11 com ith/16/11. Com/4 Paris, 29 April 2016 Original: English

505.The delegation of Belgium expressed support for the proposal of Greece, agreeing that criterion R.1 was met in the dossier but wished to see the amendment proposed by Greece.

506.The Chairperson continued the debate while the technical problem of displaying the draft decision on the screen was being remedied, giving the floor to Ethiopia.

507.The delegation of Ethiopia mentioned the Evaluation Body’s reference to the submitting State’s top-down organisation as outlined in the nomination and asked the delegation of Armenia to clarify what was meant by ‘top-down organisation.’

508.The delegation of Uruguay expressed its support for the amendment proposed by Greece for criterion R.1.

509.The delegation of Congo referred to Greece’s proposed amendment suggesting it was sufficient to enable acceptance of the file and requested that Armenia present further explanations.

510.The Chairperson thanked Congo and referred to the proposal by Greece on the screen. Looking at criterion R.1 in relation to the amendment by Greece, the Chairperson first gave the floor to Armenia to respond to the two questions posed as the question by Ethiopia was more specifically addressed to the Evaluation Body.

511.The delegation of Armenia thanked Namibia for its hospitality and organisation of the meeting. The delegation had listened closely to the Evaluation Body’s presentation of work in which it was mentioned new working methods were being established that would set standards for its future work. It was mentioned that these new criteria were not applicable for evaluating earlier nominations, yet it seemed to Armenia that at least some of the new criteria and methods had been applied to its current nomination. On 2 November when the recommendation came out, Armenia carefully reviewed the five criteria and for at least for three criteria if felt that they responded to the recommendations of the Evaluation Body. Armenia agreed with the Evaluation Body there was a possibility to improve the other two criteria but that while there was always the possibility of improving any document this wasn’t the task of the Committee. To avoid any possible misunderstandings or misinterpretations that might have been possible from the nomination file, the delegation offered the floor to the Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia to clarify the questions.

512.The Chairperson pointed out that she would prefer interventions to be restricted to responses to the two questions asked, but gave the floor to the Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia as requested.

513.The Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia responded to the questions raised, the first of which was about criterion R.1 and practising communities and groups and forms of transmission within the families and dance ensembles. Under paragraph 1(ii) the contours of practising communities and groups were mentioned thus: ‘Today, the Kochari is the most widely spread dance in Armenia. There are also practitioners in the diaspora. People dance in villages, urban areas, almost at every holiday, family events and national festivals. In many villages (besides the well-known dancers) there are functioning children's and adult groups of song and dance that are considered as the main practitioners in local environment.’ ‘Kochari is one of the rare folk traditional dances which is especially popular amongst the youth.’ ‘The bearers are different compatriot unions functioning in various regions of Armenia, young, middle-aged and old individuals also involved in traditional dance groups, in the dancing programs of which Kochari has its steady position.’ ‘In the urban environment, during different meetings of young people in the clubs and public places Kochari is danced as a celebrative culmination and epilogue of the joyful gatherings.’ The Deputy Minister referred to transmission in families and dance ensembles where it was mentioned under paragraph 1(ii) of the nomination: ‘The chain of transmission from generation to generation was never interrupted’, as well as under paragraph 1(iii): ‘The Kochari passes to the next generation mainly in families through the elder bearers. The young people learn at family events, weddings, celebrations, through formal and informal education in the traditional folk ensembles, cultural, art and aesthetic educational centres, as well as at professional educational institutions’. ‘The Armenian traditional dance ensembles carry out different educational projects where the teaching of Kochari and its variations is of high popularity [sic]’. After bringing particular examples, the following is mentioned under the same paragraph of the nomination: ‘Presently, Kochari is widely performed not only during regular celebrations, but it has also been included in the dancing programs of professional and amateur dance groups’. The Deputy Minister said that this was in response to the first question.

