9 com ith/14 com/4 Rev. Paris, 27 October 2014 Original: English

Mr Bandarin remarked that it was a little more complicated than it seemed. First of all, the Committee had to establish a figure before deciding on the split between the two years. However, the Operational Directives clearly stated that every year the Committee had to inscribe elements, otherwise there would be legal problems. This of course could be changed, but only by the General Assembly. Nevertheless, the Committee could decide on a split figure that allowed some activities to be carried out in 2015, for example 20-60. Mr Bandarin was in favour of a similar solution, as a light year would significantly help the Secretariat in dealing with the backlog in a more satisfactory way, and re-establishing the balance in its workload. He therefore recommended a smaller figure for 2015 and a bigger figure for 2016, which would respect the Operational Directives.

The delegation of Belgium asked whether studying 80 files in one year and the referred files in the next could be an option.

The delegation of Japan understood the legal situation and maintained its proposal that at least one file be considered from every submitting State at least once every two years. So the question was to divide the figure of 80 into an appropriate number in two years.

The Chairperson remarked that if the Committee had to inscribe at least one file then perhaps it could agree that every year nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List were treated, but only once every two years for the Representative List. In this way, nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and International Assistance would be treated promptly, while still maintaining the total of 80 files.

The delegation of Grenada reiterated and approved the Chairperson’s proposal to deal first with Urgent Safeguarding List nominations and International Assistance requests in both years.

The Chairperson clarified that the Representative List would be considered once in two years, but with a total number of files at 80.

The delegation of Albania asked whether the proposal meant that files to the Urgent Safeguarding List and International Assistance would be examined in the first and the second year within the quarter of the 80 allocated files.

The Chairperson replied yes, as there might be files requiring urgent support every year.

The delegation of Azerbaijan asked the Secretariat to show a table of the possible scenarios for 2014 based on 40 nominations so that the Committee could have a better idea that would facilitate the adoption of the final decision.

The delegation of China echoed the proposal by Japan, re-emphasizing the need to apply the principle of fairness and equal opportunity rather than the amount of elements inscribed.

The delegation of Peru disagreed with the Chairperson’s proposal, adding that States should decide which mechanism they wish to apply, which should be a minimum of 50 nomination files per annum or 100 per biennium.

The Chairperson remarked that this was not a correct understanding of his proposal, as States Parties decided on the nominations they wished to submit.

The delegation of Czech Republic wondered whether the Committee could decide to treat the 80 nominations in the 2015 and 2016 cycles as a whole rather than designating the number per cycle. It explained that the draft decision contained two separate paragraphs (paragraph 5 on the 2015 figure and paragraph 6 on the 2016 figure), yet as the Committee was undecided on how best to split the figure, it could decide to merge the two paragraphs and add, ‘during the 2015–2016 biennial cycle the number of nominations is 80’. In this way, solving the problem, if it was legally possible.

As way of an example, the Secretary explained that if the Committee accepted 80 nominations for the biennium, and the Secretariat received 80 nominations in the first year, (since the deadline for 2015 would be 31 March 2014) it would not know whether it should take all of them, since it could not know how many it could expect the following year. Moreover, as it was inevitable that the Secretariat would receive more in 2014 and 2015 than the figure of 80, the Secretariat would need to know where to draw the line in 2014 and 2015. Furthermore, if for example the Committee accepted 80 nominations – bearing in mind the concerns raised by Japan, China and Azerbaijan that sought to accommodate as much as possible one nomination per State – and the same States were allowed every year to submit a file, but if non-represented States were favoured then they would be prioritized two years in a row with less possibilities for over-represented States to submit their files, which was contrary to the spirit of inclusiveness. The Secretary therefore recommended fixing a precise figure for both 2015 and 2016, the total of which would be 80. The entry criteria for the first and second year would also have to be established, which may well be the current entry criteria outlined in the Operational Directives, i.e. the State Party could select from any of the mechanisms, while priority would be granted to non-represented States, followed by underrepresented States, and so on. Thus, a low figure could be chosen for the first year, which would give non-represented States an opportunity to submit their first nominations, while in the second year, a higher figure would allow for a more inclusive approach, within the agreed ceiling.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee should first agree on the number of files per two years, and then decide how to distribute the nominations.

The delegation of Indonesia understood that the present capacity of the system was around 80 files in two years, even though it disagreed with it, but wished to know about the Best Practices, as this should not be overlooked.

