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

[Applause]

672.The Chairperson thanked the speakers and moved to the next joint nomination, proposed by Colombia and Ecuador. The Chairperson gave the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.

673.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination of Marimba music, traditional chants and dances from the Colombian South Pacific region and Esmeraldas Province of Ecuador [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.13] submitted by Colombia and Ecuador for possible inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

674.The Evaluation Body considered that the information in the nomination file demonstrated that all the criteria were met. In criterion R.1, the file attested that marimba music, traditional chants and dances were transmitted from generation to generation, being constantly recreated by Afro-descendants and thereby giving them a feeling of belonging. For criterion R.2, the Body felt the file showed that inscription of a shared element by two States Parties could contribute to raising awareness on the role of intangible cultural heritage in consolidating cooperation and strengthening the promotion of cultural diversity and human creativity. For criterion R.3, the Body found that safeguarding processes and plans developed in each of the submitting States were described with a view to ensuring the element’s viability and the promotion of cross-border community integration and mitigation of unintended results of inscription. For criterion R.4, the Body considered the nomination had been elaborated with the participation of communities, groups and individuals who gave their free, prior and informed consent in the form of film clips. Finally, the Body felt the file met criterion R.5 as the element had been included in the inventories of the two submitting States since 2010 in Colombia, and since 2009 in Ecuador in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

675.Therefore, the Evaluation Body recommended the inscription of the element on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

676.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body. Since the Bureau had not received any requests for debate or amendments on the draft decision, the Chairperson asked the Committee to adopt draft decision 10.COM 10.b.13 as a whole. Seeing no objections, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.13 to inscribe Marimba music, traditional chants and dances from the Colombian South Pacific region and Esmeraldas Province of Ecuador on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

[Applause]

677.The Chairperson gave the floor to one of the two submitting States to make a statement.

678.The delegation of Colombia thanked the Chairperson, saying that on behalf of Colombia and its sister country the Republic of Ecuador, the National Institute of Cultural Heritage of Ecuador and the community of the Colombian and Ecuadorian Pacific, the extension of the binational cultural element of Marimba music and traditional chants from Colombia’s South Pacific region already inscribed on the Representative List in 2010, to include the Province of Esmeraldas in Ecuador was received with ‘fraternal joy’. According to the Colombian delegation, the new inscription would strengthen the presence of the element in the world in union with the neighbour country of Ecuador, with whom Colombia shared much more than a border as evidenced by the element itself which embodied a shared spirit in male and female descendants of the African diaspora who settled in the New World and planted a culture that deeply enriched the ethnic and cultural diversity of the two countries. The delegation thanked the Convention for allowing the possibility of the two countries, united by history and culture, to work together to safeguard this cultural expression.

[Applause]

679.The Chairperson thanked Colombia. She pointed out that the Committee had now concluded examination of 13 files, and that as previously informed there was a total of 30 files to be reviewed which left 17 files remaining to be considered during the afternoon, plus two requests for international assistance. The Chairperson said she would try to speed up the work during the afternoon and asked the Secretary to make some announcements before lunch.

680.The Secretary mentioned an information session on the Convention’s Global Capacity-building Strategy for Electoral Group III - Latin American and Caribbean States from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.; NGOs would meet between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m.; the University of Namibia would be launching a book on indigenous knowledge from 5.30 p.m. to 7 p.m.; and there would be a meeting of intangible cultural heritage experts from Southern Africa at 5.30 p.m.

681.The Chairperson closed the session for lunch saying the meeting would resume at 2.30 p.m.

[Wednesday, 2 December 2015, afternoon session]

682.The Chairperson started the afternoon session by recalling that at closure of the morning session at 12.30 p.m. the Committee had just adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.13 and the afternoon session would proceed with a nomination submitted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the floor being given to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body to present the item.

