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

717.The Chairperson turned to the Committee to establish whether Bulgaria’s proposed amendment had broad agreement from the room, asking members in support to show their name plates. The proposed amendment showed a majority support in the room and the Chairperson declared the paragraph on criterion R.2 adopted.

718.The Chairperson asked the Committee to show its support for criterion R.3, concluding that it had broad support from the room and was, therefore, adopted. Turning to paragraph 3 where Bulgaria proposed to change ‘Decides to refer’ to ‘Decides to inscribe’ there were no objections and paragraph 3 was adopted. Paragraph 4, which reads: ‘Encourages the State Party to pay particular attention to ensuring that safeguarding measures respond adequately to the social dynamics on the ground and the increased visibility and public attention that will follow the inscription on the Representative List’ was adopted in the absence of any objections. The Chairperson asked the Committee to adopt draft decision 10 COM 10.b.16 as a whole; and in the absence of any objections, she declared adopted Decision 10 COM 10.b.16 to inscribe Fichee-Chambalaalla, New Year festival of the Sidama people on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

[Applause]

719.The Chairperson congratulated Ethiopia and gave it the floor.

720.The delegation of Ethiopia sang the name of ‘Fichee-Chambalaalla, Fichee-Chambalaalla’ to demonstrate why the name couldn’t be split from Fichee-Chambalaalla into Fichee.

[Applause]

721.The delegation of Ethiopia thanked the Chairperson, expressing its satisfaction and delight with the inscription saying that the inscription would motivate and enhance cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue between communities in the spirit of the 2003 Convention with relevant organisations and stakeholders undertaking activities necessary to ensure that safeguarding measures would be implemented and that the element continues to showcase the spirit of the Convention. The delegation invited Her Excellency Madam Meaza Gebremedhin Gebreegzi, the State Minister for Culture and Tourism of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, to make a few remarks on the inscription.

722.Her Excellency Madam Meaza Gebremedhin Gebreegzi, the State Minister for Culture and Tourism, thanked the Chairperson, the Committee and the Secretariat assuring them that their decision had not only acknowledged a practice of intangible cultural heritage that truly embraced great efforts made by the Sidama people to conserve the indigenous festival of Fichee-Chambalaalla but also all Ethiopian people. The State Minister said she had had the privilege to celebrate the most recent festival with proud, welcoming and hardworking Sidamas who promoted hard work, respect for nature, and a culture of tolerance for the young helping to ensure the preservation of other indigenous traditions in the future. The State Minister again thanked the Committee and invited everyone to the festival the following August (saying that as the Ethiopian calendar would only be 2009, everyone would be at least seven years younger).

[Applause]

723.The Chairperson thanked the Minister for the invitation and moved to examine the nomination by Greece, by giving the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.

724.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination on Tinian marble craftsmanship [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.17] submitted by Greece for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

725.The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination met all criteria. The Body found that criterion R.1 was met as the nomination showed that for local communities, Tinian marble craftsmanship provides a strong connection to their history, natural environment and cultural identity, and is based on a transmission model from master to apprentice and hierarchical organisation specific to marble sculpture workshops. The Body believed criterion R.2 was met as the nomination demonstrated that inscription of the element was likely to contribute to the visibility of intangible cultural heritage, including craftsmanship, to increase knowledge about the cultural diversity of South East Europe and illustrate how creativity evolved within traditional norms. The Body felt the file met criterion R.3 as the proposed safeguarding measures, while strengthening existing ones, aimed to strengthen the transmission, protection, documentation and research of the element, and addressed the problem of unintentional over-commercialisation. The Body considered criterion R.4 was met as the nomination was prepared with the participation of the local community of artisans, local authorities, municipal museums, marble-carving school and individual experts, all giving their free, prior and informed consent. Finally, The Body found the file met criterion R.5 as the item was included on the National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage with the participation of the community concerned in 2013. The inventory would be updated by the Ministry of Culture at least once every five years.

726.The Evaluation Body, therefore, recommended that the element be inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

727.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body and informed the Committee that 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. There were no objections and the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.17 to inscribe Tinian marble craftsmanship on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The Chairperson gave the floor to Greece.