The delegation of Nicaragua agreed with Peru’s proposal and was in favour of 150 files per annum.

The delegation of Spain aligned with Peru and Nicaragua in that a reduction of 25 per cent in relation to previous years was excessive, and was particularly difficult for Spain to manage at the national level. It explained that the nominations already submitted would take the Committee through to 2016, and it would be difficult for Spain to suddenly justify the drop in examinations vis-à-vis the communities concerned. Nevertheless, it would defend an annual figure that would at least allow all States the possibility of submitting at least one nomination. It therefore did not agree with the figure of 80, adding that it would be very grateful to the Secretariat if it could make an effort to increase the limit.

The delegation of China agreed to set the 2016 figure at 80, but that the figure for 2015 should be carefully discussed, adding that the huge workload and the financial and human constraints were technical issues. Moreover, the general principle of the Convention was to encourage States Parties and the people the world over to have greater awareness of the importance of their heritage so as to safeguard their culture. Thus, the Committee had to find ways and means to solve the technical issues rather than sacrificing the spirit of the Convention.

The Chairperson remarked that there was hesitation from the Secretariat as to whether they would manage to carry out their tasks given the cuts to the budget. He understood that every State Party had tried to provide additional support, and that everyone wanted more inscriptions, but the capacity of the Secretariat limited it to 80 per biennium, reflecting the real situation within the Secretariat. The Chairperson understood that the Committee could not act without the Secretariat, but that the Secretariat had to prepare the necessary documentation, the advisory body meetings and so on, in a proper way.

The Secretary proposed to first consider the category of nominations, for example, in 2015 the Committee would only accept nominations for a particular mechanism from non-represented countries, and in 2016 it would accept nominations up to a total of 80, including those received in 2015. In this way, non-represented States Parties would have their files examined, whose number was gradually decreasing. Thus, whichever mechanism was retained for non-represented countries in 2015 would invariably be a low figure – about 12 to 15 States – with the remaining States Parties submitting up to the ceiling of 80 files in the second year.

The delegation of Nicaragua had enormous appreciation for the Secretariat and for its constructive and supportive approach. However, it preferred Peru’s proposal, and so the Committee now had to try and find consensus or common ground, adding communities would feel a sense of frustration if nominations were dealt with in this way. The delegation explained that it had voluntarily withdrawn three nominations during the session because they were considered unready for examination. It was therefore now very concerned, as there were national interests at stake. In addition, the nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List should be treated, as there was a threat of extinction.

The delegation of Brazil was inclined to go along with Peru, but if this were not feasible, it would agree with the proposal by the Secretariat if it could be adapted so that nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List and International Assistance were open, even for countries that already had inscribed elements.

The delegation of Grenada clarified that it supported the proposal that countries without inscriptions on the Lists would only have one file accepted per country. It also supported the proposal by Brazil that International Assistance requests and nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List should not be excluded in the first year. Nevertheless, it could put a ceiling for the first year and complement it in the second year up to 80 files.

The delegation of Albania shared the frustration of many countries that did not wish to limit the number of nominations. It therefore asked the Secretariat whether there would be some financial savings if one single body carried out the evaluations, in line with the IOS recommendation, and in this way increase the number of nominations that could be treated by biennium.

The Secretary agreed that having two bodies was twice as much work because of the frequent exchanges, adding that having only one meeting and thus only one group would likely save a considerable amount of time. However, each nomination was in itself precious and as such a lot of care and attention was granted to each as much as possible. So even though a single body would alleviate some of the workload, it would not solve the whole problem. The Secretary added that the figure of 80 was very theoretical, because in fact for four years the Secretariat had been around six or eight months behind its normal work schedule, which meant that even if it had had more human resources in the previous biennium, it could not have coped with the number of nominations. The Secretary recalled that in the first year, there were 111 nominations to the Representative List, but there were no other mechanisms, and the Secretariat had worked hard and had been on time. Immediately afterwards, the first Subsidiary Body had set a ceiling of 54, but again the Secretariat was on schedule. The Body had also met the schedule because there were very few nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List. Eventually however, by 2011 the Secretariat could no longer cope with the normal timetable, resulting today in a six-month delay. She assured the Committee that the Secretariat had made and continued to make every effort and was the first to be frustrated that it was unable to accommodate more nominations, adding that there was a significant difference between 80 and 120 files, which might eventually allow it to reduce the delays.

