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

617.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire felt that Turkey had raised a substantial issue, which it too had been working on, and asked that the discussion later focus on R.2 as it was an issue of visibility versus the element and the Convention.

618.The Chairperson thanked Côte d’Ivoire and moved to adopt Paragraph 4 of the draft decision, to which there were no objections and Paragraph 4 was adopted. The Chairperson requested the Committee adopt the entire draft decision; there were no objections and the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10 COM 10.b.10 as amended to inscribe Surova folk feast in Pernik region on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

[Applause]

619.The Chairperson congratulated Bulgaria and gave the delegation the floor.

620.The delegation of Bulgaria expressed its gratitude and appreciation for the inscription of Surova folk feast in Pernik region on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Safeguarding the element was extremely important to the Surova masking groups and communities in Pernik region because it maintained their sense of identity and continuity, it was like a religion for them and they were truly dedicated to ensure its transmission from generation to generation. The inscription of the Surova folk feast on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity would encourage communities in the Pernik region with their efforts to safeguard the tradition to continue.

[Applause]

621.The Chairperson thanked Bulgaria and congratulated it again before moving to the next nomination. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body was given the floor to present the nomination by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova and Romania to the Committee.

622.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the joint nomination on Cultural practices associated to the first of March [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.11] submitted by Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova and Romania for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

623.The Evaluation Body considered the nomination satisfied criterion R.1 as the practice was widespread in the four submitting States; it had social functions and meaning such as an expression of affection, wishes of good health and prosperity; and provided communities with a sense of identity and continuity.

624.The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination did not meet criteria R.2, R.3, R.4 and R.5. For criterion R.2, the Body felt the nomination did not clearly describe how inscription of the practice would contribute to the visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general. At the same time, in its inventory one of the submitting states mentioned contaminating influences from neighbouring communities and that those customs should not be allowed to interfere, which was not felt to contribute to dialogue. Regarding criterion R.3, the Body considered the proposed safeguarding measures did not appear to have sufficiently involved communities, while safeguarding measures and possible unintended consequences of inscription were insufficiently described with one of the submitting States omitting its description of past and current efforts to safeguard the element. Regarding criterion R.4, the Body found two of the submitting States did not describe what steps had been taken to ensure that selected communities were involved in the practice and the nomination as a whole. Letters of consent of two of the submitting States did not appear to reflect an awareness of the multinational character of the nomination. Regarding criterion R.5, the Body thought the element was included in an existing inventory in all four submitting States, but information on compliance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention was, depending on the State Party concerned, either missing, incomplete or ambiguous.

625.The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended referring the nomination to the submitting States Parties for further information.

626.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that the Committee had not received any requests for debate or proposals to amend 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.11 to refer the nomination of Cultural practices associated to the first of March to the States Parties for additional information. She gave the floor to Romania, representing the submitting States.

627.The delegation of Romania, on behalf of the four submitting States Parties and as the initiating country of the multinational nomination expressed their appreciation for the Committee’s recommendations, assuring the Committee of their commitment to improve the file in order to resubmit it for examination during a following cycle.

628.The Chairperson thanked Romania before moving to the next multinational nomination, giving the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.

629.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the multinational nomination on Tugging rituals and games [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.12] submitted by Cambodia, Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam for possible inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

630.The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination met criteria R.1, R.2, R.3 and R.4. For criterion R.1, the Body found the nomination showed that the tugging rituals and games were an effective sociocultural mechanism that showcased specificities of each community and that related skills are transmitted in formal and non-formal ways. The Body considered that criterion R.2 demonstrated that inscription of the element was likely to promote the role of intangible cultural heritage in sustainable development and human creativity and that the nomination itself, prepared by several communities from four countries, was evidence of dialogue between cultures. The Body felt that criterion R.3 on safeguarding measures followed a well-developed participatory approach that was felt to be adequate in dealing with potential adverse consequences resulting from the inscription of the element. Regarding criterion R.4, the Body believed the nomination was prepared with the full participation of communities, groups, individuals, safeguarding associations, experts and other relevant stakeholders concerned, who all provided proof of their free, prior and informed consent.