728.The delegation of Greece, on behalf of the craftspeople and inhabitants of Tinos island in the Cyclades said that they were honoured by the Committee’s decision and the evaluation of the Evaluation Body. Greece said it believed that inscribing the element would contribute to enhancement of the tradition, which had managed to unite two religious communities over one popular art form – that of craftsmanship, renowned not only in the Cyclades and Southern Greece but beyond the borders of Greece.

729.The Chairperson thanked and congratulated Greece, and proceeded to examination of the next nomination file submitted by Indonesia, giving the floor to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body.

730.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body introduced the next nomination on Three genres of traditional dance in Bali [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.18] submitted by Indonesia for possible inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

731.The Evaluation Body considered that the nomination met all the criteria. The Body believed the file met criterion R.1 as the three genres of traditional dances in Bali are characterised by their affiliation to religious and secular contexts, providing communities and groups of practitioners, stakeholders and spectators with a sense of cultural identity and continuity. For criterion R.2, the Body felt the nomination demonstrated that the element was likely to contribute to raising the visibility and importance of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage at the local, national and international levels while encouraging respect of cultural diversity and human creativity. With regard to criterion R.3, the Body considered that in addition to past and present efforts to safeguard the element the nomination included measures developed in cooperation with communities and groups to continue the inventory, enhance transmission and further promote the element in respect of its social functions and cultural meanings. For criterion R.4, the Body believed the nomination showed that a large number and variety of bearers, practitioners and stakeholders participated in the process of drafting the nomination, providing their free, prior and informed consent. For criterion R.5, the Body found that the nomination showed that a total of nine dances in the three dance genres had been included in the inventory of intangible cultural heritage of the province of Bali since 2010 as part of the inventory drawn up at the national level in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

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

733.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body; informed the Committee no requests for debate or proposed amendments had been received by the Bureau and, therefore, 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.18 to inscribe Three genres of traditional dance in Bali on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The Chairperson offered congratulations and gave the floor to Indonesia.

734.The delegation of Indonesia on behalf of the Indonesian Government, thanked the Chairperson, the Evaluation Body, the Secretariat, the members of the Committee and all States Parties to the 2003 Convention for their support to the nomination of the three genres of traditional dance in Bali, Indonesia. The delegation said it was a great honour for Indonesia to have had their traditional dances inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity and that the inscription would further guarantee the safeguarding of traditional dances in Bali. To celebrate the inscription, Indonesia had planned to have four Balinese dancers perform in the session, but unfortunately they were unable to be present. Instead, the delegation presented a short video of the nine dances inscribed on the List, and extended an invitation to the room to enjoy dances during their next visit to the Island of the Gods in Bali, Indonesia.

[Video]

[Applause]

736.The Secretary wished to inform the delegates that Indonesia had very generously offered lunch to all NGOs present during the session.

[Applause]

737.The Chairperson proceeded to the next nomination submitted by Italy and the floor was given to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body to present the nomination.

738.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body said the following nomination was the Celebration of the Celestine Pardon [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.19] submitted by Italy for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

739.The Evaluation Body considered that criteria R.1, R.3 and R.4 were satisfied. The Body found the file met criterion R.1 as the nomination showed that the Celebration of Celestine Pardon is a symbol of reconciliation, social cohesion and integration for the people of L'Aquila and Abruzzo, providing them with a sense of shared identity and secular continuity. The Body believed the file met criterion R.3 as the nomination provided safeguarding measures designed with the participation of communities that strengthened existing cultural meanings and social functions of the celebration including artistic and recreational activities. The Body thought the file met criterion R.4 as the nomination demonstrated that a number of associations and municipalities had been actively involved in the nomination process and gave it their free, prior and informed consent.

740.However, the Evaluation Body considered that criteria R.2 and R.5 were not fully satisfied. Regarding criterion R.2, the Body believed the nomination focused on outcomes expected from the inscription of the Celebration of Celestine Pardon on the city of L'Aquila and its communities but did not show evidence of encouraging dialogue and promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. Regarding criterion R.5, the Body found that the nomination did not provide an adequate extract of the inventory in which the element is included. It was hence difficult to assess the conformity of the inventorying process with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

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

742.The Chairperson thanked the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body, saying that the Committee had received requests for amendments from two members, namely Greece on criterion R.2 and Turkey on criterion R.5.

