|
Mr Koichiro Matsuura spoke of his gratitude for the invitation to attend the Committee session in Baku on the occasion of the tenth anniversary, and to listen to the debates and discussions. He began by extending his wholehearted congratulations to the 25 countries that had seen their elements inscribed, and wished the other countries successful inscriptions on the next occasion. Mr Matsuura was very impressed by the enthusiasm and great interest with which the Committee had pursued its work under the chairmanship of the Minister of Culture of Azerbaijan. Recalling the nostalgic process that led to the adoption of the Convention at the General Conference of UNESCO ten years ago, Mr Matsuura recalled that when he had become Director-General of UNESCO in November 1999, he had mentioned in his inaugural speech that UNESCO had to establish a new scheme for protecting intangible cultural heritage. He was thus very happy to note that Member States had adopted a decision to proceed on this path by establishing the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity; an important step forward. Nevertheless, it was considered insufficient and several months later at the Executive Board, he had mentioned that this should take the form of a new international convention, for which the types of intangible cultural heritage covered by the new international convention should be defined. Thus, with the support of many Member States, the Executive Board and the General Conference finally proceeded to organize a series of expert meetings to discuss the definition of intangible cultural heritage. Mr Matsuura recalled that this was not an easy task, but he was very grateful to the many international experts that had participated in the process and debates for formulating a set of positive recommendations. Many Member States immediately supported the proposal, but unfortunately there was also some reluctance, even opposition to a new legal framework. Nevertheless, looking back at the General Conference held in 2003, ten years ago, Mr Matsuura spoke of how his proposal made to the Executive Board was accepted with very strong support from more than a hundred countries and no opposition whatsoever, albeit with a few abstentions. Noting the number of people that had come to Baku from all over the world, Mr Matsuura spoke of his delight that the 2003 Convention had taken root and been widely accepted by 157 Member States to date, while two more countries were awaiting certification from the legal office of the UNESCO Secretariat. Thus, close to 160 countries had ratified the Convention within a very short period of time, which showed how enthusiastic Member States had become about the Convention and about the inscription of their intangible cultural heritage. Now it could be claimed that the 2003 Convention had become a very popular UNESCO Convention together with the 1972 World Heritage Convention, which had been ratified by 190 countries. UNESCO could therefore be proud of these two conventions that protect all forms of cultural heritage of humankind. Other important international conventions in the area of cultural heritage and culture included the 1954 Convention, the 1970 Convention, and the 2001 Convention making altogether six conventions5. Mr Matsuura concluded by once again thanking the Minister of Culture of Azerbaijan for chairing the Committee so skilfully and for giving him the opportunity to say a few words and greet all the delegates.
The Chairperson remarked that was a really good reflection of the history of the Convention that one could be proud about its results since it all began ten years ago, as many countries were now supporting the Convention and evaluating their cultural expressions from a totally new viewpoint. He spoke of the increased sense of importance of intangible cultural heritage, which had brought about a new understanding of the values of mankind.
Addressing Mr Matsuura, Mr Bandarin spoke on behalf of the Director-General to welcome him to the Committee session, recalling his impressive legacy as Director-General of UNESCO for more than ten years. Mr Bandarin reminded the delegations that of the six culture conventions of UNESCO, three had actually been established under his leadership, not to mention many other things that were accomplished during that decade whether adopted during his tenure or afterwards as a result of years of preparatory work done during that time. Mr Bandarin spoke of his continued pleasure to meet and exchange with Mr Matsuura for his enlightened view on the future of UNESCO.
Following a number of practical announcements, the Chairperson adjourned the session.
[Thursday, 5 December, afternoon session]
-
The Chairperson resumed the session by turning to draft decision 8.COM 8, noting that it addressed several transversal issues relating to the Representative List in general, and therefore not to any particular nomination.
-
The Secretary remarked that the draft decision took stock of the remarks by the Subsidiary Body and in fact repeated some of the issues that had already been adopted by the Committee. The only addition was paragraph 16, which to a certain extent had already been adopted by the Committee for the Urgent Safeguarding List, which requested submitting States to provide documentary evidence of the element on the inventory in either French or English.
-
The Chairperson proposed to proceed on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis.
-
The delegation of Brazil noted that the draft decision had no mention of the appropriate use of terminology, which had been brought up several times during the debates.
-
Turning to the draft decision, and with no comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced paragraphs 1–8 adopted.
-
In paragraph 9, the delegation of Morocco sought to strengthen the wording of the invitation by strongly encouraging States Parties to take advantage of the good examples of nominations. Thus, replacing ‘invites’ to ‘strongly encourages’.