In the spirit of compromise and consensus, the delegation of Belgium supported the Secretariat's proposal, as amended by Brazil by adding the Urgent Safeguarding List and International Assistance, but also the Register of Best Practices.

The delegation of Japan asked about the definition of the nomination and whether it was the number of the submissions itself, i.e. the nominations submitted to the Secretariat for technical verification, or whether it was equal to the number actually evaluated by the two bodies. Additionally, in support of the remarks by Albania, it agreed that the Committee might be able to save funds by amalgamating the two bodies and using the funds to strengthen the staff in carrying out the technical screening of submissions.

The Secretary clarified that the number of nomination files referred to those entering into the system for the first technical checks, and did not refer to those submitted for evaluation, because, as mentioned by Nicaragua, the first screening might result in a withdrawal from the submitting State if considered unready for presentation, even to the advisory bodies. The number of files therefore did not relate to those submitted by States, but to those entering into the process of a given cycle for eventual examination and evaluation. This was also the reason the Committee always received fewer nominations than those entering into the system because States withdrew their files depending on the Secretariat’s feedback.

The delegation of Czech Republic understood how difficult and painful it was for the communities and States Parties to see the number of nominations decrease. However, the Secretariat had demonstrated many times how its work was important and effective, and how it had always supported the States Parties, which was also mentioned in the IOS evaluation. It trusted the Secretariat when it said it could not handle more than 80 nominations in two years. It also found excellent the Secretary’s proposal to process the nominations by non-represented States on any of the four mechanisms in the first year, then all the other nominations in the second year up to the ceiling. Furthermore, if the Secretariat noted that it could process more nominations than the set figure it could adjust the ceiling accordingly in 2017, with ample opportunity to reflect on other methods of evaluation, as suggested by other delegations. Moreover, a sort of tentative list for the Convention could perhaps be established so that communities could see that there was a real desire to highlight one element from each country without putting pressure on the valuable work carried out by the Secretariat.

The delegation of Latvia also understood the concerns expressed by the different delegations on the figure set, but it also respected the opinion of the Secretariat and the feasibility of studying 80 nominations. Thus, it would not insist on questioning the limit of the proposed figure. It also supported the proposal by the Secretariat on the way forward in the criteria and choice of the nominations to be examined in the first year, and then the proposal by Brazil, Grenada and Belgium could be taken into account and accepted, for which it still required a limit of files to be examined for the first year of the current biennium.

The delegation of Peru insisted on the figure of 50 and was not inclined to accept the proposal by the Secretariat as supported by the Czech Republic because there was barely three months before files would be made available for the 2015 cycle, and countries had spent months or even years in preparing nominations with the communities. Moreover, it was in accordance with decisions already made by the Committee in the past and based on criteria that had already been established. It did not see how it could now go back to the communities, who had already worked on preparing the file, to inform them that their nomination files could no longer be processed. It therefore maintained its position that the number of files should be 50, reiterating its gratitude to the Secretariat for its very precious work, but it could not see how the figure could have dropped from 111 per year to 40 today. The delegation understood that resources had decreased, but that efforts had been made in the Committee to streamline the burden of work and the responsibility of reporting by each country on the characteristics of their files and their shortcomings. The delegation felt that the Secretariat should make the effort, taking account of what was already underway for 2015, and thus to uphold the figure of 50 per year for 2015 and the same in 2016.

The delegation of Uganda supported the reduction of the number of nominations to 80, taking into consideration the fact that the Secretariat already had 138 pending files, in addition to the 64 files in 2014.

Having worked in the Subsidiary Body, the delegation of Nigeria agreed that the volume of work was indeed tremendous, requiring a level high of thoroughness. It therefore supported the Secretariat’s proposal, if it lessened its burden and maintained its effectiveness.

The delegation of Kyrgyzstan acknowledged the reality of the situation, as outlined by the Secretariat, and was thus inclined to support the proposal by the Secretariat to grant priority to countries that were completely under-represented in any list. At the same time, Nicaragua had expressed its concern that they had withdrawn three files this year in trying to improve them. The delegation therefore wondered whether there could be some special rule for those countries that had already applied but had to withdraw.