683.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the nomination on Tradition of kimchi-making in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.14] submitted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for possible inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

684.The Evaluation Body considered that from the information included in the nomination all criteria had been met. Concerning criterion R.1 the Body felt that the file showed that the preparation of kimchi, which has many variants, provided a sense of identity and continuity and promoted mutual respect among different groups and communities. With regard to criterion R.2 the file showed that inscription of the element was likely to improve the visibility at international level of traditional foodways as intangible cultural heritage, encourage dialogue between communities and promote human creativity through interaction with nature. The Body felt that criterion R.3 was met being based on a structured safeguarding plan developed with active participation of communities, government agencies and professional organisations. Criterion R.4 was considered met as the nomination was developed with the active participation of parties concerned, including institutional and professional representatives who provided consent to the nomination. The Body considered criterion R.5 was met as the element had been included since 2012 on the national inventory of intangible cultural heritage, maintained and updated regularly by the national authority for the protection of cultural heritage.

685.The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended inscribing the tradition of kimchi-making on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

686.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, said the Bureau had not received any requests for debate or amendments on the draft decision and asked the Committee to adopt the draft decision as a whole, to which there were no objections. The Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.14 to inscribe Tradition of kimchi-making in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

[Applause]

687.As there was no State representative from the submitting State in the room and therefore the Chairperson moved to the next nomination, and gave the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.

688.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination on Son [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.15] submitted by the Dominican Republic for possible inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

689.The Evaluation Body considered that information contained in the nomination file was insufficient to allow the Committee to determine whether criteria had been met. Regarding criterion R.1, the Body felt the file did not determine the nature or scope of the element, that of its bearers and practitioners, nor the modes of transmission and cultural and social meanings. For criterion R.2, the Body found the answers did not address how possible inscription could contribute to ensuring visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general either to raise awareness regarding its importance or encourage dialogue. For criterion R.3, the Body considered the proposed safeguarding measures showed a gap between ambitions and feasibility and did not include commitment by the submitting State to support their implementation. For criterion R.4, the Body believed that even though participation by members of the Club Nacional de Soneros in the nomination was demonstrated, the process seemed to have been misunderstood as collecting signatures from entities outside the club to obtain a recognition from UNESCO. For criterion R.5, the Body judged that although the element was included in an inventory in 1998, it was not able to find adequate proof as to the inventory’s conformity with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

690.The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended referring of this nomination to the submitting State for additional information.

691.The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Bureau had received no requests for debate or proposed amendments and asked the Committee to adopt the draft decision as a whole. Seeing no objections, the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.15 to refer the nomination of Son to the State Party for additional information.

692.The Chairperson moved to the next nomination, submitted by Ethiopia.

693.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the nomination on Fichee-Chambalaalla, New Year festival of the Sidama people [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.16] submitted by Ethiopia for possible inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

694.The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination file met criteria R.1, R.4 and R.5. The Body felt that for criterion R.1, the file showed the element was celebrated by the entire community, including women, youth and children, while associated knowledge and practices transmitted promoted social cohesion, equity, equality, good governance and peace. The Body believed criterion R.4 was met as community participation in the nomination process was adequately documented and evidence of their free, prior and informed consent was given. The Body found criterion R.5 was met as the item was included on the national register of intangible cultural heritage in July 2013, in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

695.However, the Evaluation Body considered that the information presented did not fully meet criterion R.2 as the file relied solely on addressing the contribution of potential inscription to the visibility, awareness-raising and dialogue concerning the element and not its contribution to intangible cultural heritage in general. Regarding criterion R.3, The Body felt that the nomination gave no concrete measures to ensure viability of the element in the face of threats such as over-commercialisation and tourism, nor did it describe participation of the Sidama community in the planning and development of the proposed measures.

696.The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended referring the nomination to the submitting State Party for additional information.

697.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that the Committee had received a request from Bulgaria for amendment to criteria R.2 and R.3, as well as suggestions for additional paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the nomination. Bulgaria was given the floor.

