Proceedings of 2015 IRCI Experts Meetingon Mapping Project for Intangible Cultural
Heritage (ICH) Safeguarding in Asia and thePacific(8-9 December 2015, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic)

14 June 2016, IRCIForeword
In order to fulfil its principal mandate: “to instigate and coordinate research into practices
and methodologies of safeguarding endangered ICH elements present in the AsiaPacific Region”, IRCI launched in 2013 a project entitled: “Mapping Research on the
Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH).”As a project activity in FY2015, IRCI held “2015 IRCI Experts Meeting on Mapping
Project for ICH Safeguarding in Asia and the Pacific Countries” on 8-9 December 2015
in Bishkek with participation of experts from 6 sub-regions of the Asia-Pacific region. At
the meeting, Participants presented the result of survey conducted in the Asia-Pacificcountries. Following their presentations, they discussed its analysis, findings, difficulties
and challenges of current situation of ICH safeguarding research based on the result.
With contribution of participants, especially that of co-chairs Ms Aikawa Noriko-Faure
and Ms Janet Elizabeth Blake, the Bishkek meeting bore many fruitful results. This
proceedings is a summary of the meeting and would be a milestone of our “Mapping
Project.”
I take this occasion to express my sincere thanks to National Commission for UNESCOof the Kyrgyz Republic and its Secretary General, Ms Elnura Korchueva, and Aigine
Cultural Research Centre and its Director, Ms Gulnara Aitpaeva.

14 June 2016

Wataru Iwamoto
Director-General
International Research Centre for
Intangible Cultural Heritage In the
Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Contents
1. 1st day (8 December 2015) ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 East Asia .................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 The Republic of Korea ......................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 China ................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 South East Asia ......................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Viet Nam .............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 South Asia.................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.1 India ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Bangladesh .......................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Central Asia ............................................................................................................... 6
1.4.1 Tajikistan ............................................................................................................. 6
1.4.2 Uzbekistan ........................................................................................................... 7
1.4.3 Kyrgyzstan .......................................................................................................... 7
1.5 West Asia ................................................................................................................... 8
1.5.1 Afghanistan ......................................................................................................... 8
1.5.2 Iran ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.5.3 Pakistan ............................................................................................................... 9
1.5.4 Turkmenistan ...................................................................................................... 9
1.6 Pacific......................................................................................................................... 9
1.6.1 Fiji ........................................................................................................................ 9
1.7 The IRCI Research Database on Research on ICH Safeguarding ....................... 10
1.8 Wrap-up .................................................................................................................... 10
2. 2nd Day (9 December 2016) ......................................................................................... 11
2.1 South East Asia ....................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Thailand ............................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Analytic Summary of all of the surveys conducted within the present IRCI project........................................................................................................................................ 13
2.3 Discussion on IRCI Mapping Survey Project ........................................................ 20
2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 21

Annexes
Annex1 Regional Survey Summary Report—Asia-Pacific (by Dr. Alexandra Denes)……………………………………………………………………………………………………23
Annex 2 Timetable of the Meeting ...………………………………………………………31
Annex 3 List of Participants ..………………………………………………………………33

2015 IRCI Experts Meeting on Mapping Project for Intangible Cultural Heritage(ICH) Safeguarding in Asia and the Pacific (8-9 December 2015, Bishkek, Kyrgyz
Republic)
Rapporteur: Akio Arata (Director-General, IRCI)

1. 1st day (8 December 2015)
The meeting started with the welcoming speech delivered by Ms. Elnura Korchueva,
Secretary-General, Kyrgyz National Commission for UNESCO, on behalf of the hostcountry. She thanked International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in
the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI) for having chosen Bishkek as the venue of the important
meeting on the safeguarding of ICH. She also shared with the participants some of thepoints dealt with at the 9th Intergovernmental Committee on Intangible Cultural Heritage
held in Windhoek, 30 November – 4 December 2015, the Kyrgyz Republic being one ofits members. Director-General of IRCI, Mr. Akio Arata, then gave an opening speech on
behalf of the organizing institution, also welcoming the participants and expressing
appreciation to the authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic for hosting this meeting in
Bishkek, and for the assistance provided by the Aigina Cultural Research Center. He
then explained that the main mandate of IRCI is to instigate and coordinate

research into practices and methodologies of safeguarding endangered ICH
elements present in the Asia-Pacific Region, and that the present survey had been
conducted within the frame work of the project entitled: “Mapping Research on the
Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH)” launched by IRCI in 2012. He alsomentioned that the purpose of the survey was to review existing literature and researchstudies undertaken on the concepts, practices and methodologies relating to thesafeguarding of ICH in countries of the Asia-Pacific region and that of the current
meeting was to assess the surveys carried out in order, (a) to take stock of the current
situation of research conducted in the Asia-Pacific region into the practices andmethodologies of the ICH safeguarding, (b) to identify domains of research that have
not yet been well developed in the Asia Pacific region but that could be encouraged,and (c) to obtain advice from the experts/participants on the follow-up activities thatIRCI could carry out from 2017 onwards.
After the introduction of participants, Ms Noriko Aikawa-Faure, one of the CoChairs (the other Co-Chair was Ms Janet Blake) explained the time table andproceeded to the first session:
Report of the surveys undertaken by each sub-region: findings,
difficulties/obstacles encountered and challenges
11.1 East Asia
1.1.1 The Republic of Korea

Ms Hanhee Hahm, Professor, Department of Archaeological and Cultural Anthropology,
Chonbuk National University, Republic of Korea, presented the results of her review of
36 publications in ROK. Out of 12 sub-fields of research focus, research on “policy
making (related to ICH safeguarding)” was the most frequent topic (12) followed bytransmission (7), promotion (6) and documentation (5). The concentration on policy
may be explained by the following; The safeguarding policy on ICH in ROK wascritically reviewed, in comparison with UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on ICH
Safeguarding, and it was envisioned its future from the perspective of a newframework. Transmission and documentation are also frequently dealt with. Some
researchers are critical of the top-down approach in safeguarding policies, particularly
in transmission and documentation matters as well as of the notion of authenticity
applied to ICH. Those researchers argue that the right to make decisions should berecovered by individual bearers, groups and communities of ICH, while thegovernment, along with specialists, scholars and local leaders, exercise power andcontrol.
In terms of genres, most research studies in ROK are carried out on ICH in a
general way rather than on specialized one, given that the current research tends tofocus on policy, transmission and documentation of ICH. Those researchers indicate
the safeguarding of vanishing ICH in remote areas as the most imminent challenge,
calling for development of a vigilant and in-depth approach to deal with complex issues.
Comparative studies with those in foreign countries are increasing. A new paradigm ofsafeguarding methods through digital platforms and technology is also presented insome research works.
Ms Hahm added that researchers should start working on multi-national
nominations (shared nominations) as well. Ms Aikawa-Faure gave an explanation that
due to the limitation in the number of nominations that can be submitted and examinedannually , the Intergovernmental Committee now encourages shared nominations. Ms
Aikawa-Faure, the Co-Chair, congratulated researchers in ROK for working together topush the government into modifying the existing law and policy on ICH in line with the2003 Convention’s spirit. She, nonetheless, expressed her impression that large part of
the research is concentrated on the Representative List of ICH while the very spirit of
the 2003 Convention is focused on safeguarding. Ms Aikawa-Faure emphasized alsothat researchers should think, in future research, on those ICH elements which were
not inscribed in the lists, international, national or local.
21.1.2 China

The Co-Chair, Ms Aikawa-Faure informed the meeting of the absence at the last minuteof Mr. Junhua Song, Professor, Institute of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage, Sun
Yat-sen University, China. She considered Prof. Song’s report as one of the best
examples to follow for future survey, and introduced its main features as follows:-

So many researchers work on basic theories of ICH safeguarding-

On ways and methods, they already published many articles such as those in the“Development Report of Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding in China” edited
by researchers Messrs. Baocheng Kang and Junhua Song-How to use/harness education into safeguarding: Researchers are very much infavor of promoting ICH practices in education institutions.

-Protection of Intellectual Property Rights.

-

Economic development and protection of ecology, and ICH.

-

Study on ICH has begun to be a distinct research discipline-

Comparative studies, with the cases in ROK, Japan, France, Italy etc. areconducted-

The characteristics of Chinese research on ICH safeguardings are top down
・Kunqu proclamation as masterpiece stimulated setting up ICH related
policies and legal protection system and instigated research on its
safeguarding methodologies,

・

Evolving from non-professional to professional・

Creation of new theories such as “productive safegarding” and cultural
ecology.

・

Inspiration taken from foreign experiences

・

Shift from valuing ICH to valuing transmission, etc.

