested the Committee to maintain paragraph 4 because the State Party had ‘unique’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the file, but also in view of the fact that other State Parties might refer to this file in the future for guidance. It also agreed with Turkey and Peru that the State Party be invited to use appropriate vocabulary in the future.
498.The delegation of Belgium supported the opinion expressed by Saint Lucia and Peru.
499.The delegation of Congo felt that this issue was not unique to Algeria but to all Member States. It thus supported its deletion in this decision, but its insertion elsewhere.
500.The delegation of Bulgaria endorsed the position expressed by Saint Lucia and Peru, supported by Belgium for the paragraph to be retained.
501.The Chairperson submitted the proposal by Afghanistan to delete the paragraph, but it did not receive broad support from the Committee, and the original paragraph was retained. The Chairperson invited the Secretary to read out the paragraph.
502.The Secretary remarked that the issue was rather complicated because Afghanistan had proposed something other than Brazil and Congo in that there were several proposals. The Secretary therefore suggested that the Chairperson proceed in the order of support, i.e. commence with the support for the proposal by Afghanistan to delete the paragraph, and then see which version of the wording proposed by Turkey received support.
503.The Chairperson noted that the proposal to delete the paragraph by Afghanistan did not receive broad support, and he thus invited the Secretary to present the amendment as proposed by Turkey.
504.The Secretary read out the following proposal: ‘Invites the State Party to use appropriate vocabulary to the spirit of the Convention and avoiding expressions such as ‘‘unique’’ and ‘‘exceptional’’.’
505.The Chairperson noted that the proposal by Turkey did not benefit from broad support by the Committee, and therefore the original text was retained. With no objections to the original formulation, paragraph 4 was adopted. With no objections to the adoption of the decision as a whole, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 9.COM 10.1 to inscribe Ritual and ceremonies of Sebeïba in the oasis of Djanet, Algeria on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
506.The delegation of Algeria wished to sincerely thank the Committee and the Subsidiary Body for the quality and rigour of its analysis, as well as the Committee Members who supported the nomination, and the Secretariat for its continuous assistance. The delegation was full of emotion, and made special mention of those in the community who also wished to share their thanks and appreciation. It was grateful to the Committee for having privileged the element over the imperfections justly found during the elaboration of the nomination file. Finally, it assured the Committee that the Tuareg community of Djanet would spend a night different from all other nights, looking at the sky whose star would shine even brighter.
507.The Chairperson turned to the next draft decision 9.COM 10.3.
508.The Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body presented the next nomination on Lavash, the preparation, meaning and appearance of traditional Armenian bread as an expression of culture [draft decision 9.COM 10.3] submitted by Armenia. Lavash is a traditional thin bread that forms an integral part of Armenian cuisine. Its preparation requires great effort, coordination, experience and special skills, and strengthens family, community and social ties. Women prepare lavash in groups and it is commonly served rolled around local cheeses, greens or meats. It plays a ritual role in weddings, where it is placed on the shoulders of newlyweds to bring fertility and prosperity. Men are also involved through the practices of making tools and building ovens. In its evaluation, the Subsidiary Body found that the nomination adequately demonstrated that all the criteria were satisfied. It particularly appreciated the transmission of know-how related to the preparation and use of lavash within families, as well as certain safeguarding measures proposed by the submitting State, including those in the field of education and research. The Body also considered that the participation of a wide range of stakeholders at every stage of the nomination’s elaboration had been well described, and the free, prior and informed consent of the communities had been well demonstrated. The Body found that the file sufficiently demonstrated the inclusion of the element on the list of Intangible Heritage of the Republic of Armenia, accessible on the Internet. However, in accordance with the Guidelines on the treatment of correspondence, the Secretariat had drawn attention to two letters received from Azerbaijan and Turkey, as well as the response from Armenia, which had been made available online. Having carefully read this correspondence, the Body was satisfied that the issues raised did not affect the outcome regarding the criteria. It therefore formulated a draft decision in favour of the element’s inscription on the Representative List.However, sensitive to the broader cultural context of the element in the region, and in order to promote dialogue and respect for cultural diversity, the Body recommended that the Committee inscribe the element under a different title, namely, ‘Lavash, the preparation, meaning and appearance of traditional bread as an expression of culture in Armenia’. It also took note that inscription on the Representative List did not imply exclusivity and it encouraged the submitting State to keep in mind that the element was shared by other communities. In addition to these recommendations, the Body suggested that the Committee recall, as in the previous case, that concepts such as ‘uniqueness’ or ‘originality’ had no place in the Convention.