-
The delegation of Brazil asked how States Parties would go about consulting a good example of a nomination, as all the inscribed nominations were available online.
-
The Secretary noted that the Subsidiary Body had clearly indicated those nominations that could be considered as good examples. The Secretary proposed to introduce a window of the best examples on the webpages where States consulted the nomination forms, the numbers of which would increase as new examples were added.
-
The Chairperson noted support for Morocco’s proposal, and with no comments or objections pronounced paragraphs 9 and 10 adopted.
-
The delegation of Morocco noted a discrepancy in the French version in the use of refléter instead of réfléchir.
-
With no comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced paragraphs 11–16 adopted.
-
The delegation of Albania wished to complete its amendment and add ‘and the Committee’ after ‘the Subsidiary Body’. It explained that throughout the years, recommendations to decisions previously adopted by the Committee post-inscription varied from one year to the next, as was the case this year. The delegation cited examples in which it had been decided that each nomination should constitute a unique and original document and duplication of texts was not acceptable, that the communities should be the beneficiaries from the increased visibility, and in Nairobi there was a paragraph on guidelines about the commercial use of the logo and of the element inscribed. The delegation believed that it was extremely important to compile all the recommendations and decisions together and increase their visibility online so that could be immediately accessed. In addition, they could be attached as an annex to the nomination forms so that States Parties could review them before submitting their files. The delegation also concurred with Brazil on the importance of avoiding inappropriate vocabulary.
-
The delegation of Brazil found the proposal by Albania useful, but sought the response from the Secretariat on how it would implement the recommendation. It also sought clarification on the decision that an extract of the inventory should either be in English or French, which in the case of Brazil would be neither.
-
The Chairperson clarified that this referred to the translation of the extract into one of the working languages, English or French. The delegation of Brazil accepted the clarification.
-
The Secretary concurred that paragraph 16 referred to the translation of the extract, as the Subsidiary Body did not speak the languages in which the inventory existed. With regard to the amendment by Albania, sharing similar observations as Latvia, the Secretary made reference to the transversal issues document INF.7 that could form the basis of simple and direct instructions that could take the form of a manual rather than references to Operational Directives and decisions. Thus, making the information more user-friendly.
-
The delegation of Brazil suggested that the Committee request the Secretariat, within the available resources, to prepare a resource manual on all the convention’s mechanisms.
-
The delegation of Albania asked that the recommendation be placed in brackets for private discussion with Brazil.
-
The delegation of Latvia concurred with the Secretary’s remarks that there should be some visibility to the decisions taken, which would help States Parties in future nominations, and was thus in favour of the Albanian proposal. The delegation wondered how the additional information would be provided by the Secretariat, i.e. as an informative note at the top of the form or as an attachment.
-
The Chairperson turned to the proposal by Burkina Faso on paragraph 18.
-
The delegation of Burkina Faso spoke of its esteem for the work of the Committee, adding that jurisprudence had been established through prior decisions adopted by the Committee. With regard to inscriptions, it was required that the advisory bodies, including the Committee, base their evaluations on these decisions. The delegation thus felt it was opportune to reflect on the debates of the last few days and conduct an evaluation of the implementation of decisions previously taken by the Committee. It made particular mention of the evaluation of nomination files based on the adopted decisions 5.COM 6, 6.COM 13, and 7.COM 11, which referred to the quality and completeness of the information, found in decisions 7.COM 11, and 6.COM 13. Additional references to misplaced information in inappropriate sections of the form were cited in decision 7.COM 7, while the question of the scope of the element and whether it was defined or generic could be found in the decision 6.COM 13. The delegation concluded by reiterating the need for an assessment of the implementation of already adopted decisions by the Committee, which were notably respected by the Subsidiary Body.
-
The delegation of Belgium supported the very intelligent amendment by Burkina Faso.
-
Following bi-lateral discussion, the delegations of Brazil and Albania agreed on the text for an assessment of adopted decisions, but sought clarification from the Secretariat on how this assessment would be carried out, and whether the Secretariat would report to the Committee in its general report in this regard.
-
Depending on the response from the Secretariat on its feasibility, the delegation of Grenada would support the proposal by Burkina Faso.
-
The Secretary understood from the amendment that the Committee would request the Secretariat to report on an evaluation of the decisions – and the way they were applied – to the Committee. The Secretary was unsure whether this would entail some form of re-evaluation of every file to see whether the Committee had complied with its decisions, as this would be complicated. However, it could provide an information document based on which the Committee could align its decisions, but the Secretariat could not provide a draft decision to the Committee in this regard as it would entirely depend on the Committee’s thoughts of the assessment.
