Turkey was convinced that the file could be inscribed, and thus wished to propose an amendment to paragraph 2 in the sub-paragraphs related to R.1, R.2 and R.3. The new sub-paragraph in R.1 would read: ‘The collective ritual of simultaneously beating of thousands of drums intensely in public spaces represents a component of cultural identity of the communities in many villages. The creation of instruments made by craftsmen and typical costumes made by local craftswomen are an example of the specific techniques and knowledge associated with the element transmitted through the family and the drummers’ groups.’ The new sub-paragraph in R.2 would read: ‘This element will bring to the forefront all of those civilizations and cultures where a percussion is the main creative element used to express such emotions as fear or happiness; the visibility and the need to protect or to celebrate this ritual worldwide will thus be reinforced.’ Finally, the new sub-paragraph in R.3 would read ‘Along the nomination file several safeguarding measures are being proposed and all of them will contribute to ensure the viability of the nominated element.’ As a result of the amendments, paragraph 4 would read: ‘Decides to inscribe the nomination of Tamboradas as drum-playing rituals on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.’
819.The delegation of Brazil took note of the fact that some of the explanations provided by Spain came verbatim from the nomination form, and as such, it was not introducing new information; at the same time, it also explained where in the nomination form the information could be found. The delegation invited Belgium to carefully read the nomination, as the information was clearly included. It found that the information was provided in criterion R.1, and R.2 on the measures to encourage dialogue and the importance of inscription of the element, and R.3 on the extensive safeguarding measures. It therefore favoured the amendments proposed by Turkey to inscribe the element, adding that perhaps the Subsidiary Body could not understand the definition of the element to have clarity on R.1, but given the explanations there was now clarity in this regard. The Committee could therefore adopt the decision with an inscription.
820.The Chairperson noted the amendments by Turkey, and proceeded with the adoption of the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. With no comments or objections on paragraph 1, it was duly adopted. He then turned to the chapeau of paragraph 2, which was duly adopted. The Secretary then read the amendment in R.1, as previously cited.
821.The delegation of Brazil supported the amendment by Turkey in R.1.
822.The delegation of Ethiopia also supported the sub-paragraph R.1, as well as the following two sub-paragraphs.
823.The delegation of Bulgaria also supported the amendment in R.1.
824.The delegations of Uganda, Algeria, Egypt, Hungary, India and Republic of Korea supported all three amendments in R.1, R.2 and R.3.
825.The delegation of Bulgaria wished to clarify that it supported R.1, noting that the decision was first on R.1, and that the Committee should stick to the adoption of criteria-by-criteria. Otherwise also Bulgaria would support the three paragraphs, but we should be clear on that.
826.The Chairperson was clear that R.1 was under consideration.
827.The delegation of Latvia raised the question of gender roles proposed in the draft amendment by Turkey, adding that it would appreciate if Turkey could refer to the nomination file with regard to the craftsmen and craftswomen and their respective involvement in safeguarding this tradition.
828.The delegation of Greece joined in the remark by Bulgaria that the Committee was treating the amendment by Turkey on R.1 and wanted to support the Turkish amendment on criterion R.1.
829.The delegation of Belgium remarked that as the criteria currently stood, it could relate to a file presented by the World Drum Society anywhere in the world, adding that it was losing the connection with the information contained in the file, for example the disappearance of the reference to the Holy Week and so on. It was thus a good illustration of the reservations of the Subsidiary Body that had been unable to clearly identify the scope of the element, as now it was so general that it could apply to many places in the world. As such, the delegation did not support the amendment in R.1.
830.The Chairperson noted that there was insufficient support for criterion R.1, and the original text was retained. He then moved to the amendment in R.2.
831.The delegation of Uruguay supported the amendment by Turkey in R.2.
832.The delegation of Brazil supported Turkey’s amendment in R.2 and R.3.
833.The delegations of Bulgaria, Republic of Korea, India and Greece supported the amendment by Turkey in sub-paragraph R.2.
834.The Chairperson noted that the amendment received broad support from the Committee, which was duly adopted. He then turned to the amendment in R.3.
835.The delegations of Bulgaria, Republic of Korea, India, Greece and Namibia supported the amendment in R.3.
836.The delegation of Brazil supported the amendment in R.3, adding that the safeguarding measures were present in the nomination form and were in line with the same safeguarding practices adopted in Brazil.
837.The delegation of Belgium remarked that it could still not find the information necessary to understand whether the safeguarding measures would effectively help to ensure the viability of the nominated element, as it was unable to clearly identify the nature and scope of the element. Thus, it sought more information in the nomination to make a decision, recalling the need to keep a link between what the Committee decides and what can be examined in the file.
838.The Chairperson noted the broad support of the Committee for the amendment in R.3, which was duly adopted. He then turned to sub-paragraphs 4 and 5, related to criteria R.4 and R.5 respectively, which remained unchanged. With no comments or objections, they were duly adopted. The Chairperson then turned to the chapeau of paragraph 3, which was adopted.
