Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Glocal Perspectives on Intangible
Cultural Heritage: Local Communities,
Researchers, States and UNESCO

7 -9 July 2017
Tokyo, Japan
Center for Glocal Studies (CGS), Seijo University
and International Research Centre
for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region (IRCI)Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Glocal Perspectives on Intangible
Cultural Heritage: Local Communities,
Researchers, States and UNESCO

7 -9 July 2017
Tokyo, Japan
Center for Glocal Studies (CGS), Seijo University
and International Research Centre
for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region (IRCI)Published byCenter for Glocal Studies, Seijo University (CGS)
Seijo 6-1-20, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 157-8511, Japan
E-mail: glocalstudies@seijo.ac.jp
website: http://www.seijo.ac.jp/research/glocal-center/and International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region (IRCI)
c/o Sakai City Museum, 2 Cho Mozusekiun-cho,
Sakai-ku, Sakai City, Osaka 590-0802 Japan
E-mail: irci@irci.jp
website: http://www.irci.jp© Center for Glocal Studies, Seijo University (CGS)© International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region (IRCI)
Published on 30 November, 2017

Contents
Foreword
Wataru IWAMOTO and Tomiyuki UESUGI ………………………………………………………ⅳ
Welcome Remarks
Junichi TOBE …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Opening Remarks
1 .Tomiyuki UESUGI……………………………………………………………………………… 4

2 .Wataru IWAMOTO………………………………………………………………………………… 6
3 .Tim CURTIS ……………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Keynote Speeches
1 . The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and Its Glocal
PerspectivesKoïchiro MATSUURA ……………………………………………………………………………15
2 . Toward Incorporating Local People´s Creativity in a New World Culture
Lourdes ARIZPE …………………………………………………………………………………20
Presented Papers
Session 1: How do local communities, local oﬃcials, researchers and government oﬃcials collaborate
for the implementation of the UNESCO’s ICH Convention by inventory making,safeguarding, nomination and inscription?
1 .How to Find Shared Values and Consensus in ICH Communities: the Case of Multi-national
Inscription of Tugging Rituals and Games
Hanhee HAHM ……………………………………………………………………………………29
2 . The Government Management and the Role of Communities in the Safeguarding, Inventory andNomination of ICH: The Case Study of Vietnam
Thi Hien NGUYEN ………………………………………………………………………………37
3 . The Current State and Future of the Safeguarding of Cultural Properties in Japan: Focusing on
Intangible Folk Cultural Properties
Minoru KOBAYASHI ………………………………………………………………………………50i

4 . A Voice from the Heritage Community of Yeongsan in Korea
Young Joon HA ……………………………………………………………………………………53
Session 2: What has been the transformative impact of the Convention, notably how have communities
assessed its impact?
5 . Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Community Involvement in India: An individual
View from the Field
Shubha CHAUDHURI ……………………………………………………………………………59
6 . The Campaign of Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding in China: Signiﬁcance and Challenge
Deming AN ………………………………………………………………………………………71
7 . Would Inscription on UNESCO’s List of Intangible Cultural Heritage Contribute to the
Sustainability of Intangible Cultural Heritage?: Cases of “Mibu no Hana Taue” and “Ojiya-chijimi,
Echigo-jofu”
Tomo ISHIMURA …………………………………………………………………………………80
8 . Impacts of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on the
Preservation and Transmission of “Yama, Hoko, Yatai, Float Festivals” in Japan: Featuring Hitachi
Furyumono
Hiroyuki SHIMIZU ………………………………………………………………………………87
Session 3: What is the role of researchers as “cultural brokers” in assessing the impact of theimplementation of the Convention?
9 . Brokering Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand: Lessons Learned from a Nomination Process
Alexandra DENES ………………………………………………………………………………97
10. Considering the Role of Researchers at Local Governments (as “Cultural Brokers”) in JapaneseCases of ICH
Satoru HYOKI ………………………………………………………………………………… 109
11. From a Local Festival to the Hikiyama Festival in Nagahama: the Road towards a World Festival
Seiichi NAKAJIMA …………………………………………………………………………… 117ii