631.Nevertheless, the Evaluation Body considered that criterion R.5 was not satisfied at this stage as two of the four submitting States did not provide relevant extracts from their inventories in conformity with Decision 8.COM 8 of the Committee.

632.Therefore the Evaluation Body recommended referring the nomination to the submitting States Parties for further information.

633.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that the Committee had received a request from Brazil for an amendment to the draft decision by adding a paragraph 4.

634.The delegation of Brazil once again expressed its appreciation for the work of the Evaluation Body. Regarding the nomination, it recalled that Article 13 of the Operational Directives encouraged States Parties to submit multinational nominations despite the difficulties inherent in coordinating efforts to prepare a file of this kind. However, Cambodia, Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam had succeeded with their multinational nomination. As could be seen from the proposed draft decision, the nomination received a very positive response from the Evaluation Body, which said that ‘inscription of the element could help to elucidate the important role of intangible cultural heritage in sustainable development’. Brazil said that later in the session the Committee would discuss how to integrate the 2030 Agenda in the 2003 Convention, and Brazil believed that inscription of the nominated element might be a good example of how to do it. While the Evaluation Body considered that only criterion R.5 was not fully satisfied, saying that two of the submitting States had not provided relevant extracts of their inventories, Brazil felt the documentation showed that in all of the inventories of the four submitting States the element was shown as being present. Brazil proposed an amendment to the draft decision on criterion R.5, inscription of the element and requested Cambodia update its inventory.

635.The Chairperson thanked Brazil and opened the floor for debate to establish whether Brazil’s proposed amendment had the room’s broad support starting with Peru.

636.The delegation of Peru considered the proposed amendment relevant for the reasons mentioned but also because the States were developing inventories and adapting them to comply with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention, which they were currently working on and took time. As the Committee had taken this situation into account for previous nominations examined during the session, it should do the same with the current nomination and support Brazil’s proposal.

637.The delegation of Kyrgyzstan supported Brazil’s proposed amendment pointing out that the issue related to the inventory of just two countries despite the fact that the file showed all communities in the four countries were actively involved in the inventory-making process. Kyrgyzstan said that a multinational nomination was a difficult task to undertake and complete, but that in this instance it was successful and congratulated the four countries for their nomination, proposed to inscribe the element.

638.The delegation of Mongolia supported Brazil’s proposed amendment. Although Mongolia considered the inventory extracts not relevant enough, as pointed out by the Evaluation Body, it considered the situation satisfactory taking into account the documents submitted by States concerned except Cambodia. Again, this had to do with the issue of consistency raised earlier by Algeria. Regarding criterion R.5, the discussion was still about the same problem that had been talked about since the day before. Mongolia said it favoured inscription of the element.

639.The delegation of Uganda wanted to thank the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body for its hard work in evaluating all the nominations. Referring again to Article 12 of the Convention which gives States Parties the ability to develop their inventories in a way they think best, and the fact that Ccriterion R.4 was met through adequate community participation, Uganda thought evidence of community participation and involvement in developing the inventory might have been missed at the time of writing the nomination. Uganda felt that at a later date there would be a need to have clear Operational Directives on what an extract should consist of to be able to meet the criterion. Uganda supported the proposed amendment in order that the State Parties’ file might be inscribed.

640.The delegation of Uruguay supported Brazil’s proposed amendment, as well as Turkey’s proposal for future discussion on the criterion.

641.The delegation of Nigeria acknowledged the difficulty of four countries having a minimum benchmark for a file and believed the submitting States had done sufficient preparation providing adequate inventories. It supported Brazil’s proposed amendment.

642.The delegation of Algeria said that as the nomination was a multinational file, Algeria was very satisfied that the element was included in relevant inventories. In view of arguments advanced by the honourable delegate of Brazil, Algeria wished to support the amendment proposed by Brazil.