839.The Secretary remarked that sub-paragraphs R.2 and R.3, originally in paragraph 3 had been reinstated in paragraph 2, and therefore R.1 was the sole criterion in paragraph 3, whose text had changed accordingly.
840.The Chairperson then turned to paragraph 4, which was duly adopted. With no objections to the adoption of the decision as a whole, the Chairpersondeclared adopted Decision 9.COM 10.42 to refer Tamboradas drum-playing ritualsto the submitting State for additional information.
841.The delegation of Brazil did not have a problem with the decision just adopted, but had a comment of a technical nature in criterion R.3. It was noted that R.3 had just been adopted, and the nomination file had a limited word count where the submitting State was supposed to describe the safeguarding measures in great detail. The delegation remarked however that Spain had provided a detailed account of many safeguarding measures of transmission, documentation and research, preservation and promotion, diffusion and transmission, which were all described in the file. Nevertheless, some Members could not find the measures in the file, which the delegation failed to understand, suggesting that there should be greater clarity in this regard, particularly as these were the kinds of safeguarding measures adopted in Brazil. Clarity was thus needed because otherwise there would be two measures, depending on the file under examination. There should therefore be at least a consensus on what constituted sufficient information in the file to consider that the criteria of safeguarding measures were fulfilled.
842.The Chairperson thanked Brazil for its comment, inviting Spain to take the floor.
843.The delegation of Spain greeted all those present on behalf of the government of Spain and the local and regional bearer communities of this event, which unfortunately was not inscribed. The delegation spoke of its surprise that this was the case, given the apparent support in the Committee. Despite its disappointment, it hoped to have the opportunity to nominate the element again.
844.The Vice-Chair of the Subsidiary Body turned to the next nomination on Kopachkata, a social dance from the village of Dramche, Pijanec [draft decision 9.COM 10.43] submitted by The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Kopachkata is a dynamic and energetic social dance performed by local residents of the village of Dramche in the region of Pijanec. It is danced at weddings, public gatherings and religious holidays. The dance starts with a slow walking movement, then changes to swift and short steps, followed by quicker steps and foot stamping. For local audiences, the Kopachkata dance is a symbol of cultural identity, not only of the community of the village of Dramche, but for the wider Pijanec region. The Vice-Chair recalled that the nomination was first presented to the Committee at its seventh session in 2012 when it had been referred to the submitting State in criteria R.2, R.3 and R.4. In its evaluation, the Subsidiary Body found that the resubmitted nomination demonstrated that criteria R.1, R.3, R.4 and R.5 had been met, but additional information was still needed in order to decide on R.2. Although criterion R.1 had been deemed satisfied by the Committee, the submitting State had opted for a slight revision of the text. The Body found however that this criterion was satisfied because the nomination adequately demonstrated that Kopatchkata, and the social, ritual and festive practices associated with it, had become a symbol of identity for the inhabitants of Dramtche. Regarding criterion R.3, the Body found that the proposed safeguarding measures were described with clarity, focusing more explicitly than in the past on the awareness of the various cultural centres and agents involved in the organization of the festivities as well as documentation and register of the element. The nomination described well the participation of relevant organizations in the Pijanec region, and the process through which the free, prior and informed consent of the association, representative of the community of practitioners, was obtained (R.4). The Body also found that the nomination provided evidence of the inclusion of Kopatchkata in the National Register of Cultural Heritage. However, in R.2, given that it was a previously referred criterion, the Body compared the 2012 nomination with the nomination currently under consideration. It found that although some of the formulations had changed, the new text did not provide new or additional information (as per Decision 7.COM 11.31) to argue how inscription would promote greater visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general. Instead, the nomination focused on the benefits that a listing may provide practitioners, and even declared that it would offer the ‘possibility for the wider Pijanec community to develop cultural tourism’, which was not a requirement of the criterion. Furthermore, the text, shown for the first time in the resubmitted nomination, stated that inscription would contribute to the visibility of intangible cultural heritage of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at the international level, which reinforced the Body’s sentiment that the submitting State did not understand the requirements of the criterion, despite the guidance provided in the Committee’s previous decision. In keeping with the consistency of previous Committee recommendations and decisions in the current cycle, the Body concluded by recommending to refer Kopachkata, a social dance from the village of Dramche, Pijanec, to the submitting State for additional information for consideration in a subsequent cycle.
845.The Chairperson thanked the Vice-Chair for the detailed explanations that led to the decision, opening the floor for comments.
846.Referring to section 2(i) in the nomination form, the delegation of Belgium questioned the Subsidiary Body’s interpretation of the first two sentences where it was stated: ‘Inscription of the Kopachkata on the Representative List would raise the awareness of other communities with similar traditions, and that each tradition was a unique example of intangible cultural heritage. Due to differences in the performance, this dance is an essential marker of local identity on the basis of which inhabitants of certain villages distinguish one another.’ The sentence did not refer specifically to other communities or villages in Macedonia, but that it could imply villages all over the world. In this way, this sentence could be interpreted as a more general statement of the importance of intangible cultural heritage in general.