Session 4: What are the possible feedback mechanisms for local communities to communicate to
UNESCO the impact of the Convention on them?
12. Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation in the
Implementation of the 2003 Convention at the International Level
Janet Elizabeth BLAKE………………………………………………………………………… 123
13. Community Participation in Folk Festivals for Protecting Intangible Cultural Heritage and theRole of NGOs as Facilitators of Feedback
V. JAYARAJAN ………………………………………………………………………………… 146
14. Preservation of Ha Kites Techniques by the Government
Yiqi HA ………………………………………………………………………………………… 150
Session 5: New initiative to encourage IRCI’s ICH researchers’ network.
15. New Initiative to Encourage IRCI’s ICH Researchers’ Network
Shigeaki KODAMA …………………………………………………………………………… 155
Comments 1.
Hanhee HAHM ………………………………………………………………………………… 160
Comments 2.
Alexandra DENES …………………………………………………………………………… 161
Comments 3.
Thi Hien NGUYEN …………………………………………………………………………… 163
Closing Remarks
Wataru IWAMOTO …………………………………………………………………………… 169

ANNEXESⅠ . Programme of the Symposium ……………………………………………………………… 173
Ⅱ . List of Participants …………………………………………………………………………… 176iii

Foreword
Since United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in2003 adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritageand its subsequent commencement in 2006, more than 170 countries have become
States Parties to the Convention, and about 430 intangible heritage elements have been
inscribed on the Urgent Safeguarding List, the Representative List and the Register ofGood Safeguarding Practices. Therefore, we can assume that the spirit and the concept
embedded in the Convention have been accepted globally as the basic principles for
safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (ICH). In the process of implementing theConvention, stakeholders involved in this endeavour and their interactions are diverse
not only at the global level but also at the local and national levels.
In order to grasp this diversiﬁed interaction, the Center for Glocal Studies of the Seijo
University (CGS) and the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia-Pacific Region under the auspices of UNESCO (IRCI) jointly hosted aninternational symposium on Glocal Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage: Local
Communities, Researchers, States and UNESCO, on July 7-9, 2017, at Seijo University,
Tokyo, Japan.
The CGS has been striving to examine the socio-cultural dynamics in various settingsfrom not only a global perspective but also local perspective, that is, from a glocal one.
A decade after the UNESCO Convention commenced, the CGS attempts to observe andexamine the realities and consequent issues relating to the Convention from a glocal
perspective.
The other co-organiser of the Symposium, the IRCI under the National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage, Japan was established as the Category 2 Centre under the auspicesof UNESCO in 2011. Since its establishment, the IRCI has been promoting andcontributing to the implementation of the UNESCO Convention. The IRCI instigates andcoordinates research into practices and methodologies for ICH safeguarding, cooperatingwith researchers and local community members internationally.
These two organisations held this Symposium with the aim of overviewing andiv

analysing how intangible cultural heritage have been safeguarded. It also aimed to
examine, from local as well as global perspectives, how local communities, researchers,
states and UNESCO had been interacting in the process of safeguarding such heritage
in the Asia-Pacific region. The invited participants coming from ten countries and
UNESCO, together with general participants held discussions for two days. During twodays fifteen papers were presented in five sessions and discussions were held on the
topics. We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the participants.
The report of this symposium will be published by the CGS in near future, while thisproceedings aims to share the outcomes promptly and widely to those who did notparticipate in the Symposium. Therefore all the papers included in this publication are
kept an original state, with minimum edit by IRCI.
To conclude, we would like to acknowledge funding for our symposium from twobodies; the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs, and the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
November 2017

Wataru IWAMOTO

Tomiyuki UESUGIDirector-General

Director/Professor

International ResearchCenter for Glocal Studies

Centre for Intangible(CGS),

Cultural Heritage in

Seijo University

the Asia-Paciﬁc Region(IRCI)

v

WELCOME REMARKSAND OPENING REMARKS3

Welcome Remarks
Junichi TOBE
President
Seijo University

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Junichi Tobe, president of Seijo University.
I am delighted and honored to open this international symposium entitled “Glocal
Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage”, which will be held here at Seijo
University for next three days. I am also very pleased to welcome you all here. My
special gratitude goes to the researchers and presenters who have gathered for thisoccasion from both within Japan and abroad.
Seijo University is hosting this international symposium because our Glocal Studies
Center, led by Professor Tomiyuki Uesugi, has established itself within the last decade asa mecca for serious and exciting research on glocal issues. I hope that this international
symposium will not only expand the horizons of our Glocal Studies Center but also
contribute to further conversation and research on intangible cultural heritage from a theviewpoint of glocalization.
The global and the local often appear to be in opposition. And when they meet, theyoften clash. However, in many cases, it is the global that changes and adapts to the local.
Conversely, the dramatic advances in information technology have made us feel theworld smaller and this has opened up opportunities for the local to go global overnight.
Today, amid the trend towards the globalization of international society, how can we
maintain that which is extremely local and rooted in the community? Or how can we
globalize and sustain it? I look forward to all the intriguing presentation and trust thatthe discussions that follow will be lively and fruitful.
Thank you.

