ITH/11/6.COM/CONF.206/13 Add. Bali, 25 November 2011 Original: English
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
6 COM ITH/11/6.COM/CONF.206/13 Add. Bali, 25 November 2011 Original: English CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE Sixth session Bali, Indonesia 22 to 29 November 2011 Item 13 of the Provisional Agenda: Report of the Subsidiary Body on its work in 2011 and evaluation of nominations for inscription in 2011 on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity ADDENDUM ITH/11/6.COM/CONF.206/13 – page 2 The following nominations have been withdrawn by the submitting States Parties: Submitting Draft Decision Element File No. State 6.COM 13.5 China Craftsmanship of making Chinese Oolong tea 428 6.COM 13.7 China Sacrificial rite in the Confucian Temple 423 6.COM 13.8 China Shaolin Kung Fu, martial arts of Buddhist 420 monks 6.COM 13.15 France Limoges china 439 6.COM 13.31 Mongolia Culture of the Mongol Deel 540 6.COM 13.32 Mongolia Mongolian shamanism 572 6.COM 13.33 Mongolia Mongolian traditional contortion 546 6.COM 13.34 Mongolia Traditional craftsmanship of Mongol Ger and 539 its associated customs 6.COM 13.35 Mongolia Tsagaan Sar, celebration of the Mongolian 573 New Year 6.COM 13.37 Oman Al-Maydaan 366 6.COM 13.49 Turkey Craftsmanship, practices and beliefs of Nazar 387 Boncuğu charms 6 COM ITH/11/6.COM/CONF.206/13 Corr. Paris, 7 November 2011 Original: English CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE Sixth session Bali, Indonesia 22 to 29 November 2011 Item 13 of the Provisional Agenda: Report of the Subsidiary Body on its work in 2011 and evaluation of nominations for inscription in 2011 on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity CORRIGENDUM In Draft Decision 6.COM 13.23 (page 40) and Draft Decision 6.COM 13.28 (page 45), Paragraph 3 should read: R.1 Since the nomination proposes an expression that closely resembles two elements that are already inscribed by the same State Party on the Representative List, the State should provide further information on what warrants an independent nomination, rather than a resubmission of an enlarged nomination that would include the communities concerned by all elements; R.2 Since the element closely resembles, both formally and symbolically, both Yamahoko, the float ceremony of the Kyoto Gion festival and Hitachi Furyumono that are already inscribed on the Representative List, the State should explain how its inscription will contribute to promoting greater added awareness of the significance of the intangible cultural heritage; 6 COM ITH/11/6.COM/CONF.206/13 Paris, 25 October 2011 Original: English CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE Sixth session Bali, Indonesia 22 to 29 November 2011 Item 13 of the Provisional Agenda: Report of the Subsidiary Body on its work in 2011 and evaluation of nominations for inscription in 2011 on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity Summary At its fifth session, the Committee established a Subsidiary Body responsible for the examination of nominations for inscription on the Representative List in 2011 (Decision 5.COM 7). This document constitutes the report of the Subsidiary Body which includes an overview of the 2011 nomination files and working methods (Part A), the recommendations of the Subsidiary Body (Part B), comments and observations on the 2011 nominations (Part C) and a set of draft decisions for the Committee’s consideration (Part D). Decision required: paragraph 72 ITH/11/6.COM/CONF.206/13 – page 2 1. According to paragraph 29 of the Operational Directives, the examination of nominations to the Representative List is accomplished by a Subsidiary Body of the Committee established in accordance with Rule 21 of its Rules of Procedure. At its fifth session (Nairobi, Kenya, 15 to 19 November 2010), the Committee established a Subsidiary Body for the examination of nominations for inscription on the Representative List in 2011 (Decision 5.COM 7). The body consists of Italy, Croatia, Venezuela, Republic of Korea, Kenya and Jordan. 