847.The delegation of Bulgaria appreciated the efforts of the submitting State to propose the element a second time. It also noticed that the reservations of the Subsidiary Body related only to a part of criterion R.2 and therefore wished to ask the submitting State to provide more information in this regard. Considering that there were no objections to the other four criteria, it believed that the Committee could make an effort to inscribe the element, after first hearing from the submitting State.
848.The delegation of Algeria noted that the Committee was once again examining R.2, remarking that many delegations had a problem with it and it wished to draw the Committee’s attention to that fact. In the Subsidiary Body’s report on page 13, a table was provided with the results of its decisions, and it was noted that this was the only nomination rejected on the basis of criterion R.2. It appealed to the Committee’s indulgence not to allow Macedonia to be alone in this case. It also wished to hear from Macedonia in this regard.
849.The delegation of Turkey recalled that this nomination had been referred in 2012 and, in the course of the past two years, the submitting State had undertaken significant efforts to meet the requirements of the criteria. It understood that the Subsidiary Body was satisfied with four of the criteria and yet there were still reservations in R.2. The delegation wished to hear from Macedonia, but was inclined to consider the inscription of the element.
850.The delegation of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia expressed its gratitude for the evaluation and the positive attitude towards the decision, as well as to the Members of the Committee that offered the opportunity to clarify the content in criterion R.2. The delegation explained that the content of R.2 could be found in section 2(i) where it was stated that ‘the inscription of this element on the Representative List would raise the awareness of other communities with similar traditions’. Also, ‘the proposed safeguarding measures will contribute to the visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general on national scene’, and which ‘will draw attention to the creativity of other communities’. Other citations include, ‘the inscription of Kopachkata on the Representative List would also contribute to the visibility of Macedonian intangible heritage internationally’, as this region has a border with Bulgaria. Additionally, in section 2(ii) it was stated that ‘Kopachkata traditional dance will and is encouraging the intercultural dialogue between the Macedonian and Romani communities in this region, and it is the reason that there is greater regional awareness of nurturing this element as a common ICH element in wider region’. Furthermore, this ‘inscription would enable others who cherish similar cultural expression to start recognizing it as a valuable element that might bridge the differences inside their community’. In section 2(iii) it was again stated that this inscription ‘can also strengthen the intercultural connection between the musicians (predominantly ethnic Roma) and the dancers of ethnic Macedonian nationality’. It also stated that this inscription would inspire the creativity and provide a successful example to neighbouring communities in the region, especially in the south-eastern European context. The promotion of awareness of other communities with similar traditions, even across national borders, was of particular significance and international benefit. Collaboration of musicians and dancers, both from Roma and Macedonian ethnic communities presented an excellent example on the international level. Inscription could provide a key to appreciate and defend cultural diversity both locally and globally, and can become the theme of understanding, mutual respect and appreciation. The delegation also wished to point out that in countries like Macedonia with a population of two million, the nomination itself generated huge visibility in general. For example, the visibility of the importance of intangible cultural heritage at national level as a result of inscription of its the first element, ‘The Feast of the Holy Forty Martyrs’ in 2013 generated an increased number of initiatives, projects and applications for inscribing different intangible cultural heritage on the national inventory. As a result, in October 2014 two higher State awards in cultural art and science were offered for the first time to two bearers of intangible cultural heritage: a dancing element and traditional song. This ensured that they also received a national pension as a full artist, acknowledged by the President and the Ministry of Culture. Furthermore, the delegation recalled that four other criteria had been satisfied, and that the Committee would reject a nomination only due to a weakness in R.2. The delegation sincerely hoped that the explanation clarified the criterion, emphasizing the importance of inscription, not only for the bearers of Kopachkata dance but also for the entire population of the country.
851.The Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body felt obliged to maintain the Subsidiary Body’s position, which accurately summarized the debates within the Body. The Vice-Chair concurred that the section in R.2 had stated, ‘The “Kopachkata” traditional dance encourage the intercultural dialogue between the Macedonian and Romani communities in Dramche, but with the inscription of the dance on the UNESCO’s Representative List, there would be greater regional awareness of nurturing the Kopachkata as a common ICH element in wider region’, explaining that this remained essentially an assertion without evidence. The Vice-Chair understood that it was only criterion R.2 that led to a referral, however, the Subsidiary Body wished to remain consistent with the decisions of previous Committees rather than take another decision.
852.With no forthcoming comments, the Chairperson proceeded with the adoption of the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. With no comments or objections to paragraph 1, it was duly adopted.
853.The delegation of Turkey proposed an amendment in R.2 that would also reposition sub-paragraph R.2 from paragraph 3 to paragraph 2.
