Latest developments in the life of the Convention ENVISIONING THE FUTURE OF THE GLOBAL CAPACITY-BUILDING PROGRAMME AND ITS FACILITATORS’ NETWORK Bangkok — THAILAND 6 to 9 March 2017

Towards universal ratification 172 States Parties (February 2017) 8 new ratifications in 2016: Cabo Verde Cook Islands Ghana Guinea-Bissau Saint Kitts and Nevis Thailand Timor-Leste South Sudan

Towards universal ratification Only 23 States non party EG States non party I Canada, Israel, Malta, San Marino, UK and USA [6] II Russian Federation III Guyana and Suriname [2] IV Australia, Kiribati, Maldives, New Zealand, Niue, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu* [8] Va Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia and South Africa [5] Vb Libya * UNESCO is still waiting to receive the original ratification instrument from Tuvalu that should soon become the 173rd State Party to the Convention.

6.GA Paris 2016 Election of 12 new members of the Committee Revisions of the Operational Directives: Referral option (applicable to all mechanisms) Sustainable development International Assistance Referral option: scope enlarged also to substantial information. Amendments to the ODs: extension to the other mechanisms (USL, BSP, IA – paragraph 35) deletion of four years waiting time for resubmission of nominations to the RL that are not recommended for inscription (paragraph 37)

Committee Members Group I Austria 2016-2020 Cyprus 2016-2020 Turkey 2014-2018 Group II Armenia 2016-2020 Bulgaria 2014-2018 Hungary 2014-2018 12 new members of the Committee: Group I: Austria and Cyprus Group II: Armenia Group III: Colombia, Cuba and Guatemala Group IV: Philippines Group V(a): Mauritius, Senegal and Zambia Group V(b): Lebanon and Palestine

Committee Members Group III Colombia 2016-2020 Cuba 2016-2020 Guatemala 2016-2020 Saint Lucia 2014-2018 Group IV Afghanistan 2014-2018 India 2014-2018 Mongolia 2014-2018 Philippines 2016-2020 Republic of Korea 2014-2018

Committee Members Group V(a) Congo 2014-2018 Côte d’Ivoire 2014-2018 Ethiopia 2014-2018 Mauritius 2016-2020 Senegal 2016-2020 Zambia 2016-2020 Group V(b) Algeria 2014-2018 Lebanon 2016-2020 Palestine 2016-2020

Sustainable Development Convention’s preamble recognizes ‘the importance of the intangible cultural heritage as a mainspring of cultural diversity and a guarantee of sustainable development’ New OD chapter on ‘Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development at the national level’ adopted by 6.GA in May 2016 History: 2013 Chengdu International Conference on Intangible Cultural Heritage called upon the international community to pursue its efforts to ‘renew its commitment to the Convention’s fundamental premise that intangible cultural heritage is a guarantee of sustainable development’ Links between safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development discussed by the Committee Debates often in the context of examination of specific nominations or periodic reports Debate on draft amendments to the ODs on safeguarding, commercialization and sustainable development Considered better to gather within a single chapter directives concerning not only the contribution of intangible cultural heritage to the creative economy and issues related to commercialization but also links between the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development at the national level

Chapter VI of the ODs Follows the structure of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Inclusive social development: food security, health care, quality education, gender equality, access to clean and safe water and sustainable water use Inclusive economic development: income generation and sustainable livelihoods, productive employment and decent work, impact of tourism on safeguarding ICH and vice versa Environmental sustainability: knowledge and practices concerning the nature and the universe, environmental impacts in safeguarding ICH, community-based resilience to natural disasters and climate change ICH and peace: social cohesion and equity, preventing and resolving disputes, restoring peace and security, achieving lasting peace The ODs propose concrete measures under each theme, such as: Research studies, including those run by non-governmental organizations and the communities themselves Appropriate legal, technical, administrative and financial measures Creation of partnership Two-fold approach: Proposes measures to use the Convention as a tool for Sustainable Development Encourages States Parties to integrate the safeguarding of ICH in their legislation, policies and strategies on cultural and other development areas

Chapter VI of the ODs The ODs emphasize: A participatory approach (community driven) Cooperation with NGOs, development experts and communities Integration of safeguarding in non-cultural policies and programmes Diverse contexts (rural and urban) Gender equality Ethical considerations

Challenges How to operationalize Chapter VI of the ODs? Share examples to demonstrate and measure the role of intangible cultural heritage in achieving sustainable and human development Initiatives to provide evidence towards SDG targets attainment

International Assistance Underutilization of the international assistance mechanism Measures: Technical assistance Combined USL/IA Increased ceiling for requests examined by the Bureau (< US$100,000) in addition to files examined by the Committee (> US$100,000) Integrated in capacity building Only 1 international assistance approved in 2016 at 11.COM in conjunction with the inscription of the corresponding element to the Urgent Safeguarding List (Cambodia). For 2017 only 3 IA requests have been submitted and will be examined by the Committee at 12.COM: Colombia, Uganda and Zambia.