1.2 South East Asia
1.2.1 Viet Nam

Ms Thi Hien Ngueyen, Vice Director, Vietnamese Institute for Cultural and Arts
Studies (VICAS), a folklore specialist, presented the outcomes of her survey in Viet
Nam.
Most research is conducted by scholars/researchers working at the
Department of Cultural Heritage, VICAS, the Institute of Music, and other institutes of
the Viet Nam Academy of Social Sciences. Their publications focus on concepts,
inventorying and safeguarding of the various ICH expressions of ethnic groups. The
types of ICH concepts covered in the research literature are mostly in folklore
3expressions, focusing on genres like legends, stories, village festivals, folk songs,
dances, music, handicrafts, traditional textiles, customs, folk dramas, indigenous
languages of ethnic minorities. There are very few writings on knowledge and skills ofcarving, textile traditional house making, etc.
Most of the research writings emphasize safeguarding measures such as
inventorying, documentation, classification, popularization. A number of articles treat
the roles of museums and role of elderly people in a village, as well as master
practitioners, in keeping and in transmitting ICH to young people, as well as the role ofmass media in raising awareness. Many articles also focus on transmission of ICH inschools. For some researchers, museums are also the venues for encounters and forlearning ICH for young people.
Clubs, set up by bearers and/or communities, provide opportunities for
performance and practice. While a majority of research work studies focus on
traditional village festivals, very few cover knowledge relating to traditional housing,handicrafts, textile, carving technics, or religious rites.
Boundaries between the management by the state and the role of thecommunities concerned are not clear. Many research works still emphasize the role of
the authorities in the safeguarding and yet, there are some showing active roles which
can be played by the communities and the bottom-up approach.
Ms Nguyen added that the survey on Viet Nam research is being updated.
Ms Aikawa-Faure drew the attention to the existence of some critics
addressed by some Vietnamese scholars regarding the aspect of overcommercialization related to tourism of ICH elements, through the activities undertaken
by Clubs such as those set up for Gong.
Ms Ngueyen admitted that there were articles criticizing such aspect.
Ms Janet Blake raised a question as to whether IRCI could considertranslating those research works done in local language into English so that theinternational research community can benefit from the richness of what has been done,
e.g.in China.
Ms Aikawa-Faure suggested that the Chinese authorities could be encouraged
to translate their research works into English.
1.3 South Asia
1.3.1 India

Ms Shubha Chaudhuri, Associate Director-General (Academic), American Institute ofIndian Studies, Archives and Research Center for Ethnomusicology, India, presented
4the summary outcomes of her survey on research on safeguarding of ICH in India.
She started by saying that though India had been one of the earliest countries
to ratify the 2003 Convention and Kuttiyattam had been one of the first on the
Masterpieces list, the development of ICH has not kept pace. There is a vast literatureon what we can term as domains of ICH but very little on the Convention and its
impacts or on Safeguarding. India still not had established a government policy on ICH.
The questionnaires were distributed widely but only few responded with inputs. There
are many institutions dealing with ICH but not many dealing with ICH safeguarding.
Public awareness of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of ICH is a problem inIndia and there has been little reaction by or impact on academics as the 2003
Convention has not been implemented in the areas of research, in contrast to thecases in ROK or China. ICH as such is a rather new idea in India, with folklore having
traditionally been a discipline, and it is only recently that seminars and workshops on
ICH have drawn attention to issues like safeguarding in academic circles. Her survey
could not identify few publications as a result of such seminars and workshops
although there had been a fair number of them. The inscription of Indian ICH elements
to the Representative List (RL) has led to creation of certain specialized institutions, but
not yet the production of research publications. Even in the research community,
awareness of the nomination of those ICH elements to the RL is weak. There are 21
UNESCO accredited NGOs in India, but Ms Chaudhuri did not succeed in obtaining
responses to her questionnaire from them. She considered that some different
approaches should be looked into (e.g. networking) so as to obtain concrete
contributions.
Ms Aikawa-Faure, the Co-Chair, mentioned that it was to notice with regretthat the Indian Government had yet to show strong interest in promoting ICH. Ms
Chaudhuri responded that the only thrust of the government is on nominations.
However the Sangeet Natak Akademi has been appointed as the nodal agency for ICH,
and there are future plans for creating a ICH mission. The SNA at this time also makes
project grants for ICH..
Ms Janet Blake, the other Co-Chair, drew the attention of the participants tothe fact that the 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of ICH had a very limited
definition of ICH, and that research may treat those elements which would go beyond
the narrow definition of ICH adopted in the Convention. Ms Blake further clarified that,when we talk about research, research can mean (1) “research” as a way ofsafeguarding, (2) “research” on safeguarding which can be sub-divided into (i) researchwithin the framework of the 2003 Convention, and (ii) research going beyond the 2003
Convention.
5

1.3.2 Bangladesh

Mr. Saymon Zakaria, Assistant Director, Folklore Department of Bangla Academy,
Bangladesh, presented his survey on Bangladesh. He started his presentation bysaying that most Bangladeshi scholars did not understand the definition ofsafeguarding in the 2003 Convention. He continued his presentation by describing
many genres of Bangladesh ICH, though providing little information on research workon safeguarding.
Ms Aikawa-Faure asked Mr. Zakaria what the nomination mechanism was in
Bangladesh, and whether there had been any impact of the inscription of Bangladeshi
ICH elements into RL. Mr. Zakaria responded to the second question saying “Yes, both
positive and negative impacts”. Marketing has increased (a positive) but it has allowed
not-original elements to slip into the performances used in commercialization, in thecase of Baoul Songs. In this connection, Ms Hanhee Hahm informed the participantsthat 2 directions were proposed (1) sticking to the original and authentic ICH, and (2)adaptation to modern tastes, especially for younger generation to continue. Ms
Chaudhuri alerted that the approach (2) would not help safeguarding but affectnegatively by not transmitting spiritual background and social functions inherent to the
ICH elements concerned.
1.4 Central Asia
1.4.1 Tajikistan

Mr. Dilshod Rahimov, Head of the Department of Folklore, Rudaki Institute of
Language, Literature and Oriental Studies, the Republic of Tajikistan, presented theoutcome of his survey on Tajikistan. While many research studies were undertaken on
ICH in Tajikistan, very few are on safeguarding of ICH. The main cause for this may be
the lack of specialized institutions to conduct research on safeguarding ICH, working incollaboration with communities for inventorying and preparing local lists of ICH.
Methods used in literature of safeguarding of ICH in Tajikistan are, scientific (21%),
followed by descriptive (15%). Among the ICH genres, research treating all genres of
ICH comes in large number (30%), followed by oral tradition (27%) and by traditional
craftsmanship (27%). More research works were published in 2015 (33% of all the
research works reviewed). He also clarified, in response to the questions from Mr.
Paroum Yadollah that the capacity-building training conducted in Deshanbe in 2012,2013 and 2014 had been in Russian. He added that there had been some research
articles on transmission of folklore, music and so on. Ms Aikawa-Faure raised aquestione about the policies concerning the transmission, knowing that the6Conservatoire and the University of Fine Arts were teaching traditional music. Mr.
Rahimov responded that those institutions invite traditional masters to teach students.
He clarified that there were two modes of transmission, one, the traditional master toapprentice method, and a second, using formal education.
1.4.2 Uzbekistan

Ms Gularo Abdulloeva, Head of Branch, State Conservatory of Uzbekistan, presented
her survey result on Uzbekistan. She explained the government measures undertaken
since 1991 as a background, and further elaborated policies linked to the legislation.
She informed the meeting about the scientific conferences, expeditions to several
provinces (2012 and 2013), as well as the creation in 2012 of an ICH Documentation
Department within the Republican Scientific-Methodological Center for Folk Arts, under
the Ministry of Culture and Sports. Ms Abdulloeva further elaborated the past andcurrent situation related to ICH. She summarized the current status of research on ICH
in Uzbekistan as follows:
1) Most research pays more attention to performing arts but less on such domains as
traditional craftsmanship, sports, food culture or traditional medicine.
2) There is a strong need to create a digital database of Uzbekistan’s ICH.
3) Poor English language proficiency hampers many Uzbek researchers frompresenting research papers to the international academic community.
4) Need to learn from the experience of foreign countries advanced in the domain of
ICH safeguarding.
5) Need for financial support for publishing scientific books and manuals.
1.4.3 Kyrgyzstan