854.The delegation of Saint Lucia supported the proposal by Turkey, adding that the Subsidiary Body was right in that the last time the Committee did not inscribe because there were several criteria that had not been met, while the Committee should inscribe when there was only R.2 that was not satisfied.
855.The Secretary presented the amendment by Turkey, which read: ‘The nomination demonstrates benefits that might be brought to the local bearers of the element, but also promotes awareness of the intangible cultural heritage for other communities in other countries having similar traditions; of particular significance and benefit is the collaboration in the practice of the element between ethnic communities speaking Romani and Macedonian languages; the file thus promotes appreciation and respect of cultural diversity as well as collaboration for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage between different communities on both local and international levels.’
856.The delegation of Belgium proposed to delete the word ‘ethnic’, considering it inappropriate.
857.The delegation of Hungary supported the amendment by Turkey, as amended by Belgium.
858.The Chairperson noted that there were no objections to the amendment by Turkey, as amended by Belgium, which was duly adopted. The Chairperson turned to the sub-paragraphs in criteria R.1, R.3, R.4 and R.5, which were duly adopted. He then turned to the new paragraph 3, which inscribed Kopachkata, and with no objections it was duly adopted. Turning to the adoption of the draft decision as a whole, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 9.COM 10.43 to inscribe Kopachkata, a social dance from the village of Dramche, Pijanec on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
859.The delegation of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was pleased and honoured to express its satisfaction and appreciation for the inscription of Kopachkata, Macedonia's second element on the Representative List. It spoke of how inscription would have many positive influences in its institutions, local communities and civil society for implementation of the Convention, and would raise awareness of the importance of protecting and promoting intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development as a vector of human creativity.
860.The Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body turned to the next nomination on Ebru, Turkish art of marbling [draft decision 9.COM 10.44] submitted by Turkey. Ebru is the traditional art of creating colourful patterns by sprinkling and brushing colour pigments onto a pan of oily water and then transferring the patterns to paper. The art of marbling is commonly used for decoration in the traditional art of bookbinding. The knowledge and skills of artists and apprentices are transmitted orally and through informal practical training within master-apprentice relationships. Ebru encourages dialogue through friendly conversation, reinforces social ties and strengthens relations between individuals and communities. In their individual evaluations, Members of the Subsidiary Body were unanimous on the quality of this nomination and therefore easily concluded that all five of the criteria were fully met. The Body found that the nomination fully demonstrated that the transmission of Ebru from master to apprentice extended to all regions in Turkey such that many people saw it as part of their cultural heritage. The Body welcomed the emphasis placed on the role of women and youth in the preservation of this craft. The information contained in the nomination adequately demonstrated that inscription would highlight the diversity of artistic forms that illustrated human creativity through intangible cultural heritage, and would promote dialogue and strengthen ties, especially between young artisans. The various proposed safeguarding measures were well described and considered able to promote the element, while reflecting the concern of the State Party to document techniques and expressions associated with Ebru to anticipate any deterioration in its practice, as well as the active participation of Ebru masters, communities and NGOs. The nomination also demonstrated their participation in the preparation of the nomination file and the inclusion of the element in the National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Turkey. The Subsidiary Body thus concluded by recommending the inscription of Ebru, Turkish art of marbling on the Representative List, while suggesting to the Committee to add this nomination to the list of files considered as good examples.
861.With no forthcoming comments or objections, the Chairperson proceeded with the adoption of the draft decision as a whole and declared adopted Decision 9.COM10.44 to inscribe Ebru, Turkish art of marbling on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
862.The delegation of Turkey expressed its sincere thanks to the Committee, the Subsidiary Body, the Secretariat and all the delegates for their understanding and support of the inscription of Ebru, Turkish art of marbling on the Representative List. It appreciated the expertise and efforts of the Subsidiary Body in its examination of the file and its confirmation of one of the five best files among the 46 nominations. Just as the Mevlevi Sema ceremony inscribed on the Representative List in 2008, Ebru was yet another art that embraced practitioners from different backgrounds throughout the country without the distinction of nationality, cultural or ethnic origins, language or other different social environments, expressing its own imagination of water as simple but elegant, and which can be a reflection of cultural identities. Ebru art thus triggered human creativity and served the purpose of the Convention in a unique way, and together with the other elements inscribed was testimony that diversity did not divide but unite. In this regard, it hoped to see more files – particularly multinational files – that encouraged neighbouring countries to work together. Having been elected to the Committee for the second time, Turkey once again was committed to the promotion of the spirit of our Convention. The delegation was accompanied by the Director-General of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Mr Okan Ibiş, and the Chairman of the Turkish National Commission for UNESCO, Prof. Öcal Oğuz, along with experts and associates, whose strong team was committed to cooperation with every country to learn and share experiences and expertise, particularly those in need of technical assistance and support. It invited States Parties to make contact through its delegation, its Ministry of Culture and Tourism or the Turkish National Commission. It was therefore fully committed to this kind of cooperation, regardless of time and venue. It spoke of Ebru as representing the rainbow, poetry, humanity and culture. The delegation cited the remarks by the Director-General and the Secretary-General of the United Nations when they spoke about how it was high time to raise the voice of culture louder and higher, at a time when our world was faced with multiple challenges, and that UNESCOwas one big family for a culture of social peace and stability and coexistence among cultures, communities and nations. The delegation concluded by introducing a brief video clip of Ebru art in Turkey, adding that delegates could see the artists performing the art outside the meeting hall.