Challenges How to operationalize the improved access to IA? What support is needed? How can it be provided? IA as a laboratory with opportunities to learn from: how can UNESCO build knowledge about ICH safeguarding through IA projects? Specific areas of focus for IA?

11.COM Addis Ababa 2016 Periodic reports Overall results framework Inscriptions and governance Intangible cultural heritage in emergencies

Periodic reports 6 reports on the implementation of the Convention and on elements inscribed on the Representative List 6 reports on the current status of elements inscribed on the Urgent Safeguarding List Cumulative focus: 2016 cycle: ICH in cultural and other policies 2017 cycle: measures to build and strengthen capacities for ICH safeguarding The Committee appreciated the synthetic report prepared and its cumulative focus on measures taken by States Parties concerning the integration of intangible cultural heritage and its safeguarding in cultural and other policies including those on sustainable development. The Committee decided that the focus of the 2017 synthetic report be on the measures taken by States Parties to build and strengthen capacities in their territory for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage.

Challenges Low rate of submission Creative solutions to present their content (other than focus and summaries) Different modalities: regional reporting, elements reporting etc. The number of 6 periodic reports on implementing the Convention submitted for examination by the Committee was a reason for concern, as they represent only 16% of the reports expected for this cycle. This is despite the Secretariat's efforts to support States through the new webpage dedicated to periodic reporting with personalized information for every State, reminder letters with an updated version of the personalized form enclosed, the briefing during the 6th session of the General Assembly and the additional guidance for completing reports. As the low submission rate is a recurring problem, the Committee in its decision at its eleventh session - as it did during the tenth session - expressed its regret and invited those States Parties that have not yet submitted their reports to duly submit them at the earliest convenience, and encouraged them to fulfil their reporting requirements before submitting new nominations (Decision 11.COM 9.a). In light of the extremely low rate of submission of periodic reports on the implementation of the Convention, the Republic of Korea has offered a voluntary supplementary contribution in the amount of US$300,000 to the ICH Fund to help the Secretariat improve the periodic reporting mechanism by strengthening its visibility and implementation, which was accepted by the Committee.

Overall results framework Outcomes of the preliminary expert meeting on developing an overall results framework for the Convention (Beijing, China in September 2016): Results map for developing an overall results framework for the Convention Improve the efficiency of existing reporting obligations rather than adding new ones Central role for communities also in monitoring impacts The Committee examined the outcomes of the preliminary expert meeting on developing an overall results framework for the Convention held in Beijing, China in September 2016. The few statements made by Committee Members and observers confirmed that the Secretariat is working on the right track that can be followed until the open ended intergovernmental working group requested by the Committee. Two ideas emerged from the discussions: (1) the importance of articulating the overall results framework of the Convention with the Sustainable Development Goals and (2) the fear of imposing a new reporting obligation. In fact, the framework should improve the efficiency of existing reporting obligations rather than adding new ones. It was also stressed that - as is the case with the Convention - a results framework should place communities at the centre. It was mentioned that communities are best placed to measure the success of the collective effort.

Challenges Essential role of periodic reports for monitoring but need to revise reporting mechanism Difficultly of establishing indicators Open-ended intergovernmental working group to be organized in China (June 2017) The Committee members recognized the difficultly of establishing indicators for culture in general and intangible cultural heritage in particular.