-
The delegation of Morocco fully understood the intention of the proposal by Burkina Faso, and wondered whether the work of compiling previous decisions should not be extended to all the mechanisms of the Convention.
-
The delegation of Nigeria described the intentions of Burkina Faso and Grenada as noble, but that it brought to mind the issue of consistency, as some past decisions were flawed and pursuing them as such would be inconsistent.
-
The delegation of Albania supported the amendment by Burkina Faso, adding that it was relevant and should not be subjective, and it also supported the comment by Morocco that the evaluation should be applied to all mechanisms. The delegation noted that the decision specifically pertained to the Representative List, and so wondered whether language referring to other mechanisms could indeed be used.
-
The delegation of Grenada remarked that the Convention was a learning process as it was still young, but that the Committee was learning from its mistakes. After ten years, the Committee could take stock of the past and continue in an efficient manner. The delegation added that if both paragraphs 17 and 18 were to address all mechanisms then separate decisions of these two paragraphs could be drafted and applied accordingly.
-
The Secretary did not see a problem to broaden the scope, even in a decision dealing with the Representative List, as it resulted from the debate that occurred within this item. As such, paragraph 18 could be broadened to incorporate all mechanisms, as appropriate.
-
The Chairperson asked Brazil and Albania whether they had finalized paragraph 17.
-
The delegation of Albania replied that Brazil had the idea of applying the same procedure to the Urgent Safeguarding List and to safeguarding plans, although it would be different from the aide-memoire proposed, which was mainly theoretical. The delegation saw it as a kind of manual with concrete technical examples about safeguarding plans. Both Albania and Brazil agreed to forego the more theoretical aide-memoire for another type of manual for the Urgent Safeguarding List, International Assistance, and the safeguarding plans.
-
The delegation of Brazil further explained that since the examination of nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List, Albania and Brazil had been in discussion on the need for better guidance on how to develop safeguarding plans, and thought that perhaps funds could be allocated from the Fund to develop a resource manual. It asked the Secretariat whether this was indeed feasible, and if so, how it could fit into decision 8.COM 8, or whether it was more appropriate in decision 8.COM 11 on the Fund.
-
The Secretary explained that a manual for elaborating nominations was already in circulation and had been distributed in the many capacity-building activities carried out. The Secretary was also happy to inform the Committee that two days ago the Bureau approved to use part of the funds specifically on a capacity-building curriculum for safeguarding, so that the Bureau had already taken on board the concerns.
-
The Chairperson proceeded to the adoption of the amendment by Albania and Brazil. With no comments or objections, paragraph 17 was adopted. With no comments or objections on paragraph 18 proposed by Burkina Faso, Belgium, Grenada and Albania, it was also adopted. As it was considered important to apply the decision to all mechanisms, they had been incorporated into the two paragraphs. The Chairperson remarked that the evaluation on the implementation of previous decisions would also be extended to the other mechanisms. He then moved to the decision as a whole, and with no further comments or objections, the Chairperson declared Decision 8.COM 8 adopted.
ITEM 9.a OF THE AGENDA:
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSULTATIVE BODY AND ADOPTION OF ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE
Document ITH/13/8.COM/9.a
Decision 8.COM 9.a
-
The Chairperson presented the next item on the establishment of the Consultative Body, adding that the Committee would adopt the terms of Reference for the Body and appoint its twelve members, three of whom would be new. Mr Proschan was invited to provide the background information.
-
Wishing to share its own experience, the delegation of Czech Republic spoke of how productive and enriching it had been to be a member of the Subsidiary Body during the last cycle, adding that it was nevertheless surprised by the Committee’s decision to reverse some of the recommendations made by the Body on a number of nomination files. The delegation felt that this questioned the legitimacy of the Subsidiary Body, and the credibility of the Body and the Representative List, as the working methods appeared not be respected. For example, it was unsure whether the voting majority was respected when amending paragraphs. The delegation explained that the Committee had decided that the option of referral would only be used in cases where the file lacked a technical requirement, but this had not been duly applied in the current session. It shared an analogy of how refusing children certain requests as a parent benefitted them in the long run as it helped them to think and grow, even if it was often difficult to implement in practice. It surmised that if the Committee could not achieve this, then perhaps it should consider revising the inscription criteria. It concluded by congratulating the countries whose nomination files had satisfied all the criteria, as well as those that withdrew their nominations to revise them, respecting the central objectives of the Representative List and the spirit of the Convention.