698.The delegation of Bulgaria said it had examined the file in detail and while it appreciated the Evaluation Body’s draft decision, found the proposal to refer as unjustified in view of the thorough information provided. Despite the Body’s opinion that criteria R.2 and R.3 were incomplete, Bulgaria felt the file presented adequate evidence on the impact of inscription in enhancing intangible cultural heritage visibility and strengthening intercultural dialogue between communities, as well as a range of concrete safeguarding measures maintaining the element’s viability and countering possible negative consequences of inscription. The file also demonstrated wide participation by community members in safeguarding the element particularly the Sidama people concerning continuity of knowledge transmission and planning and implementing safeguarding measures. Bulgaria considered the nomination file satisfied all criteria for inscription on the Representative List and proposed the following amendments in the draft decision: with regard to criterion R.2: ‘Inscription of the element could increase awareness concerning the capacity of intangible cultural heritage to contribute to a culture of peace and reconciliation through symbolic acts and festive spirit. It could also contribute to the visibility of other elements in the region and encourage their safeguarding, in particular given that the enactment of Fichee-Chambalaalla incorporates various domains of intangible cultural heritage.’ For criterion R.3 Bulgaria proposed the following: ‘Although the proposed safeguarding measures rely strongly on past and current efforts, the proposed safeguarding measures encompass a set of concrete and extensive activities aiming at ensuring the viability of the element in contemporary society, with priority given to making progress in legislation while stressing awareness-raising and training activities involving clan institutions, chimeesa (competent elders), community members and relevant groups concerned, as well as knowledge transfer towards the communities and the public. They are elaborated involving a wide range of actors, including bearers and practitioners of the element.’ In Bulgaria’s proposed amendment it also added under paragraph 4: ‘the Committee encourages the State Party to pay particular attention to ensuring that safeguarding measures respond adequately to the social dynamics on the ground and increase visibility and public attention that will follow the inscription on the Representative List.’ Bulgaria closed by proposing inscription the element on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

699.The Chairperson thanked Bulgaria and opened the floor for debate on the proposed amendment.

700.The delegation of Turkey supported Bulgaria’s proposals and inscription.

701.The delegation of Hungary agreed with the amendments proposed by Bulgaria and favoured inscription. Hungary felt that tourism as such was not necessarily a cause for safeguarding and that if a State Party used tourism sensibly, it could assist with broader visibility. As the nomination had already stated that the State Party would establish an appropriate system and measures to safeguard against over-commercialisation, Hungary supported the inscription.

702.The delegation of Uganda, referring to criterion R.2, found that awareness-raising activities on TV, radio and public dialogue were indicated as a way of ensuring that the element’s visibility would became known to the Sidama people, as well as within and outside Ethiopia. It supported Bulgaria’s suggestion regarding criterion R.2.

703.The delegation of Belgium referred to page 5, section 2, point (i) where submitting States should convey clearly how cultural heritage in general would be promoted, and fully agreed with the Evaluation Body’s assessment that based on this specific point the nomination only demonstrated the element was promoted not cultural heritage in general which was an important point regarding consistency. As in previous Committee meetings, a whole series of files had been rejected for not giving this kind of information. Belgium felt it would be unfair for previously-rejected files to start treating the criterion in a different way and that perhaps in the future rules and criteria should be changed but that currently consistency should remain and therefore supported the Body’s opinion. As far as criterion R.3 was concerned, Belgium directed the Committee’s attention to page 8, 3.b.(i) of the form where concrete measures were asked for, saying that its delegation agreed with the Body’s evaluation of the relative lack of concrete safeguarding measures and that the participation of the Sidama people in the planning and elaboration was not described. Belgium looked forward to seeing a revised nomination form with all issues addressed. It questioned why in paragraph 6 of the draft decision the Body suggested that the State Party consider changing the name of the file in the event it resubmitted it.

704.The delegation of Latvia again expressed its appreciation of the Evaluation Body’s work. Regardless of the submitting State’s efforts with its file, Latvia recognised the draft decision corresponded to the file’s evaluation. Regarding criterion R.2 on cultural diversity, it agreed the criterion had been partially met as reflected in the draft decision, however, other parts responding to the criterion might still be questioned. For criterion R.3, Latvia believed that the draft decision raised all relevant issues and was in favour of maintaining it. Latvia also agreed with Belgium’s question concerning the proposed paragraph 6.

705.The delegation of Algeria supported the arguments presented by Bulgaria and Bulgaria’s proposed amendment.