514.The second question was about how Kochari was included in the inventory with the Deputy Minister responding. Information concerning inscription of the element in the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage, confirmed by Decision No. 310 adopted in 2010 by the Government of the Republic of Armenia, was complete as all defined criteria had been met – localisation, contours, bearers, a brief historical review of the element, its vitality and description of cultural elements necessary for inscription on the List. In the fourth column of the List it was mentioned Kochari is practised in communities all over the territory of Armenia and in the seventh column, a brief historical description is given of community participation. The Deputy Minister continued regarding regular updating of the inventory it should be mentioned that neither in the Convention nor the legislation of the Republic of Armenia were deadlines or periodicity set up for updates of the inventory and that once an element was included on the List it was considered inscribed. Although updating inventory was mentioned in Article 12 of the Convention there was no need for periodic updates after the 2010 for nominations submitted in 2014. Moreover, information about the List, according to the same paragraph of the Convention, had to be submitted in the periodic report by States Parties on the implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted at the ninth session of the Intergovernmental Committee in 2014.

515.The Deputy Minister said the third question related to a comment on the fourth criterion about top-down organisation where the Armenian delegation would like to mention that there is...

516.The Chairperson interrupted the Deputy Minister, saying he had responded to the two questions posed, and that before he spoke further she would give the floor to the President of the Evaluation Body for comment.

517.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body thanked the delegation of Ethiopia for the question on the top-down process of preparing the nomination, recalling that the working methods used by previous bodies was to build a consensus of opinion among the 12 members of the Body. When the Body met in Paris, it was to pool the various views of its members towards agreement on recommendations for each criterion. The impression that emerged among members of the Body with regard to criterion R.4 after close examination of the consent documents was that of a top-down process.

518.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that she had referred the question to him as the question from Ethiopia was ‘What does top-down organisation mentioned under criterion 4 mean?’ She gave back the floor to the Deputy Minister of Culture for his comment on issue.

519.The Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia mentioned that all accompanying letters were from NGOs registered in the capital city of Yerevan, where half of the population of Armenia now lives and that these NGOs implemented their projects in the regions and villages of the Republic of Armenia. He said it was important to note that neither the Convention nor the questions in the nomination required the involvement of organisations residing outside the capital and that the accompanying letters written by the educational and scientific organisations revealed that the field of study of the above-mentioned organisations was primarily on the culture of the regions and villages of the Republic of Armenia.

520.The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister of Culture saying that Greece’s proposed amendment was specifically for criterion R.1 and that she would turn to the Committee to establish whether there was broad agreement for it then gave the floor to Belgium.

521.The delegation of Belgium asked for the amendment to be shown on the screen and proposed different wording for the first sentence to remain closer to the definition in Article 2 of the Convention by saying that ‘Kochari group dance actually provides a sense of identity’ which would apply also to the diaspora, which was emphasized in the file. Belgium asked to delete ‘is an important marker of identity in Armenia’ and to replace it with ‘provides a sense of identity’, which would be the wording as in Article 2 in the Convention.

522.The Chairperson asked Belgium where they would prefer the full stop to be in the first sentence, to which Belgium answered after the word ‘identity’.

523.The Chairperson thanked Belgium and asked Greece for its opinion on the proposed amendment by Belgium, which Greece said it agreed. The Chairperson asked members of the Committee supporting the amendment proposed by Greece as amended by Belgium to show their nameplates. Sixteen name plates were counted out of the 23 members of the Committee, indicating that the amendment had broad support from the Committee. The floor was given to Latvia.

524.The delegation of Latvia said that if the proposed amendment was going to be accepted, it would first like to see it on the screen. Coming back to the observations proposed by the Evaluation Body and in order to be more consistent with the proposed evaluation, Latvia suggested putting a full stop after the words ‘rural communities’ and deleting the text at the end of this amendment as the major difficulty expressed by the Evaluation Body was the scope of the element and the definition of communities and groups.

525.The Chairperson thanked Latvia and having asked if there were any objections to the proposed amendment, gave Côte d’Ivoire the floor.

526.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire said it had no objection but wished to point out that to comply with Article 2 of the Convention, the wording should be ‘urban and rural’, not ‘urban or rural’.

527.The Chairperson thanked Côte d’Ivoire for the clarification replacing ‘or’ with ‘and’ and gave the floor to Belgium, which pointed out that the English version should read ‘performed during holidays’ not ‘in during’.

528.The Chairperson thanked Belgium and moved to adopt the paragraph as amended. There were no objections and paragraph 1 was adopted. The nomination was, therefore, referred to the submitting State for additional information and resubmission to the Committee for examination during a following cycle. The Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.5 as amended to refer the nomination of Kochari, traditional group dance to the State Party for additional information. She then offered the floor to Armenia.