Ms Perizat Kurbanova, Aigine Cultural Research Center, together with Ms Gulnara
Aitpaeva, Director, Aigine Cultural Research Center, presented the outcomes of thesurvey conducted by Ms Kurbanova in the Kyrgyz Republic. Ms Kurbanova informed
the participants that the survey only covered Kyrgyz ICH, while there are ICH elementsof ethnic minorities, such as Tajiks, in Kyrgyzstan. There is very little understanding of
ICH safeguarding among many of the researchers contacted. There is a lot of literature
on ICH but very few materials on its safeguarding, even though there are laws, projects
and activities aimed at safeguarding ICH in Kyrgyzstan. Out of 49 books collected,
folklore (15), sacred sites (8), craftsmanship (6) are the major topics worked on. Ms
Aiptaeva announced that the Aigine Cultural Research Center had just beenrecognized by UNESCO as an accredited specialized NGO on ICH. To a question as towhat the impact of the inscription into the Representative List (RL) of a Kyrgyz ICH
7element was, Ms Aitpaeva responded that there was a direct impact as, after Manas
was inscribed in RL in 2013, it became a national phenomenon in two years, in terms ofdissemination of information, furthering safeguarding efforts, etc. Ms Aikawa-Faure
congratulated Kyrgyzstan stating that the Kyrgyz experience in benefiting from NGOs
connected with communities should inspire our future work.
1.5 West Asia

Mr. Parmoun Yadollah, Director, Regional Research Centre for Safeguarding Intangible
Cultural Heritage in West and Central Asia, Tehran (Iran), started his presentation by
providing an overview of the centre he represents, its mandate, research fields, andapproaches. He then raised a question about definition of research of the ICH
safeguarding. He posed some distinction between different research methods:
general/descriptive, theoretical/applied, synchronic/diachronic and micro/macro.
He then showed the general overview of four countries he surveyed, statingthat in the countries issues concerning ICH are raised, and that the capacity, quality
and quantity of research undertaken are different. In countries like Iran, there is a long
history of research in the field of ethnography and anthropology, which is notrecognized as ‘ICH research’.
1.5.1 Afghanistan

Mr. Yadollah presented, using Power Point, the various actors on the fields of researchon ICH safeguarding in Afghanistan as follows:-

Directorate of Preservation of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture-

National Archives of Afghanistan-

Firooz-Kooh (an NGO) working on the old city of Kabul-

Foundation of Culture-

Ostad (“Master Musician”)-

Ghazne Cultural Office 2013-

University of Kabul-

Academy of Science of Afghanistan

Women’s participation in safeguarding activities is now rapidly improved by the NGO’s
activities in the domain of traditional crafts.

8

1.5.2 IranLegal documents for the safeguarding of cultural heritage have been maintained in Iranafter the ratification. Some dead ICH recorded in old texts are now being revitalized.
Documentation is conducted by some archives and documentation centres.
Concerning the registration of ICH at the national level, Iran has already listed 2,000
elements. Archiving of ICH elements, texts, music, medicine, ethnic games and so on
has been undertaken by some institutes but the quality of these collections varies from
one to another.
1.5.3 Pakistan

Although its ratification of the 2003 Convention was at a relatively early stage, Pakistan
also requires capacity building just like the other three countries. LOK VIRSA is thenational institute which safeguards ICH through research, collection, documentation,
preservation and dissemination of oral tradition and religious culture. The institute hasvarious kinds of archives and databases on the ICH of Pakistan in cooperation withgovernmental and non-governmental organizations and has been conducting various
research projects in collaboration with professionals and local communities.
1.5.4 Turkmenistan

Central Asian Crafts Support Association submitted crafts of Turkmenistan to the
UNSECO Award of Excellence of Handicrafts in 2008 and 2012. UNESCO also
supports the enhancement of local craft industries. Turkmenistan’s inventory of ICH
has already been created.
From a participant, he was asked how a national inscription process worked,
for example, whether local communities could be involved and he answered that, in
Iran, governmental organizations did the inscription and made the national list.
1.6 Pacific1.6.1 Fiji

Ms Elizabeth Edwards, Director/Producer/Editor and Coordinator, Mai TV, Fiji, and theco-author of the survey summary report, presented the outcomes of the survey in Fiji.
Fiji now comprises many different ethnic groups with the indigenous people iTaukei,
living alongside a population of Indian, Chinese, Pacific islander and European settler
descent.
An intensive national research initiative was led by the Fiji Government. Fiji
has an inventory of ICH as a result of the comprehensive mapping programme existing9

since 2003 which covers 1,075 villages in 14 provinces in Fiji. Out of 14, twelve
provinces have been mapped by the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs since 2004. The current
desktop survey reviewed 338 entries. Topics covered in publications were documented
and recorded mostly in English, Fijian and Rotuman languages. The researchdocuments everything from the Fijian worldviews: history, herbal medicine, tradition,
religion, the islands and their inhabitants, etc. There is a significant amount ofaudiovisual documentation produced locally in Fiji. The survey shows that there has
been much research written and documented through different media on ICH
safeguarding practices but not brought together. Ms Edwards said the existing networkof researchers in Fiji as well as the easy accessibility to information through theInternet, were considered strengths. She also provided information concerning thesources of documentation and references to which she was able to have access.
1.7 The IRCI Research Database on Research on ICH Safeguarding

Mr. Shigeaki Kodama, Associate Fellow, IRCI, presented IRCI’s current database on
research on ICH safeguarding. He emphasized that expected users of the database inquestion were: researchers, government officials, local communities involved inresearch, or beneficiaries of the findings of such research. If the scope of users was to
be enlarged, IRCI would need to add other functionalities in order to facilitate theaccess by those who may not be specialists in the field of ICH.
Ms Shubha Chaudhuri suggested that websites and audiovisual materials
such as documentaries be added to the database. Mr. Kodama expressed his view
that, nowadays, research documents are costly, generally speaking, and that we could
perhaps think of free-use, and that community people’s and local/layman “research
network” would need to be incorporated.
1.8 Wrap-up

The Co-Chair Ms Janet Blake presented the following summary of the debate of thefirst day of the meeting:・ The exposes showed predominantly descriptive presentations of ICH, rather than
the status of research on safeguarding of ICH.
・ It is important that we can distinguish research relevant to “ICH” as understood in
the Convention from folklore studies, for example, whose subject is different.
・ The fundamental inter-play between the notions of “ICH” and “safeguarding”(especially the idea of viability) needs to be explored.
10

・ By the expression “and any other measures ensuring viability of ICH”, the 2003
Convention allows a wide range of measures for ICH safeguarding to beundertaken.
・ What is the purpose of research? This question has two possible responses:
1. Research as a safeguarding measure
2. Research on safeguarding
・ Nomination/Inscription into RL and its impact on safeguarding and validity of ICH
elements concerned was discussed.
・ Social environment in which ICH is rooted needs to be respected.
・ ICH related research works are scattered physically as well as methodologically:
how can we access research published in various languages and in a number ofdifferent types of institutions (including non-governmental bodies)?
The Co-Chair Ms Noriko Aikawa-Faure added the following:・ As anticipated, there has not been much research on safeguarding collected.
・ The question of who the audience of the database is needs to be made clear.