706.The delegation of Namibia congratulated the submitting State Party for presenting the element, as the festival of the Sidama people was centuries old and the fact that it was still ongoing demonstrated the success of measures taken to safeguard and preserve it. Namibia felt that the element promoted intercultural and interreligious dialogue, which UNESCO advocated at the global level, and supported Bulgaria’s proposed amendments for the element’s inscription.

707.The delegation of Nigeria believed that criterion R.2 had been satisfied, quoting: ‘The inscription of this element would also motivate other ethnic groups to preserve and promote their own traditions and culture and enhance respect for cultural diversity’ which Nigeria felt satisfied criterion R.2. Citing 3.b.(i) regarding over-commercialisation, Nigeria quoted: ‘The State Party will establish a proper system of measures that tourists have no ability to over-commercialise the element, and the concerned members of the Committee will be in charge to keep the festival in its original standards.’ Nigeria believed the two specific criteria had been met and supported Bulgaria’s proposed amendment.

708.The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire congratulated the Evaluation Body on the quality of its work and asked the submitting State to shed some light on the safeguarding measures that had been taken.

709.The delegation of India supported the proposed amendments by Bulgaria and also asked Ethiopia to elaborate on certain methodologies expressed in the nomination to counter over-commercialisation and on the contribution of the element to broader visibility of intangible cultural heritage.

710.The delegation of Egypt felt that Ethiopia had followed most of the criteria for inscription and that shortcomings identified by the Evaluation Body were to be found in the file, thereby supporting the element’s inscription.

711.The delegation of Tunisia believed that some of the information presented proved that the listing could encourage visibility of intangible cultural heritage in general and in that regard believed that criterion R.2 had been met. While it was true that for criterion R.3 there were some reservations about the nature of safeguarding measures and how to develop them, safeguarding measures did exist and Tunisia considered that the criterion was satisfied.

712.The Chairperson had no more requests for the floor and asked Ethiopia to respond to the two questions posed: the first by Côte d’Ivoire and the second by India.

713.The delegation of Ethiopia presented its compliments to the Committee. With regard to concerns about promoting broader visibility of the element, as explained in the Fichee-Chambalaalla nomination file, page 7, point 2(iii): ‘The inscription of this element would also motivate other ethnic groups to preserve and promote their own traditions and culture and enhance respect for cultural diversity.’ It was further indicated on page 2(ii) that inscription of the element would enhance intercultural dialogue between communities with the intention of promoting the spirit of the Convention in general. The nomination file also described how inscription would assist recognition of values such as mutual respect, human rights, equity, as well as social coherence, peaceful coexistence, environmental conservation, the green economy and contribute to intangible cultural heritage visibility in general by enhancing intercultural dialogue between communities and raising awareness of its importance. With regard to safeguarding, the nomination file had indicated measures that ensured visibility of the element and the spirit of the Convention. These measures had been given serious attention and as explained in the nomination file page 9, 3.b(i), ‘The State Party will establish an appropriate system and measures that tourists have no ability to over-commercialise the element and concerned community members would be in charge of keeping the festival in its original standard.’ On page 9, 3.b(i) of the nomination file, it was shown that awareness-raising within the community would promote the importance of the element through different mechanisms such as formal and informal education, and print and electronic mass media would be used to counter misuse of the celebration for any motives and to protect the element from threats of excessive tourism. It was also cited on page 9, 3.b(i) of the nomination file that safeguarding measures would be gazetted and that the public would be informed through various media to safeguard celebration of the festival at the family and community level. Regarding the third question on the name, Ethiopia advised that it was a compound name: Fichee-Chambalaalla and wondered how it could be recommended to shorten it and how one could shorten a name that has been there for centuries.

714.The Chairperson thanked Ethiopia and turned to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body to respond to the questions posed by Belgium and Latvia.

715.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body thanked the delegations of Belgium and Latvia, saying that the Evaluation Body had been confused by the varied use of the names Fichee and Fichee-Chambalaalla in the nomination file. He added that the Evaluation Body had the impression that Fichee was a much larger complex of events, leading the Body to make such a recommendation. The Chairperson said that the recommendation was to ensure that the name was the same in all parts of the form.

716.The delegation of