643.The delegation of Latvia returned to its previous considerations concerning the connection between the text included in the nomination file and information provided in the annexes. It acknowledged that information provided within the file was insufficient to be able to say the criterion was satisfied. Within the annexes, additional information was found to be able to say that the criterion was met for three out of the four countries expressing some concern regarding one participating country. If the Committee was willing to adopt a measure of flexibility concerning the particular multinational nomination, Latvia believed that the wording proposed in the positive evaluation of criterion R.5 needed to be changed as the information provided was insufficient to allow the criterion to be considered satisfied according to Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

644.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire returned to the issue of form. Looking at the Convention, it was not Articles 11 and 12 that refer to inventories but only Article 12. So as regards R.5 as drafted, there would be no mention of Article 11.

645.The delegation of Ethiopia echoed the amendments proposed by Brazil and supported them.

646.The delegation of Bulgaria supported Brazil’s proposed amendment and expressed its satisfaction with the nomination file.

647.The delegation of Congo supported the amendment proposed by Brazil.

648.The delegation of Belgium said that concerning Article 11, they felt it should be included as the reference to Article 11 was because 11(b) mentioned that States Parties should involve communities, groups and relevant non-governmental organisations in making the inventory, so Article 11 should be included. Referring to the proposal by Latvia, Belgium felt that perhaps the wording should be changed to refer to the fact that at least one of the countries involved in the nomination had not completely satisfied the criterion.

649.The delegation of Turkey supported the amendment proposed by Brazil, and found the nomination file to be satisfactory.

650.The Chairperson thanked Turkey and returned to the question asked by the Ambassador of Côte d’Ivoire on Articles 11 and 12, reading criterion R.5 aloud as it appeared in the basic text: ‘The element is included in an inventory of the intangible cultural heritage present in the territory(ies) of the submitting State(s) Party(ies), as defined in Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention’. The Chairperson felt that the text was clear and that maybe the wording proposed by Brazil could be retained. The Chairperson asked Côte d’Ivoire if it wished to maintain its view expressed earlier, assuring the delegation that she would return to the question after giving Latvia the floor.

651.The delegation of Latvia thought that if a decision was pronounced on all four cases of the four countries then it could not be said that the four inventories responded to either Articles 11 or 12 as in the case of Cambodia where the Committee lacked information on updating and the involvement of communities. If the decision to inscribe was maintained, Latvia would propose the paragraph only said the tugging rituals and games were included in inventories and to then say in which countries and which years without mentioning Articles of the Convention.

652.The Secretary understood from Latvia that their proposal was to delete ‘in line with Articles 11 and 12’ but wanted Latvia to confirm that they actually wanted to quote those States that had provided an extract of the inventory, or not.

653.The delegation of Latvia confirmed they did not want that, saying that the idea was that if the information given from all four countries, specifically years when the nomination was included in the registers of all four countries, then the information could be maintained and reference to the Articles deleted. In that case, the wording of the beginning of the paragraph would need to be changed saying that the tugging rituals and games were included in inventories of the four submitting States and then deleting ‘has been conducted’.

654.The Chairperson informed Latvia that its proposal was being looked at and in the meantime gave the floor to Côte d’Ivoire.

655.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire said it supported Latvia’s proposal and the deletion of ‘in compliance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention’. Secondly, that as the paragraph on criterion R.5 referred to Cambodia, the following paragraph proposed by Brazil requesting Cambodia update its inventory would be contradictory.

656.The delegation of Brazil offered that, with the new text proposed by Latvia, Cambodia could be maintained in criterion R.5 and also in the new paragraph 4, as in paragraph 4 Brazil had said that when Cambodia updated its inventory it needed to pay attention to the element. It was not that the element was not present in the inventory it was just that when updating the inventory, Cambodia should pay special attention to the element. Brazil agreed with the new text suggested by Latvia that the ritual was inscribed in inventories not in accordance with Articles of the Convention, and then in paragraph 4 just requesting Cambodia to pay attention when updating it.

657.The Chairperson wished to propose to concentrate on criterion R.5 and to try and adopt, as and more to paragraph 4 latter.

658.The delegation of Turkey posed a question to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body: on occasions when the Body draws attention to Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention it occasionally does not mention this in its recommendations even if the element was recommended for inscription or if it was not. Turkey wondered what factor/s persuaded the Evaluation Body to draw attention to the Articles of the Convention in specific cases.