2. 2nd Day (9 December 2016)
2.1 South East Asia
2.1.1 Thailand

Ms Alexandra Denes, Professor, Faculty of Social Science, Chiang Mai University,
Thailand, made, via Skype, the following presentation on the result of her survey on
Thailand:The Department of Cultural Promotion of the Ministry of Culture has theprimary task of managing ICH. As of today, Thailand is still not a Party to theConvention and there is quite a lot of deliberation over this and some reluctance fromvarious stakeholders. An issue of terminology over what actual translation to use for“intangible cultural heritage” has been debated back and forth and whether or not to
use the term more familiar to the Thai heritage which is more along the lines of “local
wisdom” or to adopt a new terminology, that reflects the emergence of new discoursearound ICH. This is one of the reasons for the slow ratification. Another reason has
been the development and drafting of an ICH law. The original draft Thai law presented
in public forums was quite controversial. It had numerous articles that were in directconflict with the core principles of the 2003 Convention in terms of having somepotential penalties for what was deemed to be a distortion of intangible heritage andalso other articles that did not fit the overall spirit of the convention. These have now
11been removed. The revised draft was being put forward. It looks like fairly soon
Thailand plans to become signatory.
Thailand launched its national registry in 2009. During the first year, 25
elements were registered and, as of 2014, a total of 286 elements have been listed on
the registry. Thailand has been very active. Regarding the specific domains, by andlarge, the majority of them are performing arts. And this is followed by traditional
handicrafts, folk literature, sports, games and local wisdom, social practices, rituals andfestivals, and then, knowledge about nature of the universe and language. Interestingly,
Thailand has added two domains, namely sports and games together with local
wisdom and, then, also explicitly has added language.
What Ms. Denes did in the Thailand survey of research was focused primarilyon the research funded by the Department of Cultural Promotion with theunderstanding that the focus of this survey is to get a better picture of the impact of the
UNESCO Convention on safeguarding activities. There were 28 reports funded by
Department of Cultural Promotion and five research projects that are academic innature, dissertations also dealing exclusively with the idea of intangible cultural
heritage as articulated by UNESCO. There were limitations to the Thailand survey inthe sense that Ms. Denes could not go to all of the regional universities where there
may have been some research undertaken on ICH and safeguarding. It was only
possible to look at the main universities, Chulalongkorn, Thammasat, and Silpakorn, allof which are in Bangkok as well as the Department of Cultural Promotion. It was notwithin scope of the possibility to go to other universities in Thailand and see what may
have been done.
There is clearly a growing awareness among heritage authorities as well as
academics, experts about the need for community participation and ownership of thesafeguarding process. Looking at the 33 studies, half of the projects referred to madesome effort to involve communities in some ways, either in documenting or developing
some kind of transmission initiatives or discussing how to move closely with thecommunity members in the data collection process. (After giving two studies as
example), these two studies reflect very much the spirit of participation that isexpressed in the convention and other of the studies to a greater or lesser degree also
reflect this understanding of what it means to support participation. That was anencouraging finding of this survey.
Another strength was that there were some good examples of taking a more
holistic and contextual approach, going beyond mere kind of description of traditional
practices or elements and looking at the historical context, the interconnections
between tangible and intangible and also reviewing some of the complexities within12communities in terms of different understandings of practices and their value andmeaning.
The primary weakness is the lack of assessment of long term impact ofsafeguarding. Another weakness is that, while half of the reports and research reveals
a kind of understanding of the new conceptualization of ICH, the other half was very
much, old school, more descriptive, non-participatory, just not providing a sense of theliving content of ICH, also not discussing the issues of threats or liability. Still really halfof the research was of this kind, much more descriptive.
Then, also a lack in theory: What theoretical approaches should we indeed beusing or promoting? A question for us is to think about what are the theoreticalframeworks that are most appropriate or fruitful for discussing intangible cultural
heritage and safeguarding approaches. Another issue in Thailand was limitedaccessibility.
One of the recommendations from the Thai case is to emphasize the need for
longer term assessment research on the impact of safeguarding initiatives. Anotherrecommendation is for fuller multimedia outlets on safeguarding ICH, i.e. not just thecollection of data, but to ensure that research and data is useful for communities.
The following exchange of views followed on this presentation:
The need for long term studies is a key issue, because we need to consider what the
impacts of safeguarding ICH are. It might be worth looking to the field of environmental
science to find some research strategies. (Ms Blake)
The operational directives have not looked at yet the post-inscription impact
study. This is a lacuna currently within the framework of the implementation of theconvention. (Ms Denes)
Policy is one of the most important components of safeguarding. (Ms Aikawa)
While recognizing the importance of policy, research on safeguarding ICH
should ideally be, to an anthropologist, more case study based, on the ground fieldresearch looking at what it means to develop together with communities safeguarding
initiatives broadly within the measures that are outlined in the convention, although
there are for the moment only a few attempts in Thailand. (Ms Denes)
2.2 Analytic Summary of all of the surveys conducted within the present IRCI project

Ms Alexandra Denes provided an oral presentation of her analysis set out in her moredetailed written regional report, as follows:
As of 2015, a total of 33 out of 56 in Asia-Pacific have ratified the Convention
and successful in terms of the speed at which this Convention has been ratified in theregion. Despite enthusiasm for nomination to the Representative (RL) and Urgent
13

Safeguarding (USL) lists, there is only limited understanding of the impact of theratification and the listing on safeguarding initiatives.
IRCI should be given a credit for this ambitious and important effort toundertake this survey to try to fill this gap by compiling research on safeguarding ICH
and not just on ICH itself.
Guiding questions provided by IRCI for the regional survey report were:
1. What is the strength or weakness of the current research activities?
2. What kind of ICH genres/methodological approaches are predominant in available
research studies?
3. What kinds of ICH genres/methodological approaches are not well researched?
4. What kind of methodologies or approaches have to be strengthened?
This analysis of the surveys included 11 State Parties and two non-signatory
nations, Thailand and Australia, thus offering interesting comparison between State
Parties and non-signatories.
The guidelines explicitly stated that the country survey should focus on
research on safeguarding of ICH, not on ICH itself. But this distinction was difficult tomaintain partly because there appears to be very little research, in fact almost none
focused solely on safeguarding ICH. There is so much research about ICH. Those
research works may include some elements or aspects of safeguarding. There is a real
challenge in determining what to include in the survey. Many of the country surveys did
not necessarily assess the impact of the ICH convention on safeguarding activities perse, but rather include more descriptive studies of cultural practices which wereconsidered to be part of national cultural heritage. The national surveys nonethelessoffered insights in terms of different country level understandings of the definition ofsafeguarding ICH and the objectives of the 2003 Convention, also providing thecontextual and policy background.
Strengths and Weaknesses
In terms of the strengths, several of the country reports clearly indicated that theratification of the convention had prompted much needed re-conceptualizations andreforms of the policies and approaches to heritage management. In the Republic ofKorea (ROK), a high percentage of research was actually focused on policy issues,
followed by transmission and promotion. It was explained as due to the fact that thesenew definitions and the understanding of living cultural heritage found in the convention
are in fact in conflict with the 1962 Cultural Properties Protection Law. This is anencouraging opportunity and strength to see that this debate is taking place in thecontext of research on ICH and safeguarding in ROK.
14

A number of other country reports identified this paradigm shift by different wayof approaching and thinking about heritage in research on safeguarding. In China,
since becoming a State Party, there has been a wide array of new research andscholarship on methods to safeguarding, the idea of identification of successors,
documentation, a lot of discussion about filing, archiving, digitization also intellectual
property rights issues, as well as critical debate about the differences between ICH andfolklore. We saw some of this as well in Vietnam that the kinds of research andinitiatives being supported by the Ministry of Culture that are exploring methods forrevitalization, transmission, and promotion of ICH. Similarly in Thailand, the nonsignatory, research is nonetheless exploring participatory approaches. The India reportsuggests also that a lot of studies in India are looking at ICH as a whole and grapplingwith these issues and questions. The Australian report explicitly mentioned research oncommunity participation in the safeguarding of ICH. A real strength is this kind of trying
to grapple with and re-conceptualize ICH and some community based efforts andinitiatives.
Turning to the weakness of the research, one of the main problems is that
research on ICH tends to be overly descriptive and static in its representation of ICH,
lacking contextual, critical analysis (i.e. historical change, impact of heritage policies,
issues of transmission). The Bangladesh report describes research on ICH byorganizations such as the Asiatic Society, the Bangla Academy that appears to berather narrowly focused on collection, documentation of old traditions, while issues ofstate policy and community engagement in safeguarding were not discussed. The
report on Cambodia indicates that while Cambodia has been active in the ratificationand subsequent nomination of 2 elements to the RL, the country still lacks resources
and capacity to undertake in-depth research on safeguarding. The report on Lao PDR
only described the broader legal and heritage policy context but there was no specificresearch on ICH mentioned or discussed. It was difficult to assess from this report
whether there is any research on ICH for safeguarding initiatives. Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan all appear to have similar issues with overly descriptive
accounts of ICH lacking broader analysis of historical change, policy and the
involvement of communities in safeguarding. Authors of these reports have indicatedthat there is still limited understanding of the definition of ICH and safeguarding amongcultural heritage researchers. Much ICH research still seems to be following what we
can call a kind of established norms of top-down data collection and archiving of
heritage.