4

Opening Remarks
Tomiyuki UESUGIDirector/Professor
Center for Glocal Studies (CGS), Seijo University

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
As the director of one of the host institutes of this symposium, the Center for Glocal
Studies, Seijo University, I would like to extend our sincere welcome and thanks to you
all and, particularly, to the distinguished presenters and chairs who came here from theAsia-Paciﬁc regions and the UNESCO.
It is a great pleasure for the Center for Glocal Studies to hold the symposium today
entitled Glocal Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage: Local Communities,
Researchers, States and UNESCO here at Seijo University.
Our Center for Glocal Studies (CGS) was founded almost ten years ago in October
2008 at Seijo University in order to conduct and promote “glocal studies,” which thecenter has formulated as the examination of socio-cultural dynamics in various settings,
not only from a global perspective but also from a local perspective, i.e. from a glocal
perspective. Drawing on the framework of glocal studies, the CGS has been striving toshed light on hitherto not-fully-examined socio-cultural dynamics within myriad contact
zones between the global and the local, the center and the periphery, and the external andthe internal of various contexts.
Meanwhile, since the adoption of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage by the UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization) in 2003 and its subsequent eﬀectuation in 2006, the convention
has been globally adopted and considered as the basic principles for safeguarding
intangible cultural heritage. As of the end of 2016, more than 160 countries have become
members of the convention and about 340 heritage elements have been inscribed on the
Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Needless to say,in the process of adoption and practice of the convention in each case of inscription,
various kinds of persons, parties, and institutions are involved, not only at the global

Opening Remarks

level but also at the local and national level.
The research interests of our Center for Glocal Studies, combined with the particularinterests of our co-sponsors of the symposium, the International Research Centre
for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI) and the Agency
for Cultural Affairs, the Government of Japan, have brought about the plan to holda symposium examining the socio-cultural dynamics pertaining to the UNESCO
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage from glocal
perspectives. Now, we are starting the symposium.
By the way, before holding the symposium today, the CGS also held two preliminary
or complementary symposia: One entitled Glocal Perspectives on Intangible Cultural
Heritage: Local Communities, Researchers, States and UNESCO, with the Special
Focus on Global and National Perspectives was held on February 18, 2017, and theother entitled The Roles of ICH Practitioners and/or Local Administrators as Cultural
Brokers was held on May 13, 2017. As the themes, topics and focuses of those symposia
were obviously relevant but something diﬀerent; it is diﬃcult to give an over-archingdescription of those symposia in a few words. But, as the organizer and sponsor of
those complementary symposia, I would like to highlight one point: Almost all of
the participants of the symposia emphasized the importance, the need as well as thediﬃculty of having the participation of the ICH practicing and/or relevant communities,groups and individuals (CGIs) in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. Hence, thespecial focus of the symposium today has been put on the CGIs’ and local perspectives.
While the focus of the former symposia was put on the global and national level,that of the symposium today will be on the local and national level. Through thesecomplementary symposia, I am sure we will promote better understanding as to theinteractions between local communities, researchers, states and UNESCO regarding
safeguarding of intangible cultural heritages.
By the end of the symposium, hopefully, we will be able to provide feedback from “thelocal” to “the global” in terms of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage.
Once again, I thank you all for attending the symposium today and hope this opportunity
will spur more fruitful discussions and collaborations in the future.

56Opening Remarks
Wataru IWAMOTO
Director-General
International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region(IRCI)Mr Koïchiro Matuura, Former Director-General of UNESCO,Mr Tim Curtis, Representative of UNESCO,
Professor Junichi Tobe, President of Seijo University,
Professor Tomiyuki Uesugi, Director of the Center for Glocal Studies, Seijo University,
Ms Yasue Hamada and Mr Minoru Kobayashi from the Japanese Agency for CulturalAﬀairs,Dear Chairpersons, Dear participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my great honour and pleasure to say a few words on behalf of the International
Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region (IRCI) andat ﬁrst I would like to express my hearty welcome with great gratitude to all of you whoparticipate in the Symposium ‘Glocal Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage.’ My
name is Wataru Iwamoto, Director-General of IRCI.
As you know, IRCI was established under the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage,
Japan on 1 October 2011 as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO based
upon the Agreement between the Government of Japan and UNESCO. Since then,
IRCI has been promoting and contributing to the implementation of the UNESCO 2003
Convention. IRCI instigates and coordinates research into practices and methodologies
for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage in the Asia-Pacific region,cooperating with researchers and local community members internationally. Thus, it is
our tremendous honour and pleasure to coorganise this symposium with the Center for
Glocal Studies (CGS), Seijo University which has long academic history of 100 years,
with the participation of UNESCO representative, outstanding experts and Governmental
oﬃcial, and community members from the Asia-Paciﬁc region. Our Centre has a purposeof promoting research in the region, but it is needless to say that we also target Japanese
researchers. In this sense the cooperation with Japanese research institutions is essential.