529.The delegation of Armenia thanked the delegations that had supported the amendment and the members of the Committee for their consideration of the draft decision, adding that regardless of the statutes of the inscription Armenia was already carrying out relevant safeguarding measures and teaching the element in secondary schools in Armenia.

530.The Chairperson thanked Armenia for its positive comment and introduced the next file from Austria, giving the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.

531.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination on Classical horsemanship and the High School of the Spanish Riding School Vienna submitted by Austria [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.6] for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

532.The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination met all the criteria. Under criterion R.1, the Body found the nomination demonstrated that the proposed element continues a long relationship between urban and rural centres for breeding and riding, providing a sense of identity and continuity to groups involved in its practice and transmission. Under criterion R.2, the Body believed the nomination showed that inscription of the element was likely to raise awareness of the importance of intangible cultural heritage, including a close relationship between humans and animals as well as respect for cultural and biological diversity while contributing to intercultural dialogue. Under criterion R.3, the Body thought the nomination clearly described past and present efforts for safeguarding the element and proposed measures to strengthen its transmission and promotion. Under criterion R.4, the Body found the nomination had proven that groups of the Spanish Riding School Vienna and other relevant institutions participated in the nomination process and provided their free, prior and informed consent. Under criterion R.5, the Body believed the nomination showed that the item was registered in March 2010 in the Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage maintained by the Austrian Commission for UNESCO and updated every year.

533.The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended the inscription of the element on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

534.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that the Committee had not received any requests for debate on the nomination or amendment to the draft decision and asked the Committee to adopt the draft decision as a whole. There were no objections and the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.6 to inscribe Classical horsemanship and the High School of the Spanish Riding School Vienna on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

535.The Chairperson congratulated Austria and gave the delegation the floor.

536.The delegation of Austria thanked the Chairperson and Committee saying that Austria’s third element had now been inscribed on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, which gave Austria a sense of pride and satisfaction and showed that it was well on its way to implementing the Convention. Austria felt that national implementation was the core of the Convention. Since Austria had ratified the Convention in 2009 it had entrusted the Austrian Commission for UNESCO with establishing networks between official bodies, experts, communities and NGOs to carry out safeguarding measures and awareness-raising activities, and draw up an inventory. The inventory presently included 86 elements, one of which was the subject just inscribed. ‘Classical horsemanship and the High School of the Spanish Riding School’ was among the first elements to be inscribed on the national inventory showing its importance to Austria as an important part of its culture and providing the community with a sense of identity and continuity. The traditional art and practice of breeding, keeping, training and riding Lipizzaner horses had been practised for more than 400 years and the close relation between humans and animals, the maintenance of cultural and biological diversity and the values of respect, patience and strong empathy were at the heart of the tradition. Austria concluded by thanking the Secretariat, the Evaluation Body and the Intergovernmental Committee for their work and dedication that had helped to safeguard so many living traditions and strengthen so many communities’ identities.

537.The Chairperson thanked and congratulated Austria and moved to the next nomination by Azerbaijan, giving the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.

538.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination on Copper craftsmanship of Lahij [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.7] submitted by Azerbaijan for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

539.The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination met all criteria. For the Body, criterion R.1 showed that the crafting of copper gave local communities a sense of belonging and continuity while providing a source of income. The Body believed that concerning criterion R.2 the file demonstrated that inscription of the item reflected a dialogue between communities and their creativity and contributed to cultural diversity in the region. Concerning criterion R.3 the Body found that the nomination demonstrated a full set of safeguarding measures developed by communities with the help of an NGO to better understand the element, its transmission and promotion. For criterion R.4, the Body found the nomination was developed by tradition bearers and a group of experts, representatives of local NGOs and a municipality, all of which provided their free, prior and informed consent. The Body believed criterion R.5 was met as the item was included in 2014 on the Azerbaijani register of intangible cultural heritage held by the Board of Inventory and Documentation.

540.The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended the inscription of the element on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The Body also recommended that the submitting State be congratulated on a well-developed, exemplary case that could serve as a model of nomination.

541.The Chairperson informed the Committee that no requests for debate on the nomination had been received by the Bureau, and asked if the draft decision could be adopted as a whole. There were no objections and the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.7 to inscribe Copper craftsmanship of Lahij on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

[Applause]

542.The Chairperson congratulated Azerbaijan and gave it the floor.