[Video projection by Turkey]
863.The Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body turned to the next nomination on Askiya, the art of wit [draft decision 9.COM 10.45] submitted by Uzbekistan. Askiya is a genre of Uzbek verbal folk art that takes the form of a dialogue between two or more participants, who exchange witticisms around a particular theme. Bearers and practitioners, mainly men, must master the peculiarities of Uzbek language, and be able to improvise and reason quickly and skilfully, using humour and banter. The dialogues, although humorous, play an invaluable role in raising awareness of social tendencies and events, drawing attention to important issues through acute observation of daily life. In its evaluation, the Body found that the nomination demonstrated that all criteria had been met. It also found that the nomination described Askiya with adequate information of its main features, its bearers and its modes of transmission to demonstrate that it constituted the intangible cultural heritage of many communities in Uzbekistan and conferred a sense of identity. In describing Askiya as an art of communication, the nomination satisfactorily demonstrated that its inscription would contribute to a greater awareness of the importance of intangible cultural heritage to promote intercultural dialogue and mutual respect. The Body also found that many safeguarding measures proposed were consistent and sufficiently developed to ensure the continuity of Askiya and that it clearly reflected the involvement of the bearers of the tradition and the broader community. Their participation in all stages of the nomination process was also demonstrated. The evidence of the inscription of Askiya in the National List of Intangible Cultural Heritage was deemed sufficient, as was its collaboration with the Republican Scientific-Methodological Center for Folk Art, the bearers of the practice, and the local government entities developing this list, as described in the nomination. The Subsidiary Body thus concluded by recommending Askiya, the art of wit for inscription on the Representative List.
864.With no forthcoming comments or objections, the Chairperson proceeded with the adoption of the draft decision as a whole and declared adopted Decision 9.COM 10.45 to inscribe Askiya, the art of wit on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
865.The delegation of Uzbekistan expressed its pride in the decision to inscribe Askiya on the Representative List, adding that every citizen of the country will be very happy to hear this news, which is a big achievement for everyone. Askiya embodied a very special element and was unique to Uzbekistan, playing an important role in connecting people. Bearers of Askiya were involved in the whole process, injecting it with positive energy. They have good knowledge and mastery of the language, an exquisite sense of humour, pure thinking and reaction, and the art of expressing one's thoughts in a beautiful manner. The delegation concluded by thanking all those who participated in the process of evaluating the Askiya file, particularly the Secretariat, the experts, representatives of NGOs, and the Committee.
866.The Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body turned to the last nomination on Ví and Giặm folk songs of Nghệ Tĩnh [draft decision 9.COM 10.46] submitted by Viet Nam. Ví and Giặm songs are sung by a wide range of communities in north-central Viet Nam. The songs are sung while people cultivate rice in the fields, row boats, make conical hats or lull children to sleep. Many of the songs focus on key values and virtues including respect for parents, loyalty, care and devotion, the importance of honesty and a good heart. Singing provides people with a chance to ease hardship while working, to relieve sorrow in their lives, to express feelings of sentiment between men and women. In their individual evaluations, the members of the Subsidiary Body were unanimous on the quality of the nomination, which allowed it to easily conclude that the nomination demonstrated that all the criteria were fully satisfied. The Body found that the nomination convincingly demonstrated that the folk songs performed by a wide range of Việt communities from different backgrounds was transmit from one generation to the next and provided a sense of identity and cultural continuity. Relevant information was also provided to convincingly demonstrate that inscription would contribute to greater awareness of the importance of folk songs and dialogue between performers who sing similar songs in the region and throughout the world. The proposed safeguarding measures were sufficiently specific, adequately reflecting the commitment of the authorities and the communities to protect and promote the element. The active participation of Nghệ Tĩnh communities, not only in the preparation of the nomination file but also in the identification of the multiple safeguarding measures was amply demonstrated, as well as the inclusion of the element on the National List of intangible Cultural Heritage administered by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. The Subsidiary Body thus concluded by recommending that Ví Giặm and folk songs of Nghệ Tĩnh for inscription on the Representative List.
867.The delegation of Belgium was happy to discover the general report on the scientific inventory of Ví and Giặm folk songs of Nghệ Tĩnh on UNESCO’s website connected to this file, congratulating Viet Nam on its very interesting and critical report.