The delegation of Spain reiterated that it found itself in a very complicated situation, and although it had solidarity with the Secretariat, its situation was equally difficult. Moreover, the realities of the countries were quite distinct from one to another, and the question of solidarity not only rested with the Secretariat, but more importantly with the communities that had already presented their nominations. The delegation added that it could not explain these changes to the communities in such a short space of time. Moreover, establishing limits per country, assigning priorities, as well as other measures in the future, only gave rise to legal uncertainty, as well as uncertainty within the States Parties, making it very difficult to manage the situation. The delegation requested that such changes be presented well in advance so that States Parties could prepare the communities affected by these changes. It supported the Secretariat, but it also acknowledged that this was going to affect the communities, adding that in future the Committee should be more conscious of it was doing, and it added its support to the remarks made by Peru and Nicaragua.

Sensing that a solution was in sight, the Chairperson asked whether the Committee would be prepared for a night session.

The delegation of Brazil suggested a break for informal consultations among Members, which would perhaps help in reaching a solution.

The Chairperson agreed with the idea, and invited three more delegations to speak before adjourning for a break.

The delegation of Azerbaijan returned to the proposal from Albania concerning the body that would hypothetically be established to deal with all lists, adding that it could potentially reduce the costs in the Secretariat and was a very good solution. It also concurred with Peru’s proposal to evaluate 50 nominations per year, which would allow the Secretariat to meet its obligations, while addressing the concerns of the Committee and the States.

The delegation of Belgium suggested that the Committee work on the concrete proposal by the Secretariat, as amended by Brazil and Belgium, which could form the basis of the informal consultations.

The delegation of Burkina Faso acknowledged that the issue of the number of nominations for examination in future cycles was always a critical topic in the Committee’s deliberations, adding that it fully understood the concerns of Spain and Peru. It gave an analogy of a father who had promised his children a bicycle, but in the meantime, owing to the economic situation and a drop in salary, could no longer keep his promise. The delegation spoke of the courage needed to explain this to the children, in the hope that the situation would improve later when he could fulfil his promise. It was in this spirit that the Committee would eventually reach a consensus, adding that it strongly agreed with the realistic proposal by the Secretariat.

The Chairperson adjourned the session, and suggested returning to the draft decision following consultations based on the proposal by Belgium on the draft decision.

[One-hour pause in deliberations]

914. 
     The Chairperson noted that the Committee had approved four paragraphs from the draft decision 8.COM 10, turning to Brazil for the results of the informal consultations that had transpired.
     
915. 
     The delegation of Brazil explained that long informal discussions had taken place, centred around the compromise of reducing the costs of evaluation by unifying the evaluation processes of all mechanisms into a single mechanism that would have the features of the current Subsidiary Body and the Consultative Body. In doing so, this would reduce the costs of the evaluation process and thus allow for a higher annual ceiling of files. The idea was thus to establish a new body that would be composed of six experts, designated from States Parties not Members of the Committee, and six NGOs, with a total of 12 members. Each Electoral Group would propose the experts and the NGOs with a mandate of four years, of which one quarter of the members would be renewed every year. This would reduce the costs of processing the nominations, allowing for a higher ceiling of 50 nominations every year or 100 nominations per biennium.
     
916. 
     The Chairperson noted support from Azerbaijan, Albania, Grenada, Namibia, Nicaragua, Greece, Japan, Czech Republic, Burkina Faso, Peru and Brazil, and thus a broad consensus. He invited the Secretariat to provide a new version of paragraphs 5 and 6 in the draft decision.
     
917. 
     The delegation of Indonesia apologized for disrupting the proceeding, but said that it was not aware of the draft decision put forward by Brazil, adding that it sought comments from the Asia-Pacific group, which had been occupied in its own meeting during the informal consultations.
     
918. 
     The delegation of Japan remarked that regardless of the number of nominations processed each year, it was important that at least one file be processed from each submitting country. In which case, it wished to insert a new paragraph to request that every effort be made so that at least one submitted file per State Party be processed in the two cycles in 2015 and 2016, and thus observe the spirit of the Convention that every country should be treated equally.
     
919. 
     The Chairperson noted the amendment, which read, ‘requests that every effort should be made to examine at least one file per submitting State during the two year period’.
     
920. 
     The delegation of Japan corrected the amendment to, ‘at least one file per submitting State should be processed during the two year period’.
     
921. 
     The delegation of Albania was ready to support the amendment, adding that it was only fair to exclude as few countries as possible. Furthermore, the delegation wished to add at the end of Japan’s amendment, ‘within the agreed number of nominations per biennium’.
     