543.The delegation of Azerbaijan thanked Namibian authorities for their excellent organisation of the tenth session of the Committee, and the Chairperson and the Intergovernmental Committee for its decision to inscribe Copper craftsmanship of Lahij on the Representative List and the Evaluation Body for recommending the inscription. The delegation and the community of Lahij copper craftsmen and bearers extended their gratitude, joy and pride at seeing their art recognised at the international level. Lahij copper craftsmanship is the expression of a long-living cultural practice and bears the cultural values of the Azerbaijani people as a whole. The inscription was the result of years of hard work carried out by an excellent team that prepared the file, working together with the Tat community of Lahij and that inscription would encourage copper craftsmen to continue practising the element and passing it on to future generations. The delegation thanked the Committee on behalf of the Government of Azerbaijan for its efforts resulting in the inscription, as well as the Secretariat of the Convention for its support. The delegation said that the inscription would reinforce safeguarding measures of intangible cultural heritage and support awareness-raising and implementation of the Convention in Azerbaijan.

[Applause]

544.The Chairperson thanked Azerbaijan and moved to the next file submitted by Bangladesh.

545.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination on Jatra traditional performing arts [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.8] submitted by Bangladesh for possible inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

546.The Evaluation Body considered the information provided in the nomination file as insufficient regarding meeting the five criteria. The Body believed criterion R.1 was not met as the nomination failed to explain the scope of the Jatra traditional performing arts and characteristics of its communities, bearers and practitioners, as well as the relationship between transmission in the home and that offered by Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy programmes, the function of Jatra for different segments of society, and nature or level of threats. The Body considered criterion R.2 was not met as the element was not clearly defined and its inscription on the Representative List was not likely to improve the visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general or to raise awareness of its importance. The Body found criterion R.3 was not met through the nomination’s intention to protect Jatra defined as ‘original’, ‘moral’ and ‘healthy’ where promoting it as an industry remained insufficiently explained. The evidence of commitment by the submitting State to support safeguarding deserved greater visibility. The Body judged criterion R.4 as not met as the nomination did not show which communities were involved in the nomination process and whether the bearers and practitioners took part or which aspects of the element were or were not protected by customary practices. The Body believed criterion R.5 was not met as the nomination provided no clear explanation about inclusion of the element in an inventory drawn up in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention, and found difficult to evaluate if the extract reflected such an inventory.

547.The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended referring the nomination to the State for additional information.

548.As the Committee had not received any requests for debate on or amendment to the file, the Chairperson asked the Committee to adopt the draft decision as a whole. There were no objections and the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.8 to refer the nomination of Jatra traditional performing arts to the State Party for additional information.

549.Having enquired if Bangladesh was in the room and would like to take the floor; as there were no requests, the Chairperson moved to the next nomination by Bosnia and Herzegovina, and gave the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.

550.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination on Konjic woodcarving [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.9] submitted by Bosnia and Herzegovina for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

551.The Evaluation Body considered that from information contained in the file, the nomination satisfied criteria R.1, R.2, R.4 and R.5. The Body found criterion R.1 was met as the nomination showed that Konjic woodcarving is an engine of sustainable development, a traditional interior design marker in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a symbol of identity and continuity of the local community. The Body believed criterion R.2 was met as inscribing the element is likely to contribute to interethnic dialogue, intergenerational cooperation, gender equality and visibility of traditional crafts in the world today, as well as respect for creativity and cultural diversity. The Body considered criterion R.4 was met as the nomination was initiated by a government agency and enthusiastically supported by the community concerned whose representatives, in addition to various stakeholders, provided their free, prior and informed consent. The Body found criterion R.5 was met as the element has been included since 2012 on an open, preliminary list of intangible cultural heritage of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina maintained by the Ministry of Culture and Sports.

552.Nevertheless, the Evaluation Body considered that criterion R.3 was not totally satisfied as the nomination insufficiently demonstrated the relevance and adequacy of proposed safeguarding measures to improve the element’s viability, including advanced measures to mitigate the unintended consequences of possible inscription, as well as insufficient information provided on community involvement in developing such measures. The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended referring the nomination of Konjic woodcarving to the State Party for additional information.

553.The