868.With no forthcoming comments or objections, the Chairperson proceeded with the adoption of the draft decision as a whole and declared adopted Decision 9.COM 10.46 to inscribe Ví and Giặm folk songs of Nghệ Tĩnh on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
869.Speaking in Vietnamese, the delegation of Viet Nam, represented by the Vice-Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism, spoke of the solemn occasion for the communities of Nghệ Tinh who have learned with great emotion the decision to inscribe the element on the Representative List. The decision was of significant importance as the Vi and Giặm folk songs were closely related to the daily activities of local people such as working in rice fields, fishing, hat-making or lulling children to sleep. Vi and Giặm songs occupied an important place in the cultural and spiritual life of the Nghệ Tinh communities, reflecting their cultural identity. The songs were transmitted from generation to generation and represented shared values, dialogue, and exchange between communities. Viet Nam was strongly committed to implementing the action plan to promote the viability of intangible cultural heritage, and had introduced policies to valorize the singers who have the main role in conserving, transmitting and educating young people. The delegation warmly thanked the Committee and the Secretariat for their high appreciation of the element. It welcomed the delegates to Nghệ An and Hà Tinh provinces so that they could see for themselves the vitality of Ví and Giặm folk songs.
870.Thanking Vietnam, the Chairperson reminded the Committee that it had examined 39 nominations of which 34 had been inscribed. However, it still had to adopt the chapeau draft decision 9.COM 10 on the transversal issues relating to the Representative List in general and not to any specific nomination. The Chairperson invited the Secretary to introduce the draft decision.
871.The Secretary explained that decision 9.COM 10 reflected the discussion of the Subsidiary Body as presented by the Rapporteur in the oral report. In paragraph 5, it recalled the specific challenge presented by multinational nominations, notably on the participation and informed consent of communities concerned; commended the increasing number of nominations addressing the role of women in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and the role that intangible cultural heritage can play in sustainable development; took into account the customary practices governing access to specific aspects of intangible cultural heritage; and called on States Parties to introduce approaches into their safeguarding plans that were not strictly cultural but were within the broader field of development. The Body also recalled that the evaluation was conducted on the nomination file and thus a decision to ‘not inscribe’ or ‘refer’ referred only to the pertinence of the information contained within the nomination and not the element itself. The draft decision also wished to recall the existence of the list of good nomination files, which included another five nominations from the current cycle, inviting States Parties to refer to these files, not to reproduce or copy them, but to understand the level of detail and evidence required through these nominations. It also recalled that files must be completed by March 31 and, as such, evidence of the inventory or community consent must be received before this deadline. The draft decision also recalled the objectives of the Representative List, which were broadly mentioned in criterion R.2, and that inscription did not imply any rights of exclusivity or intellectual property rights to the element. The draft decision also requested that States Parties refrain from using adjectives of nationality in the title of elements, as the element would systematically be associated with the submitting State. In this way, avoiding any sense of ownership or exclusivity that might be inferred.
872.The Secretary further explained that paragraph 13 of the draft decision echoed Decision 5.COM 6 taken by the Committee at its fifth session to refrain from making references to conflict, war or violence in order to avoid any misunderstanding between different communities. Paragraph 14 reaffirmed the importance of the active participation of the communities at all stages: in the development of inventories; the preparation of the nomination file; the promotion of intangible cultural heritage; and the implementation of safeguarding measures, requiring the submitting States to provide evidence of this commitment and at all stages. Finally, paragraph 15 recalled the repeated suggestion by Subsidiary Bodies to encourage individual expressions of community consent over petitions and standardized consent forms. The Secretary concluded that the draft decision essentially summarized the points raised by the Subsidiary Body in its introduction, adding that the Committee might decide to add or amend the draft in light of its own evaluation of the nominations and the ensuing debates.
873.The Chairperson concurred that the draft decision 9.COM 10 reflected well the transversal issues raised in the examination of nominations to the Representative List. The Chairperson proposed to adopt the draft decision as a whole.
874.The delegation of Turkey proposed an amendment in paragraph 5, which read: ‘Appreciates the submission of multinational files, while noting the challenges of framing elements of the intangible cultural heritage, in their various contexts, that are shared by different communities, and encourages States Parties to highlight the sense of belonging of the concerned communities, groups and individuals and to clearly demonstrate their free, prior and informed consent to the multinational nomination as it is formulated; encourages States Parties to submit multinational nominations on elements shared by different communities, groups and individuals in order to assist dialogue between cultures and communities.’
875.The Secretary read out the amendment, with a slight edit by the Secretary, to read, ‘in their varied contexts’. The delegation of Turkey agreed with the proposed edit.
876.The delegation of Algeria fully supported the amendment, adding that it had submitted a multinational element with Niger and Mali in 2013 and thus subscribed fully to it.