15

Predominant ICH genres and methodological Approaches in Research
Ms Denes found this aspect of the analysis difficult to do and to give a regional
snapshot on it, because of different methods of research compilation in each country
and she conceded it was not easy to compile the data in an effective way. She
provided in her written report the summary table on a country-by-country basis. The
question, she asked, was, what was it we wanted to know, what would it tell us when
we were looking for dominant genres and domains? A more important or relevant
question to ask regarding the research on safeguarding was, she said, what kinds ofsafeguarding measures were predominant in the research?
Ms Denes continued her presentation. Most of the research seemed to befocused on documentation and different kinds of documentation and archiving. But
there were few countries engaging in research on other measures includingtransmission and revitalization of ICH. In Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, there were someinteresting descriptions and examples given on research on ICH transmission throughthe educational system. And the China report talks about promotion of ICH via various
forms of media using those traditional and non-traditional forms, web based resources,
television, etc.
Regarding the question as to what kinds of ICH genres/methodologicalapproaches are not well researched yet, Ms Denes presented the following findings:
The genres of ICH that are not well researched are: knowledge of nature and theuniverse, traditional medicine and rituals. On the methodological approaches,participatory action research and in-depth ethnographic research on safeguarding is
still under-represented.
On the question “What kinds of methodologies or approaches have to bestrengthened?”, she analyzed as follows:
Participatory and ethnographic approaches research on safeguarding thatinvolve communities and culture bearers more directly in the research process and in
the designing and implementation of safeguarding plans and activities, need to bestrengthened. So far the research compiled for this regional report indicates that mostresearch on ICH and ICH safeguarding follows the top-down approach of information
gathering by experts, rather than the approach of engagement with communities toassess threats to ICH and determine viable measures for safeguarding.
She presented the following conclusions and recommendation
The country reports reviewed for the survey presented somewhat uneven picture ofresearch on safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific. While we see that several countries(China, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Vietnam) have in fact been actively engaged in research16

on safeguarding measures since becoming Parties, many of the other countries suchas Bangladesh seem to be more involved in the descriptive documentation of ICH. And,
then, there is the research on policymaking that we see in Lao PDR and the Republicof Korea. Overall, there was seemingly little use of the conceptual framework of viability
in the research on safeguarding to analyze specific threats to the ICH.
Finally, apart from Australia and to some extent also India, it seems there wasno research on customary practices and there is no customary law governing the use
and access to intangible cultural heritage, which would represent another gap in the
research on safeguarding. What are the kinds of protocols and restrictions that theculture bearers themselves have on transmitting heritage? They are crucial in terms ofwhat the longer term sustainability and safeguarding of ICH into the future would be,that we wish to see more research on as well.
In terms of the final recommendation, examples of high quality research on
safeguarding could be compiled and distributed regionally, translated if necessary toillustrate research which addresses the important questions of threats and viability,community participation and the impacts of measures or skills towards transmission,
promotion, and revitalization.
The Co-Chair Ms Aikawa-Faure first invited Mr. Zakaria from Bangladesh to
reply to Ms Denes’s query. Then Mr. Zakariya clarified that there had not been muchwork on safeguarding with the exception of one UNESCO led project on Bauls andrevitalization and four workshops and that he would revise his report to bring theseissues into the text of the report as well and also to describe forthcoming activities in
the area of safeguarding in Bangladesh.
Ms Chaudhuri congratulated Ms Denes for the analysis she made out of thevarious reports which were diverse in many ways. She added that, though we have adefinition of ICH in UNESCO terminology, we do not really have a close definition ofwhat we mean by safeguarding. She agreed with Ms Denes that we all question what
research on safeguarding is all about. She also suggested that we open a scope ofsurvey by including audiovisual materials, unpublished project reports, websites, etc.,
as possible resources.
Ms Denes thanked Ms Chaudhuri and agreed with her comments. She further
said that we perhaps should enlarge the scope of research on safeguarding, by
including what may be slightly beyond the definition given in the 2003 Convention,
which might bring some new, innovative approaches.
The Co-Chair, Ms Aikawa-Faure, reminded the participants of the mandate of
IRCI which is first to promote the Convention, its main function is to instigate andcoordinate the research onto the methodology and practice of the safeguarding of ICH.
17

She agreed with Ms Denes that, although the impact of the inscription was important,
we should not limit ourselves to research on inscribed ICH but that we should beconcerned with non-inscribed ICH as well.
Ms Hanhee Hahn of ROK talked about the question of boundaries of“communities”, the government thinking of the nation as a community in the cases ofArirang and Kimuchi, for example, anthropologists considering communities as
traditional villages, and the bearers of ICH regarding the group of practitioners and theirfollowers as their communities. Ms Denes responded to her by saying that research on
safeguarding should reveal this complexity as opposed to try to somehow simplify andcome up with a more streamlined definition of community that works across the borderand that there is no way around the complexity and the different levels ofcontextualization and what community is.
Ms Aikawa-Faure explained that precisely because of this complexity, there
exists no definition of “community”, neither in the Convention nor in the Operational
Directives. She referred to the case of Mongolia where rural population is nomads withno villages. She also revealed that there was a discussion on the glossary of theconvention but that all the governmental experts decided purposely not to include it into
the Convention, because each culture has a different manner of defining certain terms,
particularly the word “community”.
Ms Aiptaeva of Kyrgyzstan reacted to Ms Denes’ analysis in reference to the
Kyrgyz report. She said she and her colleague Ms Kurbanova tried to differentiate
research on ICH and that on safeguarding which was challenging.
With the question as to community involved in the research or not, andparticipatory character or not, they selected 49 research papers included in the survey.
She continued that a community itself could be a point of research on safeguarding,and raised a question how, in different societies, we see a community which is
responsible for safeguarding an ICH element.
She finally referred to customary law, customary practice, taking a taboo as
example. She said there was a lot of research on taboos themselves about theircharacters, about their functions, about their cultural dynamics but that there was noresearch which would bring focus on the safeguarding measures of this taboo. She
added also that reports of many sorts could be used as source of information but
research should have something more than reports.
Ms Janet Blake reminded the participants of the Art 2 paragraph 3 of the 2003
Convention which says that safeguarding means measures aimed at ensuring theviability of the intangible cultural heritage. She emphasized that we should all ask thequestion what viability with regard to ICH is? And comes the next question what the18

measures are that have both purpose and end result of ensuring the viability. We
should therefore not limit ourselves to the measures mentioned in the text of theConvention. She also pointed out that most research that addresses the question ofsafeguarding measures aiming at ensuring viability may probably be happening in
disciplines outside your own, such as development, or environment, hence theimportance of interdisciplinarity.
Ms Denes echoed the interdisciplinary approach referring to the research on
ethnic Karen and their assertion of their cultural rights without however drawing upon
the language of the UNESCO Convention, and raised a question whether the future
surveys within the IRCI project could include such research. She also agreed with Ms
Aiptaeva’s pointing out of the importance of raising guiding questions in terms of what
we are looking at on this research on safeguarding.
Mr. Arata, Director-General of IRCI, responded to the question affirming that if
researchers consider such approach would bring wider and perhaps profound insight
into research on safeguarding of ICH, IRCI would go along as it would enhance thequality of research on the subject and through which we could contribute to UNESCO.
Mr. Tomiyuki Uesugi, Professor, Anthropologist, Seijo University, Japan,
raised the issue of research conducted by local people, local researchers, and urgedthat they be included in the scope of our research and survey. Ms Denes responded tothe subject he raised, saying that there are many local historians or community leaders
who are very committed to documenting the local practices or oral histories andnarratives which are very rich and diverse literature. As anthropologist herself, she said
that she mined such resources, however questioned how to include such resources inthe survey mandated by IRCI and doubted that it might require tremendous human andfinancial resources as well as time. She agreed with him that they are potentially veryrich at the same time complex endeavor to include them.
Mr. Parmoun Yadollah, Director, Regional Research Centre in Teheran,suggested that IRCI come up with some sort of guidelines and checklist to check which
type of information they should search for.
Ms Denes agreed that there should be guidelines on questions, different fromthe current ones provided by IRCI, more specifically breaking down what is meant bysafeguarding.
Ms. Thi Hien Nguyen, clarified that, in Viet Nam, there are not only researchon safeguarding measures but also those on policymaking and on documentation like
ROK or China. She introduced her view on viability of ICH in Viet Nam saying thatmany ICH elements in Viet Nam live a healthy life, with viability, in which case we neednot try to involve in safeguarding which may not be relevant to them.
19

The Co-Chair, Ms Aikawa-Faure suggested to the participants that if wepublish this report, we make it clear that this country survey is focused on thesafeguarding, that country survey is treating survey on ICH in general and so forth. She
said that we need some disclaimer on top of each paper.
Ms Shubha Chaudhuri thought that we all need to include a methodology
section which would include our thinking about how we approached it conceptually.
Ms Elizabeth Edwards of Fiji contributed her experience in Fiji where theHeritage Department and Culture Department already has a database on the natives,on the indigenous people, what they have – whether it’s the gifts in their communities,
it’s already there. She went on that all we have to do is go in and ask for access andthat they are more than willing to give it to us as researchers which she had done on
her side. And it worked well without requiring 10 years.
Ms Denes asked whether one could find in those databases in Fiji locally
produced materials on heritage. Ms Edwards responded positively but that it was noton safeguarding but general information on a certain village, what they do if they are
mat weavers, another village if they are fire walkers, another village if they are mat ormasi makers, everything is documented.
Ms Aikawa-Faure informed the participants that, to read more in detail, one
could open the UNESCO website, Intangible Heritage List and 2016 cycle 5, where
there is a nomination from Fiji on best practice of cultural mapping. One can see morein detail about this project.
2.3 Discussion on IRCI Mapping Survey Project