509.The Chairperson thanked the Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body for the brief summary of the debates, as well as for informing the Committee of the correspondence between the different parties. The Chairperson was delighted to tell the Committee that the nomination had been treated in a spirit of consensus among the various stakeholders. With no objections to the adoption of the decision as a whole, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 9.COM 10.3 to inscribe Lavash, the preparation, meaning and appearance of traditional bread as an expression of culture in Armenia on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
510.The delegation of Armenia, represented by Arev Samuelyan, Vice-Minister of Culture, congratulated the Chairperson on his excellent leadership. She also commended the Secretariat, and in particular the Secretary, for the excellent organization of the Committee and for its permanent presence. She also thanked the Committee, especially the Subsidiary Body, for its evaluation of the file. She was grateful to the generations of communities that allowed lavash, an indispensable element of Armenian identity, to be preserved and inscribed on the Representative List. She highlighted the role and participation of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Academy of Sciences of Armenia, as the author of the file, while not forgetting the joint work provided by the departments of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The entire population of Armenia and its diaspora worldwide recognized the element and know-how in the preparation of lavash, as an old legacy passed from generation to generation by Armenians. The Vice-Minister then pronounced the element in Armenian, remarking that this was the fourth inscription for Armenia, following ‘Duduk and its music’ in 2008; ‘Armenian cross-stones art. Symbolism and craftsmanship of Khachkars’ in 2010; and ‘Performance of the Armenian epic of “Daredevils of Sassoun” or “David of Sassoun”’ in 2012. Armenia believes that UNESCO is a powerful and effective instrument for reconciling differences between States in an atmosphere of dialogue and shared common values, and that cultural heritage is a platform for successfully hosting a multiplicity of different cultures. The Vice-Minister underlined that the element was in full compliance with the provisions in the Convention, and was about the preparation, meaning and appearance of Lavash traditional bread as an expression of culture, and not about the physical bread. It thus comprised a whole range of traditions, symbols and meanings uniting Armenians all over the world. Lavash was thus part of the Armenian identity and the popularity of the national cultural identity in the context of global standardization. This element was accessible and practised by the entire population and fosters good and friendly relations between individuals, while promoting the values shared by all humankind.
511.The Chairperson turned to the next draft decision 9.COM 10.4.
512.The Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body presented the next nomination on Traditional art and symbolism of Kelaghayi, making and wearing women’s silk headscarves [draft decision 9.COM 10.4] submitted by Azerbaijan. Kelaghayi making consists of several stages: fabric weaving, dyeing and woodblock decoration. Weavers choose thin silk threads to make square-shaped cloths. The colours of headscarves have symbolic meanings and are often tied to specific social occasions, such as weddings, mourning ceremonies, daily activities and celebrations. The traditional practice of making and wearing headscarves is an expression of cultural identity and religious traditions, and a symbol of social cohesion, reinforcing the role of women and strengthening the cultural unity of Azerbaijani society. In its evaluation, the Subsidiary Body found that all the criteria were satisfied. The Body concluded that the nomination demonstrated how this living tradition, common among families of artisans and Azerbaijani women, is an important part of their identity, transmitted by experienced practitioners through non-formal apprenticeship only. The Body was also convinced about its potential contribution towards raising awareness of the importance of traditional crafts and craftsmanship as vectors of human creativity. The Body particularly appreciated the long-term safeguarding measures that demonstrated strong community participation and a strong commitment from the national authorities. The inscription of the element in the Azerbaijani register of intangible cultural heritage was also established. The Subsidiary Body concluded by recommending the inscription of Traditional art and symbolism of Kelaghayi, making and wearing women’s silk headscarves on the Representative List.