Inscriptions on the Lists 4 elements inscribed on the Urgent Safeguarding List 33 elements inscribed on the Representative List (5 multinational) 5 programmes selected for the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices 1 international assistance approved in conjunction with the inscription to the Urgent Safeguarding List (Cambodia)

Challenges Overwhelming number of reversals of the recommendations of the Evaluation Body Governance dilemma Representative List still overemphasized Future of the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices Guidance note in inventorying Decision-making on inscriptions New approach: by consensus through evaluating both supports and objections Overwhelming number of reversals of the recommendations of the Evaluation Body All mechanisms combined: out of the 21 recommendations to refer the files for additional information, 16 were reverted to a decision to inscribe/select All 25 positive recommendations of the Evaluation Body to the Committee were endorsed. During this session an overwhelming number of files (80%) initially recommended for referral by the Evaluation Body were inscribed/selected. All mechanisms combined, out of the 21 recommendations to refer the files for additional information, 16 were reverted to a decision to inscribe/select immediately, and out of the two negative recommendations one was reverted to a decision to select immediately, only one State withdrew its file. For the first time, during this session, nominations to the RL referred on four criteria were reverted and therefore inscribed (submitted by Germany and Kazakhstan). At the request of Spain, an item on the 'Clarification on the decision making process concerning inscription, selection, or approval, of nominations, proposals and requests' was examined by the Committee, before moving to the report of the Evaluation Body. Until this session, the practice of the Chairpersons of the Committee had been to seek actively voiced expressions of support in order to positively consider amendments to the draft decisions proposed by the Evaluation Body and to consider silence as support to the original recommendations. At the present session, the Committee decided to recommend to its Chairperson to 'privilege decision-making by consensus through evaluating both supports and objections to the draft decision under consideration'. This decision may therefore have influenced the overwhelming number of reversals of the recommendations of the Evaluation Body as Committee members find it difficult to actively voice their objections to the inscription/selection of files from other States. Way forward on decision-making Establishment of an informal ad-hoc working group chaired by the next Chairperson (Ambassador of the Republic of Korea) Secretariat’s proposal of an intermediary step to allow States to respond to preliminary recommendations in the evaluation process to be presented to the next session of the Committee (12.COM) Before, during and after consideration of the draft decisions proposed by the Evaluation Body, a number of States members and not members of the Committee expressed their concern about the inscription/selection process and in particular about the disregard of the Evaluation Body's recommendations. It should be noted that the Rapporteur of the Body announced that he had asked his NGO to release him from his duties. The Committee's response to these concerns was twofold: the establishment of an informal ad hoc working group, to be convened by the Chairperson of the next session of the Committee (Republic of Korea), which would meet intersessionally to examine the issues related to the consultation and dialogue between the Evaluation Body and the submitting States, the decision-making process of the Committee on nominations, proposals and requests and the request to the Secretariat to 'propose a procedure, to the next session of the Committee, which would include an intermediary step in the evaluation of files, thus allowing submitting States to respond to preliminary recommendations that the Evaluation Body would have addressed beforehand to the Secretariat'. It was understood that the Secretariat of the Convention will be invited to participate in the meetings of the informal ad hoc working group.

ICH in emergencies First reflection ever on this topic at 11.COM It should be part of the overall reflection regarding the operationalization of the strategy for reinforcing UNESCO’s action for the protection of culture and the promotion of cultural pluralism in the event of armed conflict Armed conflict, natural disasters or displaced populations should receive equal attention Intangible heritage vs. built heritage: different approach Many Committee members took the floor to welcome the inclusion of the item on Intangible Cultural Heritage in emergencies in the agenda of the session. Following a debate, the Committee concluded that armed conflict, natural disasters or displaced populations had different relevance in different parts of the world and should therefore receive equal attention. Furthermore, Committee members underlined that this reflection should be part of the overall reflection regarding the operationalization of the strategy for reinforcing UNESCO's action for the protection of culture and the promotion of cultural pluralism in the event of armed conflict given that the Conventions are the spaces through which the strategy should be implemented.

Challenges Case studies are needed to feed the reflection especially to demonstrate the role of communities in: safeguarding their ICH at risk in emergencies mobilizing resources for preparedness, resilience and reconciliation Any experience to share? Possibility to adopt in the future a set of specific ODs? While stressing the need to establish synergies and cooperation, the Committee recognized that the approach to Intangible Cultural Heritage should differ to that for built heritage. The Committee also debated on the possibility of discussing draft operational directives on this issue at its next session and concluded that more experience was needed before such a reflection. To this end, it requested the Secretariat to present, at its twelfth session, case studies demonstrating the role of communities in both safeguarding their intangible cultural heritage at risk in emergencies and mobilizing resources for preparedness, resilience and reconciliation. Can the facilitators provide any examples or case study already carried out, or share interesting experiences in this field?

Other relevant topics ICH and SDGs (health, cities, agriculture etc.) Integration of ICH in education: towards a thematic programme? Partnerships Role of NGOs Communication and outreach