877.The delegation of Afghanistan supported the amendment by Turkey, but remarked that the extension of membership of an already inscribed multinational nomination was complicated, which rendered the addition of a State Party problematic. It therefore proposed to include an amendment at the end of paragraph 5, which would read, ‘Expresses its desire for the posterior process of extending multinational inscriptions to be simplified’.
878.The delegation of Brazil supported the amendment by Turkey, proposing a slight modification to insert ‘further’ before the second ‘encourages’, which would read, ‘further encourages’. The delegation also felt that the proposal by Afghanistan would be better placed in a different paragraph.
879.The Secretary read out the paragraph: ‘Appreciates the submission of multinational files, while noting the challenges of framing elements of the intangible cultural heritage, in their varied contexts, that are shared by different communities, and encourages States Parties to highlight the sense of belonging of the concerned communities, groups and individuals and to clearly demonstrate their free, prior and informed consent to the multinational nomination as it is formulated; further encourages States Parties to submit multinational nominations on elements shared by different communities, groups and individuals in order to assist dialogue between cultures and communities.’
880.The delegation of Namibia proposed to replace ‘assist dialogue’ with either ‘encourage dialogue’ or ‘facilitate dialogue’.
881.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire concurred with the remark to ‘facilitate dialogue’.
882.The delegation of Algeria supported Afghanistan’s proposal to simplify the existing procedure for future file extensions.
883.The Chairperson remarked that Afghanistan’s proposal would be treated as a separate paragraph. He then turned to the amendment by Turkey, and with no further comments or objections, it was duly adopted.
884.The Secretary read out the amendment by Afghanistan: ‘Expresses its desire for the posterior process of extension to multinational inscriptions to be simplified.’
885.The delegation of Latvia was not convinced about adopting this kind of addition to the decision, and sought further consideration regarding the existing wording. It noted for example that it only concerned multinational nominations, and thus it excluded those that were submitted nationally. In addition, if the amendment should receive the support of the Committee then it should probably keep the existing wording in the Operational Directives, namely concerning inscription on an extended basis.
886.The delegation of Belgium agreed with Latvia, and although it understood the wish of Afghanistan, it wondered what ‘simplify the procedure’ actually entailed, as the Operational Directives already provided a description on submitting a multinational nomination. The exact nature of the amendment was thus unclear.
887.The Chairperson sought support for Afghanistan’s proposal.
888.The delegation of Brazil sought clarification from the Secretariat as to whether this proposal by Afghanistan would mean that the Operational Directives would have to be amended to simplify this procedure or not.
889.The Secretary recalled that the Operational Directives did not distinguish a change of status from ‘national’ to ‘multinational’ and ‘multinational’ to ‘multinational +1’, i.e. it referred to the extension of an element, which included (as was seen in case of Japan) the extension of an element within a single country. The second point was that the procedure of an already inscribed multinational nomination was the same as for any nomination, i.e. regardless of the element, if one or more countries wished to join an already inscribed element, all the States Parties concerned, including those already inscribed and those that wished to join, would have to resubmit a new nomination. In particular, the file would have to define the element for the new communities and the communities of all the submitting States, as well as provide evidence of consent from all the communities concerned in the new submission. Similarly, the safeguarding measures should preferably, though not always, be elaborated for each submitting State, but also to some extent demonstrate coordinated efforts in this regard. Evidently, this could be quite complicated, particularly for elements such as Nowruz or falconry where they were multiple States, and in which the work carried out in the initial nomination would have to be repeated. However, some of the work, for example, the inscription in an inventory, would not need to be repeated, but the consent of the communities and the description of the element in the extended nomination would have to be carried out again. This was also be complicated by the fact that the Committee itself was refining the nature of evidence it wished to see on the different criteria over time. In the example of Nowruz, which was inscribed in 2009, the Secretary explained that at the time of its inscription there was little jurisprudence on the nature of the evidence of the inventory or the consent of communities, but with time these requirements had been specified. In this example, an extended nomination for Nowruz would require that the submitting States resubmit new forms of evidence of the inclusion in an inventory from those submitted in the initial nomination. The Secretary understood that Afghanistan had been trying for several years to join in an extended nomination of Nowruz, and this had indeed been a great challenge. Nevertheless, for the moment, the Operational Directives did not differentiate between an extended nomination and a first nomination. The Secretary recalled that Brazil had insisted on the consent of communities in the case of an enlarged nomination, including from the original nomination. It was considered fundamental that all communities agree to the extended nomination for which their consent must be sought for all the submitting States, including the original submitting States. Concluding, the Secretary concurred that a simplification of the Operational Directives would require changing the present guidelines.