Mr. Shigeaki Kodama, Associate Fellow, IRCI, introduced the 2016 programme
activities of the IRCI Mapping Project which comprise (1) an International Conferenceof Researchers on Safeguarding of ICH scheduled to be held in Sakai (Japan), (2) thecontinuation of the Survey on 10 more countries of the region, and (3) the updating of
the Database.
Based on the draft guidelines presented, there were many questions,clarifications and suggestions regarding these, and a version incorporating suggested
adjustments was to be finalized by IRCI.
Mr. Arata, on behalf of IRCI, clarified the position of IRCI, in particular,
budgetary aspects and whether the update of the surveys conducted in 2015 could beenvisaged in 2016. In summary, he clarified as follows:i)

IRCI will not try to produce an additional layer to the research on ICH, and will
stick to, and limit the scope to research on safeguarding of ICH corresponding
to IRCI’s mandate.
20

ii)

Within the budget ceiling for the Fiscal Year 2016 activities already endorsed by
the Governing Board, the IRCI secretariat will see whether we could find room
for accommodating updating work in 2016 of some of the surveys conducted in2015, if the participants decide to recommend it to IRCI.
The two Co-Chairs suggested, with the consent of the participants, that themeeting take the findings and recommendations of the analytical summary report as
our conclusion. The IRCI secretariat took the tasks to communicate with the Co-Chairs
and Ms Alexandra Denes to determine the concrete wording of the conclusion. The
conclusion thus agreed upon is the following:
2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

The meeting reviewed the country surveys conducted and the analytical report on
them. The meeting found the following characteristics:
The country surveys presented somewhat uneven picture of research on
safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific. While we see that several countries (China,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Vietnam) have in fact been actively engaged in research on
safeguarding measure since becoming Parties to the Convention, many of the othercountries such as Bangladesh seem to be more involved in the descriptive
documentation of ICH. And, then, there is the research on policymaking that we see in
Lao PDR and the Republic of Korea. Overall, there was little use of the conceptual
framework of viability in the research on safeguarding to analyze specific threats to the
ICH.
Apart from Australia, and to some extent also India, it seems there was noresearch on customary practices and there is no customary law governing the use andaccess to intangible cultural heritage, which would represent another gap in the
research on safeguarding. What are the kinds of protocols and restrictions that theculture bearers themselves have on transmitting heritage? They are crucial in terms ofwhat the longer term sustainability and safeguarding of ICH into the future would be, on
which we wish to see more research.
The participants of the meeting agreed the following as their recommendations,
1. Examples of high quality research on safeguarding may be compiled anddistributed regionally, translated if necessary, to illustrate research which addresses
the important questions of threats and viability, community participation and theimpacts of measures or skills towards transmission, promotion, and revitalization.
2. The draft guidelines for the survey to be conducted in 2016 should be adjusted
reflecting the comments and suggestions made by the participants during the21

meeting discussion, which are summarized as follows:
・The survey guidance should be given on:i) The definition of the term Safeguarding sticking, at this initial stage, to the 2003
Convention on Safeguarding of ICH, without enlarging it, in order to ensure that those
conducting surveys will share a common ground.
ii) Targeted materials for the survey: published research materials in books andperiodicals and unpublished research materials: thesis, project reports, audiovisualmaterials,iii) Survey on the research focused on:・ Analysis on the threat and viability taking into account the environmental
evolution and sustainable development,
・ Community participation in the designing, implementing andevaluation/monitoring of the safeguarding measures,
・ Customary laws governing the use and access to ICH as safeguarding
measures,・ Impact of the safeguarding measures implemented on the ICH elementsiv) Survey should include the status of ICH in the country concerned (i.e. signatory
status, trainings, forums, level of public awareness)
3. IRCI may study the possibility to accommodate activities in its Fiscal Year 2016activities to allow the update and completion of some of the surveys
conducted in 2015.

22

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐Pacific Region (IRCI)“Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia‐Pacific Region”

Annex 1
Regional Survey Summary Report—Asia‐Pacific
Dr. Alexandra Denes, Chiang Mai University
alexdenes@gmail.com

Project Background, Scope and Objectives
As of 2015, a total of 33 out of 50 states in the Asia‐Pacific region (Group IV) have
ratified the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage, hereafter referred to as the ICH Convention.
Table 1. Asia‐Pacific States Parties to the ICH Convention (2015)*
Member States
1. Afghanistan
2. Bangladesh
3. Bhutan
4. Brunei Darussalam
5. Cambodia
6. China
7. Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea
8. Fiji
9. India
10. Indonesia
11. Iran
12. Japan
13. Kazakhstan
14. Kyrgyzstan
15. Lao People’s Democratic
Republic
16. Malaysia

Elements
Listed
‐
2
1
‐
2
38
1
‐
11
7
10
22
2
5
‐
1

Member States

Elements Listed

22. Nepal
23. Pakistan
24. Palau
25. Papua New Guinea
26. Philippines
27. Republic of Korea
28. Samoa

‐
1
‐
‐
2
17

29. Sri Lanka
30. Tonga
31. Turkmenistan
32. Vanuatu
33. Vietnam

‐
1
‐
1
9

Total Signatory States
Parties
Total Listed Elements(RL and USL)

33
145

17. Marshall Islands‐
18. Micronesia‐
19. Mongolia
12
20. Myanmar‐
21. Nauru‐*data adapted from UNESCO website http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/

In spite of the rapid ratification of the ICH Convention in the Asia‐Pacific region overthe past decade and enthusiasm for nomination to the Representative (RL) and
Urgent Safeguarding (USL) lists, little is known about the ICH safeguarding initiatives
that have been implemented in response to ratification. In order to fill this gap in our
understanding of the Convention’s impact on safeguarding activities, theInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐PacificRegion (IRCI) launched the “Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the23International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐Pacific Region (IRCI)“Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia‐Pacific Region”

Asia‐Pacific Region.” The aim of the survey is to compile available research on thesafeguarding of ICH, and then to analyze these findings in terms of researchmethodologies and ICH genres, in order to identify further research needs.
The guiding questions provided by the IRCI for this regional survey report were as
follows:
1. What is the strength or weakness of the current research activities?
2. What kind of ICH genres/methodological approaches are predominant inavailable researches?
3. What kind of ICH genres/methodological approaches are not wellresearched yet?
4. What kind of methodologies or approaches have to be strengthened?
Since it was not feasible to undertake the survey in all 33 States Parties in the Asia
Pacific region, the current summary report reflects findings from 11 states asfollows: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China (including Inner Mongolia), India, Kazakhstan,
Republic of Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. This regional survey also includes findings from two non‐States Parties: Australia and Thailand, thus offering comparative insights from twocountries that have yet to ratify the ICH Convention.
All the researchers were instructed to survey the publications on ICH safeguarding,including books, articles, reports, conference papers and doctoral theses. The
guidelines given to researchers also explicitly stated that the country surveys should
focus on research on “safeguarding of ICH,” not research on the ICH itself.
Nevertheless, in practice, this distinction proved difficult to maintain for a number ofreasons. First, in most countries surveyed, there was little or no research focusedsolely on safeguarding ICH. Rather, to learn about safeguarding initiatives, it wasnecessary for the country researchers to look at existing research about ICH, to see
whether safeguarding issues of identification, documentation, transmission,
revitalization, and promotion had been included.
A second reason why this distinction between research on safeguarding of ICH vs.
ICH itself was difficult to maintain was because much of the research on ICH that wasreviewed and included actually pre‐dated the ICH Convention. In other words, mostof the country surveys included publications written about cultural practices before
that member state had become signatory to the ICH Convention. This means thatmany of the country surveys do not assess the impact of the ICH Convention on ICH
safeguarding activities per se, but rather also include more descriptive studies ofcultural practices long considered to be part of national cultural heritage.
These points regarding determining the scope of research on ICH were also raised by
the India report, which noted that the state’s concern with traditional culture began
in the post‐Independence period, when India began to construct a national identityin part through the work of arts and cultural institutions. Decades of research anddocumentation of traditional culture and “folklore” have generated a vast literature
24