659.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body thanked the delegate of Turkey for his question, replying that the draft decisions sometimes referred to Articles of the Convention concerning the inventory. Regarding how the decision may have been drafted, the Body’s rapporteur might suggest a report and draft decisions, a meeting would follow to adopt the report and through consensus of the Body the draft report would be adopted. There was no differing treatment of any nomination file as to whether or not the relevant Articles of the Convention were mentioned.

660.The Chairperson said that she felt that criterion R.5 now contained too many names, and read it aloud as shown on the screen: ‘Tugging rituals and games have been included in inventories of the four submitting States’ and asked if the Committee accepted it up to that point. There were no objections, and she continued with the names of the submitting countries: ‘Cambodia, Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam’ and then the dates of inclusion for each country.

661.Latvia supported by Côte d’Ivoire wished to delete ‘has been conducted’.

662.The delegation of Turkey apologised for speaking again, saying that Turkey, following the clarification of the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, supported the proposal of Latvia.

663.The Chairperson thanked Turkey and asked whether there were objections to adopting criterion R.5 as amended; there were no objections, and criterion R.5 was adopted. The Chairperson returned to paragraph 4, saying she wished to finish with the amendments and then adopt the decision. She read paragraph 4 aloud: ‘Requests Cambodia to pay particular attention to safeguard the element by updating inventory and its extracts by May 2016 as planned.’

664.The delegation of Belgium said that as the Evaluation Body had remarked, there were problems with two of the submitting States, and that Belgium would like to change the proposed amendment to a more general comment: ‘Requests the submitting States to pay particular attention to updating the inventories’ whereby the four submitting States would be requested to collectively and singularly pay particular attention to updating their inventories and not just focus on Cambodia.

665.The Chairperson thanked Belgium and having asked the floor if there were any objections to having the general amendment instead of focusing on Cambodia alone to which there were none, read paragraph 4: ‘Requests the submitting States to pay particular attention to updating inventories’ and no dates. There were no objections to the proposed amendment and paragraph 4 was adopted. 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.12 as amended to inscribe Tugging rituals and games on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

[Applause]

666.The Chairperson gave the floor to one of the submitting State Parties, the Republic of Korea.

667.The delegation of the Republic of Korea, on behalf of the submitting States Parties of the Tugging ritual and games of Cambodia, Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam, expressed its deepest gratitude to the members of the Committee for their warm and sincere support in inscribing the Tugging ritual and games on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The joint nomination was an exemplary form contributing to enhancing international cooperation and promoting the spirit of the 2003 Convention. The nomination of Tugging rituals and games practised in agricultural societies among the four submitting countries contributed to solidarity among communities and promoted cultural diversity in different sociocultural and geological contexts. Tugging rituals and games in the Republic of Korea was practised among communities to not only ensure abundant harvests but play a significant role in community cohesion and cooperation from generation to generation. The delegation congratulated the many communities, cities and provinces for their efforts in safeguarding and passing down this precious intangible cultural heritage to the next generation. The Republic of Korea invited its partners of Cambodia, Philippines and Viet Nam to share their pleasure of the inscription of the nomination file.

[Applause]

668.The Chairperson thanked the Republic of Korea and appealed to the other three submitting States to keep their inputs as brief as possible.

669.The delegation of Cambodia thanked the Chairperson and members of the Committee, saying that the inscription had not only shown international unity and collaboration for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, but that the inscription encouraged and inspired full participation by civil society organisations, individual committees and local governments in Cambodia for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. The delegate said that Cambodia aimed to have a complete updated national inventory by May 2016 and once again thanked the Chairperson, members of the Committee and the Evaluation Body for their support.

[Applause]

670.The delegation of the Philippines thanked all members of the Committee and the Evaluation Body for their support, saying that for Philippines the inscription represented the ties connecting its people with their land and crops, their ancestors and traditions and to one another not only within their own communities but also across cultures and borders, thereby promoting the spirit of the 2003 Convention. Philippines invited other countries to nominate similar tugging rituals and games, reflecting values such as social inclusion, solidarity and sustainable development, and the celebration of life and living together throughout the world. The inscription celebrated the ties of human community, united in diversity and committed to safeguarding the shared intangible cultural heritage of our world for peace and sustainable development.

[Applause]

671.The delegation of