513.With no forthcoming comments or amendments, the Chairperson proceeded with the adoption of the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, which was duly adopted.
514.The delegation of Azerbaijan thanked the Committee for its decision to inscribe Traditional art and symbolism of Kelaghayi, making and wearing women’s silk headscarves on the Representative List. The delegation was delighted to join the community of Kelaghayi weavers in extending its gratitude, joy and pride in having this art form recognized at an international level. Being part of the identity of many Azerbaijanis, especially women, the art of Kelaghayi is an expression of the Silk Road tradition and bears the cultural values of the Azerbaijani people. It was noted that the inscription was the result of years of hard work carried out by an excellent team who prepared the file, as well as the community of Kelaghayi weavers and women’s associations in Azerbaijan. Its inscription would strongly encourage Kelaghayi communities to continue practising the element of traditional sericulture, passing it on to future generations. On behalf of the government of Azerbaijan, it thanked the Committee for its efforts that resulted in this inscription, as well as the Subsidiary Body and the Secretariat for its support in this exercise. The delegation was certain that this inscription would further reinforce the measures to safeguard intangible heritage and would support the implementation of the Convention in Azerbaijan.
515.The Chairperson thanked the Deputy-Minister of culture of Azerbaijan for honouring the Committee with her presence.
516.Congratulating Azerbaijan, the delegation of Belgium remarked that the Committee had yet to adopt the draft decision as a whole.
517.With no objections to the adoption of the decision as a whole, the Chairpersondeclared adopted Decision 9.COM 10.4 to inscribe Traditional art and symbolism of Kelaghayi, making and wearing women’s silk headscarveson the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
518.The Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body turned to the next nomination on Pujllay and Ayarichi, music and dances of the Yampara culture[draft decision 9.COM 10.6] submitted by Bolivia. Pujllay and Ayarichi are the main musical and choreographic forms of the Yampara culture. Pujillay is performed during the ritual celebrating the renewal of life and abundance brought on by rains. Ayarichi is performed during the dry season during festivals dedicated to various Catholic saints. Pujillay and Ayarichi create unity as a favoured way to communicate with nature. Extensive community networks are mobilized, notably through children who acquire the knowledge through collective games and observation. The Subsidiary Body understood that these expressions are part of a system of beliefs corresponding to the memory of Yampara communities and their worldview. Given that Pujillay and Ayarichi are shared by Andean cultures, inscription of the element would not only contribute to greater awareness of the importance of these cultures in general, but would also reflect its intrinsic creativity. The information provided on the proposed safeguard measures, including the transmission activities, was satisfactory, and the file provided adequate community participation in the elaboration of the nomination file. Nevertheless, the Body was keen to draw attention to the measures envisaged in the safeguarding plan concerning tourism, so that they do not alter the meaning of these practices for the communities concerned and that they remain the main beneficiaries. In addition, an exchange of letters between Peru and the submitting State had been brought to the attention of the Body. Noting that the Quechua population of Peru share the element, Peru had requested the deletion of a sentence in the original text that might have caused confusion in this regard, which was accepted by Bolivia. The Subsidiary Body found that all the criteria were satisfied and concluded by recommending the inscription of Pujillay and Ayarichi, music and dances of the Yampara culture on the Representative List, while proposing two additional paragraphs. Paragraph 4 concerned the possible effects of tourism and paragraph 5 cited the same formulation adopted earlier for Armenia, that the inclusion of an element on the Representative List did not imply exclusivity.
519.With no forthcoming comments or amendments, the