-
The Chairperson took note of the concerns expressed by Czech Republic.
-
The delegation of Nigeria was of the understanding that the last request approved might require some funds, and if that was the case, then the Committee should not consider integrating the Subsidiary Body and the Consultative Body. It believed that by adding other things now that required money would be going back to square one.
-
Mr Proschan explained that Rule 20.2 of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure required that on establishing an ad hoc Consultative Body, the Committee should: i) adopt its terms of reference; its mandates and duration of office and ii) appoint the twelve members of the Body, three of whom will be new. The draft Terms of Reference were included as Annex 1 of document 9.a. It was noted that the Terms of Reference were identical to those adopted by the Committee last year in its Decision 7.COM 12.b, except for the mention of ninth Committee session.
-
With no comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced the Terms of Reference adopted. He then moved to the appointment of the twelve members.
-
Consistent with the Operational Directives, Mr Proschan explained that the Consultative Body should be composed of six accredited NGOs and six independent experts, adding that the Committee renewed one quarter (three seats) every year (paragraph 26) with members serving for a maximum of four years. The Committee was therefore asked to appointment three new members and reappointment nine. By its Decision 7.COM 12.a, the Committee determined that the following three seats should be newly filled: i) Electoral Group I – NGO (to replace Maisons des cultures du monde); ii) Electoral Group II – expert (to replace Ms Rusudan Tsurtsumia); and iii) Electoral Group IV – expert (to replace Mr Rahul Goswami). Annex 2 contained the names of two candidates for each of the three posts, together with a brief description of the candidate by their CV for the experts, and a website link for the NGO. The Secretariat confirmed that the candidates were all available to carry out the work for the 2014 cycle.The nine incumbents (five NGOs and four experts) also confirmed their availablity.
-
The Chairperson asked Electoral Group I to suggest its candidate for the post of the accredited NGO.
-
Having consulted with its Group, the delegation of Greece took note of the high quality of the NGO candidates and was impressed by their work, with the Belgium delegation familiar with the NGO International Society for Ethnology and Folklore – SIEF from the Netherlands, while other delegations were familiar with the work of the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador – HFNL from Canada. Moreover, the Canadian NGO worked in a country that had yet to ratify the Convention and the bottom-up approach to their work was highly appreciated by the Group. The delegation therefore announced that the NGO Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador – HFNL had been retained.
-
Noting that there were no objections, the Chairperson approved the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador – HFNL as a new member of the Consultative Body.
-
The Chairperson asked Electoral Group II to suggest its candidate for the post of expert.
-
The delegation of Albania had the pleasure to announce that a consensus had been reached to appoint Ms Kristiina Porila from Estonia.
-
Noting that there were no objections, the Chairperson approved Ms Kristiina Porila as a new member of the Consultative Body.
-
The Chairperson asked Electoral Group IV to suggest its candidate for the post of expert.
-
The delegation of Indonesia replied that the group had yet to name its candidate and sought more time to consult further.
-
The Chairperson therefore suspended the adoption of the draft decision.
ITEM 9.b OF THE AGENDA:
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODY AND ADOPTION OF ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE
Document ITH/13/8.COM/9.b
Decision 8.COM 9.b
-
The Chairperson proceeded with the establishment of the Subsidiary Body, and the examination of its Terms of Reference and the identification of Members to the new Body. It was noted that the Subsidiary Body’s evaluation meeting would be organized at the beginning of September after the meeting of the General Assembly in early June 2014, at which time some delegations would cease to be Committee Members. The Chairperson hoped that electoral groups had consulted among themselves, but the rules determined that the identified members be among those State Parties that would be Members of the Committee up to 2016. He invited Mr Proschan to outline the Terms of Reference.
-
Mr Proschan remarked that the Terms of Reference presented in the Annex to document 9.b were identical to those adopted in Paris by Decision 7.COM 12.c. It was noted that the Subsidiary Body was made up of States Members of the Committee selected on the principle of equitable geographic representation. The Committee had also adopted a tradition of alternating mandates under which some of the Members were replaced every year in order to ensure continuity and coherence in its work, even though this was not a statutory requirement. He recalled that Peru and Nigeria would remain Members until 2016, while the other four Members would leave in June 2014. The Committee typically began with the adoption of the Terms of Reference, before naming Members.
-
With no comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced the Terms of Reference adopted. He then moved to naming the new Members, with the electoral groups asked in turn to propose its candidate.
-
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