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐Pacific Region (IRCI)“Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia‐Pacific Region”

on cultural heritage, including performing arts, oral literature, traditional knowledge
and crafts, and yet, as the author notes, these studies pre‐date the convention andthus can not be considered to assess the impact of the 2003 ICH Convention.
In spite of these ambiguities regarding the scope of the survey, the country surveys
offer valuable insights in terms of the different country‐level understandings (ormisunderstandings) of the definition of safeguarding intangible culture and theobjectives of the ICH Convention. Many of the country reports also provided
important contextual background about state policies and the levels of institutional
support for the operationalization of the ICH Convention.
1. Strengths and Weaknesses of Current Research on Safeguarding ICH
In terms of the strengths of current research on safeguarding ICH, several country
reports clearly indicated that the ratification of the ICH Convention has prompted
much‐needed reconceptualizations and reforms of the policies and approaches tocultural heritage management. For example, in the Republic of Korea, it was foundthat a high percentage of the research on safeguarding ICH focused on policy issues,
followed by transmission and promotion. The author explained that this emphasis on
policy was due to the fact that the new definitions of living cultural heritage found in
the ICH Convention are in conflict with the 1962 Cultural Properties Protection Law.
While the 1962 Law established criteria (originality, excellence and superiority) for
the selection of intangible heritage worthy of state‐supported preservation, the ICH
Convention rejects such aesthetic criteria and focuses instead on the value of thecultural practices to the identity of the community. Research has emphasized theneed for new, bottom‐up approaches to safeguarding which prioritize the values andmeanings of ICH to the culture bearers and take advantage of new digitaltechnologies to encourage community engagement. However, this is a challenge in
Korea given the prominent role of experts and officials in the heritage sector.
A number of other country reports also identified this paradigm shift in the researchon safeguarding ICH. In China, becoming a State Party to the ICH Convention has
clearly prompted a wide array of new research and scholarship, including researchon methods for safeguarding ICH, the identification of “successors,” documentation
methods of safeguarding (filing, archiving, digitization), intellectual property rights
issues, and critical debates about the difference between ICH and “folklore.”
Similarly, In Viet Nam, signatory status has given rise to new research initiatives
supported by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism exploring methods for therevitalization, transmission and promotion of ICH, such as Ca Tru music and Xoan
singing.
India also appears to have a number of institutions—namely INTACH and Indira
Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya (IGRMS)—which are engaging with the
UNESCO 2003 Convention and unpacking the concepts of “safeguarding”. And yet, as
the author notes, the literature dealing specifically with “ICH” in UNESCO’s terms ismuch scantier than the extensive literature on culture and traditions more broadly
defined.
25

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐Pacific Region (IRCI)“Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia‐Pacific Region”

The Bangladesh report mentioned the fact that Bangladesh is already a signatory to
the ICH Convention, and has two elements inscribed on the Representative List (BaulSongs and the Traditional Art of Jamdani Weaving). The report also mentions a wide
range of safeguarding activities implemented as a result of the 2008 listing of Baulsongs, including documentation, training workshops, and academic seminars,
suggesting that the listing has had a significant impact. However, the report does not
mention how the 2013 listing has affected safeguarding research and activities
around Jamdani weaving.
While not yet a signatory to the ICH Convention, Thailand’s Office of National
Culture Commission under the Ministry of Culture has been studying the ICH
Convention and actively supporting research on ICH safeguarding since 2009. A
particular strength of the Thai research is that approximately half of the studies (17out of 33) made some effort to involve the communities of culture bearers actively
in the research process. For example, in the study entitled “Weaving and Textile
Design of the Phu Tai in Thailand,” the researchers organized focus groups not only
to identify craftspeople in the community and document traditional patterns, butalso to collectively formulate safeguarding strategies for the intergenerationaltransmission of weaving skills.
The only other country that explicitly mentioned research on community
participation in the safeguarding of ICH was Australia—another non‐signatory
country. In the latter case, research on ICH safeguarding has focused on thetangible‐intangible interface; in particular, on indigenous populations’ traditional
relationships to the land as expressed through oral traditions, ecological knowledge
and worldviews. Unlike most ICH research, which tends to compartmentalize
cultural practices according to the Conventions five “domains,” research on
indigenous ICH in the Australian context is more holistic, addressing broader
historical, ecological and political issues, particularly the linkage between ICH andland and resource rights of aboriginal communities.
Turning now to the weaknesses of the research, one of the main problems is that the
research on ICH is overly descriptive and static in its representation of ICH, andlacking contextual, critical analysis (i.e. historical change, impact of heritage policies,
issues of transmission). In the Bangladesh report, for example, research on ICH byorganizations such as the Asiatic Society and Bangla Academy appeared to be
narrowly focused on the collection and documentation of oral traditions, “folklore”
and social practices, while issues of community engagement in safeguarding were
not addressed, apart from the example of Baul songs mentioned above.
The Cambodia report indicates that while Cambodia has been active in theratification of the ICH Convention and subsequent nomination of 2 elements to theRL, overall, the country still lacks resources and capacity to undertake in‐depth
research on safeguarding. As the author notes, universities lack funds for this kind ofresearch, and private and independent research on cultural heritage tends to be
descriptive rather than analytical. Ministry of Culture staffs have been involved in26

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐Pacific Region (IRCI)“Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia‐Pacific Region”

research for the ICH inventory and for developing curricula for use in schools, but
once again, these do not delve deeply into the issues around safeguarding incollaboration with communities and stakeholders.
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan all appear to have similar issues with overly
descriptive accounts of ICH lacking broader analysis of historical change, policy andthe involvement of communities in safeguarding. While these countries have beenquite active in organizing numerous symposia and supporting research on ICH sinceratifying the ICH Convention, the authors of these reports have indicated that there
is still limited understanding of the definition of ICH and safeguarding among cultural
heritage researchers in these countries. Researchers do not delve deeply enoughinto issues of safeguarding in terms of identifying specific threats or discussing thepossible measures to be taken in collaboration with communities and otherstakeholders (local government, schools, etc.) In spite of these analyticalweaknesses, there appears to be a strong commitment to the study of ICH andsupport for its safeguarding.
The report on ICH research in Lao PDR is particularly problematic in that the author
only described the broader legal and cultural heritage policy context, but no specificresearch on ICH was discussed. Hence, it is not clear from this report whether Lao
PDR has any research on ICH or safeguarding initiatives.
In terms of an overall assessment of the weaknesses of research on ICH in the Asia‐
Pacific, it is evident from the country reports that there is not enough focus on therole of communities in all stages of the safeguarding process. In particular, theconcepts of community participation and rights of culture bearers are starkly absent,with the exception of Australia and some examples in Thailand. In this sense, much
ICH research seems to be following established norms of top‐down data collection
and archiving of heritage, rather than the new, participatory and rights‐based
approaches advocated by the ICH Convention.
Another overall weakness of the research is the lack of detailed discussion of“viability” or “threat assessments” of the ICH elements’ social function. As stated in
the UNESCO Aide‐Memoire for Completing a Nomination to List of Intangible
Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (2015), it is important to identify
and articulate the specific threats to an element’s viability, not simply to state that itis threatened by globalization, modernization or cultural change in general terms.
Most of the research discussed in the country reports referred to these general
threats, but did not explain how these forces are threatening the viability ofpractices in local contexts (i.e. if youth are no longer learning a form of ICH, what are
the specific factors contributing to this shift in terms of changing employment,
education, etc.)

2. Predominant ICH Genres and Methodological Approaches in Research27International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐Pacific Region (IRCI)“Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia‐Pacific Region”

Given the different methods of data compilation and analysis used by each of thecountry report authors, it is difficult to provide a clear overall picture of the“predominant ICH genres” in the region. Therefore, Table 2 in this section provides abrief summary on a country‐by‐country basis.
Table 2. Predominant ICH Genres and Methodological Approaches
Country
Australia

Bangladesh

Cambodia
India

China (including Inner
Mongolia)
Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan
Lao People’s
Democratic Republic
Republic of Korea

Tajikistan
Thailand
Viet Nam

Predominant ICH
Genres/Elements
Oral traditions, ecologicalknowledge and practices(knowledge and practices
concerning nature and theuniverse) of Aboriginal
populations, tangible‐intangibleinterface
Oral traditions, performing arts,and festivals, with some inclusionof traditional medicines, foodculture, ecological knowledge andhandicrafts
Performing Arts
Performing Arts, crafts, oral
traditions, traditional medicinal
knowledge
All genres, including legal andpolicy aspects
Performing arts, traditional
craftsmanship, sports, ecologicalknowledge
Oral traditions, social practices,
rituals, handicrafts, food culture
tangible‐intangible interface

Methodological Approaches
Ethnographic, participatory,
community‐based

Descriptive, historical,
academic, non‐participatory

Descriptive, historical, non‐participatory
Academic, policy‐based, someparticipatory
Descriptive, historical,
academic, non‐participatory
Descriptive, non‐participatory

Descriptive, non‐participatory
Descriptive

Performing arts, rituals, sports,
food culture, handicrafts

Ethnographic, academic, policy‐
based, participatory

Oral traditions, handicrafts,
performing arts, rituals
Oral traditions, performing arts,
handicrafts, festive events, rituals
ICH in general, performing arts,
festive events, rituals, handicrafts

Ethnographic, descriptive,
academic
Ethnographic, descriptive,
academic, some participatory
Ethnographic, descriptive, non‐participatory, visual
documentation