2. According to its terms of reference, the Subsidiary Body shall provide the Committee with an overview of all nomination files and a report of its examination, and shall, in particular, include in its examination: a. An assessment of each nomination’s conformity with the inscription criteria as provided in paragraph 2 of the Operational Directives; b. A recommendation to inscribe or not inscribe the element submitted to the Committee, or a referral of the nomination to the submitting State for additional information; 3. This document provides an overview of all 2011 nomination files and of their examination by the Subsidiary Body (Part A), a summary of recommendations concerning the inscription of the nominated elements on the basis of the assessment of each nomination’s conformity with the inscription criteria (Part B), other observations and recommendations concerning nominations to the Representative List (Part C) and a set of draft decisions for the Committee’s consideration, with each draft decision addressing one nomination’s conformity with the criteria and whether or not to inscribe the nominated element or to refer the nomination to the submitting State (Part D). A. Overview of nomination files and working methods 4. In its Decision 5.COM 7, the Committee decided to consider the 107 nominations received before 31 August 2010 and not yet processed as admissible for possible evaluation in 2011. These included 93 nominations that had been received before 31 August 2009 but could not be treated in the 2010 cycle, together with 14 that were received between 31 August 2009 and 31 August 2010. When the General Assembly adopted amended Operational Directives in June 2010 (Resolution 3.GA 5), the annual deadline for nominations to be submitted to the Representative List was changed from 31 August to 31 March. In consideration to those States Parties that had submitted nominations prior to the amendment of the Operational Directives (five nominations, one each from five States), and to those that had prepared nominations in anticipation of a 31 August deadline (nine nominations, from a total of seven States), the Committee decided to consider them as admissible for the 2011 cycle. 5. The regional distribution of the 107 nominations was as follows: Electoral Number of States Parties Number of Number of nominations Group (31/08/2010)1 submitting States submitted I 15 11.6% 6 27.3% 9 8.4% II 23 17.8% 3 13.6% 4 3.7% III 26 20.2% 3 13.6% 3 2.8% IV 22 17.1% 6 27.3% 84 78.5% V (a) 28 21.7% 3 13.6% 1 0.9% V (b) 15 11.6% 1 4.5% 1 0.9% Total 129 100.0% 22 100.0% 107 100.0% 6. In that same Decision 5.COM 7, the Committee considered that the total number of files admissible for evaluation in 2011 exceeded its capacity and that of its examining bodies to responsibly and credibly evaluate all of these files and perform its duty under Article 7 of the Convention. It consequently requested the Secretariat, ‘within the range of its capacity, to 1 . Number of States Parties at the time of the cut-off date for nominations to be examined in 2011. ITH/11/6.COM/CONF.206/13 – page 3 process between 31 and 54 nominations to the Representative List and transmit these to the Subsidiary Body, in order to allow its members to examine with priority multi-national nominations and those submitted by States Parties that do not have elements inscribed or have few elements inscribed on said List’ (paragraph 12 of Decision 5.COM 7). 7. After applying the three priority criteria set out in Decision 5.COM 7 the Secretariat proceeded to process 54 files. Of the 54 nominations processed, 2 were submitted in French, 48 in English and 4 in both languages. Only one of the 54 files was considered complete at the time it was submitted. Prior to the end of May 2011, the Secretariat wrote to the submitting States Parties concerned to indicate what information would be needed to complete the other 53 nominations and informing them of the deadline for such information. 8. In light of the heavy workload of 26 nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List, 15 proposals to the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices, 8 requests for International Assistance greater than US$25,000 and 22 requests for International Assistance up to US$25,000 also submitted for examination in 2011, the Secretariat was not able to provide equal attention to all of the 54 files it processed for the Representative List. For those States Parties that had already successfully submitted nominations to the Representative List in previous cycles and that had several elements inscribed on the List, the Secretariat limited its assessment to determining whether the nomination included all of the required technical elements (signature, evidence of consent, ten photos and a ten-minute video, accompanied by the proper cession of rights). The Secretariat informed the submitting States concerned of any technical deficiencies and invited them if they so wished to revise or update the substance of the nomination in light of their previous experience in elaborating nominations. 9. For those States that met the criteria for priority treatment set out in Decision 5.COM 7 and thus had no previous experience, or only limited previous experience, in submitting nominations, the Secretariat was able to provide more thorough attention, as had been requested by the Subsidiary Body.