922. 
     The delegation of Belgium regretted that it had not been included in the consultations on this proposal, reiterating its preference for the proposal by the Secretariat and amended by Brazil and Belgium. Nevertheless, it would go along with the suggestion, adding its support to Japan’s amendment.
     
923. 
     The delegation of China endorsed the proposal by Japan and proposed an addition to the amendment, which read, ‘to ensure’ that at least one file per submitting State should be processed.
     
924. 
     The Chairperson noted Japan’s support for the amendment, with ‘ensure’ instead of ‘requests’ at the beginning of the phrase. With no further comments or objections to paragraphs 5 and 6 concerning the limits of 50 per year, they were pronounced adopted.
     
925. 
     Following discussion among some of the Asia-Pacific group concerning paragraph 7, the delegation of Indonesia proposed to delete that ‘every effort should be made’ and add, ‘requests that’. The Chairperson suggested simply having, ‘ensure’.
     
926. 
     The delegation of Indonesia read out the amendment, ‘to ensure that at least one file per submitting State should be processed during the two year period’, adding that the number of nominations was already agreed in paragraphs 5 and 6 and thus it was unnecessary to include the amendment by Albania.
     
927. 
     The delegation of Albania wished to maintain the text, as this clarified the paragraph.
     
928. 
     The Chairperson remarked that it did not influence the sense of the paragraph, and did in fact strengthen the position to satisfy the requests of every party.
     
929. 
     The delegation of Nicaragua congratulated the Committee for its constructive efforts that had led to a solution, asking whether the number of files mentioned referred to the total of the different lists or just one list, adding that the position was unclear for the three delegations that had withdrawn files.
     
930. 
     The Chairperson replied that the limit of 50 reflected the situation covering all nominations for consideration by the Committee for all the mechanisms.
     
931. 
     The delegation of Tunisia believed that the Committee should always specify the total number otherwise it would not make any headway.
     
932. 
     The Chairperson asked Tunisia to provide text to the draft decision in paragraph 7. The delegation of Tunisia added that it wished to revert to the Secretariat’s original proposal.
     
933. 
     The Chairperson noted that a consensus had been found and paragraphs 5 and 6 had already been approved such that it made no sense to revert to the original version, which was against the procedure.
     
934. 
     The delegation of Burkina Faso recalled that paragraph 34 of the Operational Directives already requested the Committee to examine insofar as possible at least one file per submitting State, adding that the amendment could perhaps be deleted since the Directives had greater legal force than a decision.
     
935. 
     The Chairperson asked whether there was any contradiction between the two documents, and if not then there was no problem in adopting this paragraph to ensure the will of the Committee to follow the general rule; we can repeat as long as there is no contradiction.
     
936. 
     The delegation of Morocco understood the concern voiced by Burkina Faso, but as the amendment had already been formulated it suggested strengthening the decision by adding, ‘in conformity with paragraph 34 of the Operational Directives’.
     
937. 
     The delegation of Indonesia thanked Morocco, adding its support to the proposal.
     
938. 
     With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced both paragraphs 7 and 8 adopted.
     
939. 
     The delegation of Albania noted that paragraph 9 said exactly the same thing as paragraph 7 and therefore suggested having only one of them.
     
940. 
     Noting that it was indeed similar, and taking consideration the adopted paragraph 7, the Chairperson suggested deleting paragraph 9.
     
941. 
     The Secretary added that the Committee should maintain the flexibility granted to the Secretariat, at least in the second part of the paragraph.
     
942. 
     The Chairperson read out the paragraph, ‘further decides that the Secretariat may exercise some flexibility if that would permit greater equity among submitting States with equal priority under paragraph 34’.
     
943. 
     The delegation of Albania felt that ‘further decides that’ should also be added to paragraph 7, so after ‘Operational Directives;’ semi-colon, ‘further decides that […]’, in this way it was not dissociated from paragraph 7.
     
944. 
     The Chairperson noted that the reference to paragraph 34 of the Directives would be applied twice in the same paragraph.
     
945. 
     The delegation of Grenada suggested placing it as a new paragraph 8, in which case it would link ‘further decides’ after the adopted paragraph 7.
     
946. 
     With no further comments or objections, the Chairperson pronounced paragraph 9 adopted. Paragraph 10 would begin with ‘further requests’, which was adopted. With no further comments or objections to the draft decision as a whole, the Chairperson declared Decision 8.COM 10 adopted.