743.The delegation of Greece said that reading the nomination file and the evaluation it seemed that there was a positive recommendation for criterion R.1 meaning that the Evaluation Body had found sufficient evidence for the nomination to be considered as an element of intangible cultural heritage; a positive recommendation for criterion R.3 meaning that safeguarding measures are adequate and for criterion R.4 meaning that the bearers of the element participated in the whole process. Greece felt that criterion R.2, although badly written in the nomination file, had been met and proposed the following amendment: ‘The performance of the element fosters appreciation of traditions that are rooted in the past and promotes solidarity and tolerance. The celebrations that are regularly attended by representatives of cities that have faced civic strife in the past encourage dialogue and promote respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.’

744.The Chairperson thanked Greece for presenting the proposed amendment to criterion R.2 and gave the floor to Belgium.

745.The delegation of Belgium broadly shared the conclusions of the Evaluation Body. However, on the basis of information in the file questioned whether criteria R.3 and R.4 had been fulfilled regarding safeguarding measures and the participation and consent of communities. Belgium expressed its concern about the strong dramatization of the element as a safeguarding measure and lack of updated information provided for the two criteria. For criterion R.3, Belgium noted that under item 3 (ii), the permanent theatre of L'Aquila was given the task of proposing the ritual, dramaturgical and symbolic elements of the event in their original form; item 3.b (iii) dealt with the formulation of ideas to make the event even more solemn and spectacular. Belgium wondered if dramatization is an appropriate safeguarding method and welcomed clarification on the merits of the safeguarding method. Concerning the lack of updated data, it seemed that the nomination form was written in 2010-11, thus one read in point 3.b(i) ‘the allocation of funds for 2012 remains to be determined.’ Other examples of lack of updated data were noted in the file and the problem was also encountered in point 4.a, where it was noted that 12 meetings were organized by the committee of L'Aquila between April 2010 and December 2011. In the past four years, changes could have taken place and it was important that an updated status be given to the Committee for correct analysis of the file. Belgium wished to avoid setting any precedent and recalled the previous day’s decision on Mongolia's file concerning the criterion regarding the inventory, adding that criteria that received favourable opinions from the Evaluation Body in 2015 on the basis of information in a file should not be automatically approved during a future evaluation of the same element in particular when it came to criteria R.3 and R.4. It would be logical that criterion R.3 on safeguarding measures with a timetable and budget, and criterion R.4 on the consent of communities, groups and individuals be reassessed entirely. Belgium submitted these concerns to the Committee and wished to propose an amendment on the necessity of updating data for criteria R.3 and R.4 in the case of a referral and resubmission of a nomination in a future cycle. Belgium expressed its sincere hope that the city of L’Aquila could recover from damage caused by the recent earthquake and thought that perhaps it could be suggested to Italy to submit a file for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List.

746.The Chairperson thanked Belgium, saying that considering Belgium’s intervention on criteria R.3 and R.4 the Committee would examine the draft decision paragraph by paragraph. The floor was given to Turkey to present its amendment on criterion R.5.

747.The delegation of Turkey, having taken into consideration that morning’s discussions on the need for further clarification and maybe an expert workshop on criterion R.5, noted that the submitting State had provided sufficient information and proof of inscription of the element on the national inventory. Turkey was of the opinion that the file was prepared with strong community participation, and that there was sufficient proof of cultural diversity provided by the submitting State as demonstrated by references to participation from a variety of communities involved. Although Turkey was fully in favour of inscription, the delegation still wished to hear more from Italy on the inventorying process and its conformity with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

748.The Chairperson thanked Turkey and gave the floor to Italy to respond to Turkey’s question.

749.The delegation of Italy wished to make some points and also answer Belgium regarding criterion R.3 and R.4.

750.The Chairperson noted a point of order by Belgium and gave the floor to Belgium.

751.The delegation of Belgium clarified that it had made a number of remarks but had not asked any questions to Italy.

752.The Chairperson asked Italy to continue answering the question by Turkey.