Perhaps a more important or relevant question to ask regarding the research on
safeguarding is what safeguarding measures were most prevalent in the research?
On this point, it is clear that most of the research was focused on documentation of
ICH, with only a few countries engaging in research on other measures, such astransmission and revitalization. In Thailand, for example, research on language
28

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐Pacific Region (IRCI)“Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia‐Pacific Region”

documentation and revitalization (Chong and Yakru) not only described theendangered languages and the communities but also provided a detailed picture of
the process of collaborating with the communities to develop and implementtransmission and revitalization activities.
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan also have research on ICH transmission through theeducational system. For instance, several studies from Uzbekistan (particularly
dissertations) analyzed the incorporation of ICH into the formal educational
curriculum, such as one entitled, “The use of national traditions and customs in
educating primary school pupils in the hard‐working spirit (1999).” In Tajikistan, astudy entitled “Craftsmen Should be Supported (2013)” examines the transmissionof knowledge of the folk crafters of the Badakhshan of Tajikistan via seminars andtrainings, while the study entitled “Socio‐cultural Factors of Safeguarding andDevelopment of Decorative‐applied Folkcraft in Tajikistan (2006),” examines thesocial and cultural factors affecting safeguarding and development of the folk crafts,
including education.
China also appears to have significant research on safeguarding measures, including
the promotion of ICH via various media, and transmission of ICH via both traditionaland non‐traditional forms. While the annotated bibliography could not be consulted,
the China country report refers to research on the use of documentary film,
television and digital media to promote ICH, as well as research on traditional
master‐apprentice relationships and transmission of ICH via formal school education.
Lastly, the Viet Nam report refers to several research studies on promotion andtransmission of ICH, looking at the role of mass media and education in raisingawareness about the safeguarding of ICH.
3. What kinds of ICH genres/methodological approaches are not well researchedyet?
Overall, from the 13 country reports, the genres of ICH that are not well researched
are: knowledge of nature and the universe, traditional medicine (with the exceptionof India), and rituals. The methodological approaches that have not yet been
employed adequately are participatory action research and in‐depth, ethnographic
research on safeguarding.
With regards to the safeguarding measures, more research should be conducted in
the areas of promotion, transmission and revitalization, looking to examples fromcountries already mentioned above.
4. What kinds of methodologies or approaches have to be strengthened?
As stated above, the methodologies which should be strengthened are participatory
and ethnographic approaches to research on safeguarding, which will involvecommunities and culture bearers more directly in the research process and in thedesign and implementation of safeguarding plans and activities. So far, the research29International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia‐Pacific Region (IRCI)“Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia‐Pacific Region”

compiled for this regional report indicates that most research on ICH and ICH
safeguarding follows the top‐down approach of “information gathering” by experts,
rather than the approach of engagement with communities to assess threats to ICH
and determine viable measures for safeguarding.
Conclusions and Recommendations
All in all, the country reports reviewed for this regional survey present a somewhat
uneven picture of research on safeguarding ICH in the Asia‐Pacific. While several
countries (China, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Viet Nam) have been actively engaged inresearch on safeguarding measures since becoming signatory to the ICH Convention,
many other countries have been more involved in descriptive documentation of ICH(i.e. Bangladesh) and research on policy‐making (Lao PDR, Republic of Korea).
Overall, research on safeguarding in the region did not use the conceptual
framework of “viability” to analyze specific threats to the ICH, and there was still
limited research on community involvement in the safeguarding process.
Finally, apart from Australia and India, there was no research on customary practices
or customary law governing the use and access to ICH, which represents another gap
in the research on safeguarding.
To conclude with a final recommendation, examples of high quality research on
safeguarding could be compiled and distributed regionally (and translated if
necessary) to illustrate research which addresses the important questions of threats
and viability, community participation, and the impacts of measures geared towards
transmission, promotion and revitalization.

30

Annex 2
Timetable of “2015 IRCI Experts Meeting on Mapping Project for ICH
Safeguarding in Asia and the Pacific”
Bishkek, 8-9 December 2015

8 DECEMBER:
Morning sessions (9:00 – 12:30)
Opening session (9:00 -9:30)- Elnura Korchueva, Secretary General, National Commission for
UNESCO of the Kyrgyz Republic, Kyrgyz Republic- Akio Arata, Director-General IRCI, Japan
Report of the surveys undertaken by each sub-region: findings,
difficulties/ obstacles encountered and challenges
East Asia (ROK) 1h (9:30- 10:30)
Presentation on ROK,
Q and ASouth-East Asia (Vietnam) 1h (10:30-11:30)
Presentation on Vietnam
Q and ASouth Asia (India and Bangladesh) 1h (11:30 – 12:30)
Presentation on India, Bangladesh
Q and A
Lunch (12:30 -13:30)
Afternoon sessions (13:30 – 17:30)
Report of the surveys undertaken by each sub-region: findings,
difficulties/ obstacles encountered and challenges (Contd.)
Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan)
1h15m (13:30- 14:45)
Presentation on Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan
Q and A

31

West Asia (Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan) 1h (14:45– 15:45)
Presentation on Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan
Q and A
Pacific Sub-Region (Fiji) 1h (15:45 – 16:45)
Presentation on Fiji
Q and A
Research Database on ICH safeguarding 45min (16:45 – 17:30)
Presentation on IRCI’s database
Q and A
9 DECEMBER
Presentation on Thailand by Alexandra Denes (Skype) (9:00 – 9:30)
Analytic summary of all of the national and sub-regional surveys –findings, difficulties and challenges (9:30 – 10:30)
Presentation by Alexandra Denes (Skype)
Comments and observations by discussants (10:30 -12:00)
Discussants: Shubha Chaudhuri, Hahm Hanhee, Gulnara Aitpaeva,
Janet Blake, Tomiyuki Uesugi
Q and A followed by discussions
Discussion on IRCI Mapping Survey Projects (12:00 - 13:30)
Presentation on IRCI Mapping Survey project in 2016 as well as adraft template for further survey.(presentation by IRCI secretariat)

LUNCH (13:30 – 14:20)

32

Annex 3“2015 IRCI Experts Meeting on Mapping Project for ICH
Safeguarding in Asia and the Pacific Countries”
8-9 December 2015, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
ChairsName
AIKAWA-FAURE,
NorikoBLAKE, Janet
Elizabeth

Title
Advisor for Intangible Cultural Heritage, Agency for Cultural Affairs,
Japan
Assistant Professor
Department of Islamic Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti
University, Iran

Participants (10)Region

Name

Title

East Asia

HAHM,
HanheeSouth-East Asia

DENES,
Alexandra(via Skype)
NGUYEN, Thi
Hien

Professor,
Department of Archaeological and Cultural
Anthropology, Chonbuk National University, Republic of
Korea
Professor
Faculty of Social Science, Chaing Mai University,
ThailandVice Director
Vietnam Institute for Cultural and Art Studies, Vietnam

South Asia

CHAUDHURI,
ShubhaAssociate Director General (Academic)
American Institute of Indian Studies, Archiveand
Research Center for Ethnomusicology, India

Central Asia

ZAKARIA,
SaymonAssistant Director
Folklore department of Bangla Academy, Bangladesh

ABDULLOEVA,
GularoHead of branchState Conservatory of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan

GULNARA,
Aitpaeva
RAHIMOV,
Dilshod

Director
Aigine Cultural Research Centre, Kyrgyz Republic
Head of the Department of Folklore,
Rudaki Institute of Language, Literature and Oriental
Studies, Republic of Tajikistan
33

West Asia

Oceania

YADOLLAH
ParmounDirector,
Regional Research Centre for Safeguarding Intangible
Cultural Heritage in West and Central Asia, Iran
Director/Producer/Editor & Coordinator, Mai TV, FijiEDWARDS,
Elizabeth
Resource Person (2)BAK, Sang-Mee
Professor(via Skype)
Division of International Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,
Republic of Korea
UESUGI, Tomiyuki
Professor, Department of Cultural History, Faculty of Arts andLiterature, Seijo University, Japan
Observers (4)AHMADISHADMEHRI, Financial Chief,
MohammadRegional Research Centre for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural
Heritage in West and Central Asia, Iran
Director, Central Asian Crafts Support Association’s Resource Center in
CHOCHUNBAEVA,
DinaraKyrgyzstan (CACSARC-kg), Kyrgyz Republic
PARK, Kijong
Chief, IT Management Section, International Information and
Networking Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in Asia-PacificRegion under the auspices of UNESCO, Republic of Korea
TAVAKOLI, Alireza
Programme specialist of promotion,
Regional Research Centre for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural
Heritage in West and Central Asia, Iran
Organiser (2)
Name
Title
ARATA, Akio
Director-General
IRCI, Japan
KODAMA,
Associate Fellow
Shigeaki
IRCI, Japan

34