890.The delegation of Afghanistan explained on this specific case there were five States Parties that were a veritable obstacle. So much so that some States had indicated that they would prefer to create a second Nowruz nomination. Nevertheless, it understood the concerns of Belgium that wished to understand the implication of ‘simplify’. The problem was that each time a new State wished to join, the nomination would have to be revised in its entirety from scratch, which was further complicated if the extension took place a few years after the initial inscription when many of the conditions might have changed. This obviously discouraged many States, with States indicating that it was better not to join. The delegation thus wished to highlight the urgency of the situation in the draft decision, and the need to find a solution without necessarily being specific, and hence the use of the word ‘simplify’. The delegation added that this would open the door to allow work to continue in the future to find a solution. It thus asked the Committee to open the door to a solution by providing some flexibility that will eventually lead to a solution on which all could agree.
891.The delegation of Algeria remarked that Afghanistan had been clear in its statement regarding the difficulties many States faced in the presentation of multinational nominations, and that the Secretary was well aware of the delegation’s concern and the problems with these files. The delegation acknowledged the Secretariat’s heavy workload, but it also wondered whether the Secretariat could work on presenting some ideas on how to move towards a solution in the sense of Afghanistan’s proposal.
892.In hoping to arrive at a consensus, the Chairperson proposed to replace ‘simplify’ with ‘improved’.
893.The delegation of Afghanistan thanked the Chairperson for his suggestion, adding that it was willing to accept the proposal.
894.The Chairperson asked whether there was support.
895.The delegation of Brazil believed that the procedure to join a multinational nomination should be put on the agenda of the Committee next session as a point for consideration so as to work on proposals. It suggested a working group to examine options for consideration by the Committee on possible amendments to the Operational Directives. The delegation explained that to have any concrete effect the issue could not be made as a general suggestion. It asked the Secretary to propose a more concrete formulation in this regard.
896.The Chairperson concurred that it was a good idea.
897.The Secretary replied that she did not have a formulation, as the Committee would first have to consider whether it accepted an extended nomination – initially submitted by one or more countries – as a new nomination or not, based on which the Committee could work. As it stood at the moment, the Operational Directives provided that a nomination is examined as new, even in the case of an extended nomination. The Secretary highlighted the case of Japan in its extended nomination, recalling that Japan had already inscribed the element but the Committee considered the nomination as new, as had always been the case so far. Thus, if the Committee did not wish to consider extended nominations in the same way as normal nominations, then it had to clearly express its position. For now, all nominations followed the same logic in that the communities concerned had to consent to the nomination, and so on. The Secretary therefore did not see how to simplify a procedure that was already established for all nominations.
898.The Chairperson asked the Secretary whether the proposal of Brazil, initiated by Afghanistan, to include this point in the agenda of the Committee next session was reasonable in order to develop this issue in a more substantive way.
899.The Secretary agreed that it was a good idea the Committee discussed this issue at its next session as a separate item in the agenda.
900.The delegation of Afghanistan agreed with the proposal.
901.The Chairperson thus suggested deleting paragraph 6 as proposed by Afghanistan.
902.The delegation of Saint Lucia shared the concern expressed by Brazil, as it was not clear to whom the paragraph was addressed. After all, it was the Committee itself that had to decide on the directives before sending them to the General Assembly. Thus, any proposal of this nature should first be discussed so that the notion of ‘simplify’ was clear in terms of the direction the Committee wished to take. It agreed that the proposal by Brazil was good but that the discussion should not be limited to the sole question of multinational nominations. The delegation explained that in the course of the debates it was clear that there were several systemic issues that were problematic, with some countries even proposing working groups. It understood that the Secretariat did not currently have the means to support the creation of a working group, and therefore it proposed that these issues be discussed at the next Committee session, including recurrent problems such as criterion R.2. In this way, all these issues could be examined once and for all.
903.The Chairperson thanked Saint Lucia for its comment.
904.The delegation of Latvia agreed with the proposals to continue the debate on these issues, adding that the Committee should refer to the documents that had already been elaborated, namely the transversal issues document, so that it could reflect on the experience of the Committee over the years.
905.The Chairperson noted that the Committee accepted the proposal by Brazil to broaden the scope, as suggested by Saint Lucia. Turning to the draft decision, the Chairperson proposed to delete paragraph 6, as proposed by Afghanistan, and turn to the new paragraph 7. With no comments or objections, it was duly adopted. The Chairperson then moved to the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, and paragraphs 8–15, were all duly adopted. Turning to the adoption of the draft decision as a whole, the Chairperson declared Decision 9.COM 10 adopted.
906.On behalf of the Committee, the Chairperson expressed thanks to the Subsidiary Body for its serious and efficient work.
907.The Vice-Chairperson of the Subsidiary Body wished to thank all the members of the Subsidiary Body for their outstanding work carried out in an exemplary atmosphere. Indeed, despite the occasional heated discussion, the experts always managed to find satisfactory solutions to all the nominations, which were approved unanimously with great professionalism. The Vice-Chair also thanked the Committee for the confidence it bestowed on the Subsidiary Body, and warmly thanked the Secretariat for its assistance, which greatly facilitated the Body’s work.