753.The delegation of Italy said it would answer the question of Turkey concerning criterion R.5, where Italy wished to point out that the extract of the inventory annexed to the file was revised following adoption of Decision 8.COM 8 paragraph 17. The extract clearly summarised the system and the methodology of the inventorying process used in Italy for intangible cultural heritage and the extract attached was prepared in summary form to provide an example of the cataloguing system that was easier for the evaluators to read. The extract contained a link to the website of the official database, 10 cards with pictures and simplified and complete descriptions. As for other Italian elements already inscribed, the element was included through initiatives of the communities concerned in the general catalogue of cultural heritage maintained by the Central Institute for Cataloguing and Documentation under the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Cultural Activities and Tourism. The Italian cataloguing procedures changed at the beginning of 2015 in line with the national implementation process of the Convention. The inventory cards dedicated to intangible cultural heritage were under the control of the national authority for safeguarding cultural heritage through field survey and support of communities, groups, individuals and anthropologist cataloguers. Italy concluded by saying that it believed that the system and processes fully complied with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

754.The Chairperson thanked Italy and moved to the adoption of the draft decision paragraph by paragraph, beginning with paragraph 1 to which there was no objection. Paragraph 1 was adopted. Moving to paragraph 2, criterion R.1 was adopted without objections. Moving to criterion R.2 the Chairperson noted that the amendment proposed by Greece did not enjoy broad support from the Committee, and that the initial text would then be retained. Criterion R.2 was adopted as initially proposed. Criteria R.3 and R.4 were separately adopted without amendments. Moving to criterion R.5 the Chairperson noted an amendment proposed by Turkey and asked for a show of support. Noting that the amendment had broad support within the Committee, criterion R.5 was therefore adopted as amended. Looking at the entire paragraph 2, there were no objections and paragraph 2 was adopted as amended. Paragraph 3 was adopted as amended without objection. For paragraph 4, Latvia requested the floor.

755.The delegation of Latvia referred to observations expressed by Belgium concerning information that would need to be updated if the file was going to be resubmitted. Latvia thought that if attention was going to be paid to that aspect, then paragraph 4 would be the most appropriate place to mention it within the decision.

756.The Chairperson thanked Latvia for its contribution, and having asked the delegation whether it had a concrete amendment to propose invited Belgium to propose a text.

757.The delegation of Belgium declined saying it would like to add an amendment to the general decision in the Evaluation Body’s report concerning the relation between the examination of resubmitted files and approved criteria so that what the Body had suggested would not have future consequences especially where safeguarding plans were concerned. If an evaluation by the Body stated that criterion R.3 had been met, upon resubmission of the file Belgium would like to have a revised safeguarding plan submitted.

758.The Chairperson said that if there was no amendment, then the Committee would adopt paragraph 4 as it stood; there were no objections, and paragraph 4 was adopted as was paragraph 5. The Chairperson asked the Committee if it would adopt draft decision 10.COM 10.b.19 in its entirety. There were no objections, and the Chairperson declared adopted Decision 10.COM 10.b.19 to refer the nomination of Celebration of the Celestine Pardon to the State Party for additional information. The nomination was, therefore, referred to the submitting State for additional information and possible resubmission for examination during a following cycle. Italy was given the floor.

759.The delegation of Italy thanked the Chairperson and Committee for allowing Italy to express its comments on the file, and thanked the members of the Committee who had supported Italy.

760.The Chairperson thanked Italy, and proceeded with a joint nomination submitted by the two States Parties of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and requested the Chairperson of the Evaluation Body to present the file.

761.The Chairperson of the Evaluation Body said that the following nomination was on Aitysh/Aitys, art of improvisation [draft decision 10.COM 10.b.20] submitted by Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan for possible inscription on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

762.The Evaluation Body considered that the file had fulfilled all criteria. The Body found that the file met criterion R.1 as Aitysh/Aitys works as a social communication platform within communities and society at large, its transmission occurring mainly through music schools and studios installed by home teachers. The Body believed that the file met criterion R.2 as the nomination demonstrated the contribution of potential inscription to awareness of the significance of oral traditions and expressions in general and the visibility of intangible cultural heritage. The Body considered the file met criterion R.3 as practising communities and the two governments have developed activities including strengthening of formal and informal transmission, documentation and research, promotion and continuous monitoring of implementation by granting special attention to the multinational nature of the item and coordination between submitting States. The Body believed the file met criterion R.4 as the nomination evidenced active participation of all stakeholders in its design and development providing a wide range of evidence of free, prior and informed consent. The Body considered the file met criterion R.5 as Aitysh/Aitys was included in the inventories of two submitting States, from 2013 for Kazakhstan and 2007 for Kyrgyzstan, in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.

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

764.The