Opening Remarks

In fact this is the ﬁrst symposium for our Centre to coorganize with the university in ourcountry. I would like to express my sincere gratitude again to Professor Uesugi, Directorof CGS and Ms Aikawa who has facilitated our cooperation. I would like to take thisopportunity to mention the name of Professor Michael D. Foster here present, whose
instructive book entitled “ UNESCO on the ground” marked also the start of our joint
venture.
As already explained by Professor Uesugi, the UNESCO 2003 Convention becomes
more and more important and its importance has been widely recognized We can assume
that the spirit and the concept embedded in the Convention have been accepted globallyas the basic principles for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. In the processof implementing this convention, stakeholders involved in this endeavour and theirinteractions are diverse not only at the global level but also at the local and national
levels. In this context, this symposium aims to overview and analyse how ICH has beensafeguarded. It also aims to examine, from local as well as global perspectives, howlocal communities, researchers, states and UNESCO have been interacting in the processof safeguarding such heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc region.
As you know, the international legal instruments like convention bind the States throughratification and at the same time the State affects through national legislation various
stakeholders in its territory. The viewpoint of “glocal” is of great interest especially incase of the UNESCO 2003 Convention which emphasises the communities, while weshould recognise that the government is a composite entity in a sense and a community is
not monolithic. And this reminds me of the deﬁnition of governance given by Professor
Mark Bevir, University of California, Berkeley, that is ‘the process and interactions
through which highly diverse social interests and actors produce the policies and eﬀects
of governing.’
I sincerely hope, as Director-General of IRCI, your active involvement and participationin the discussions for two-day symposium will bring this symposium success andcontribute to the promotion of the research on the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage.
Thank you for your attention.

7

8

Opening Remarks
Tim CURTIS
Secretary of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,
Chief of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, UNESCOYour Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am delighted to be joining you all here today for this international symposium on ‘Glocal
Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage: Local Communities, Researchers, States
and UNESCO’. Allow me to oﬀer my warmest greetings to everyone taking part in thisevent. This is an excellent platform to discuss how ICH has been safeguarded throughthe implementation of the 2003 Convention in the past 11 years, and to examine theinteractions between the various stakeholders engaged in safeguarding ICH in the AsiaPaciﬁc Region.
I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to the Centre for Glocal Studies of Seijo
University and the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia-Paciﬁc Region for making this event possible. Thanks to their initiative and hard
work, we are able to come together to discuss and share experiences in what promises tobe a highly enriching deliberation.
I am also delighted to have the opportunity to rediscover the wonderful city of Tokyo,
and the rich diversity of cultural heritage Japan is home to. Ten years ago, Tokyo
hosted the second session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguardingof the Intangible Cultural Heritage. On that occasion, the Committee made a numberof landmark decisions for the operational implementation of the Convention andthe drafting of the Operational Directives. These concerned not only the criteria forinscription on the Lists, but also the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices, the use of
the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund, as well as the modalities for accrediting NGOs toprovide advisory services to the Committee.
It was also an important chance for the Committee to highlight the crucial rolecommunities, groups and individuals play in safeguarding ICH. This has always been

Opening Remarks

and remains at the very heart of the Convention. In that same spirit of cooperation, theCommittee also underscored the importance of the participation of experts and centresof expertise and research in such eﬀorts. This symposium oﬀers a welcome opportunity
to continue to reﬂect on these questions, to explore and take stock of the various ways
in which local communities, researchers, States and the Secretariat can work together
towards common goals.
A great deal has been achieved since the Convention entered into force. Since its
inception, the Convention has been ratiﬁed by no fewer than 174 States Parties, which
is a clear testimony to the wide interest of Members States around the world. It has
had a transformative eﬀect on how ICH is perceived around the world, broadening its
understanding among States, communities and research circles alike, and it continues toreinforce the viability of ICH and support the communities that practise it.
I would like to draw your attention to an important recent milestone, which is of
relevance to our symposium. Last month, an open-ended intergovernmental working
group on developing an overall results framework for the 2003 Convention wasconvened in Chengdu, China. During the meeting, a set of indicators and assessment
factors were identiﬁed for eﬀectively measuring the outputs, outcomes and impact of theConvention. The collaboration between communities, researchers and States will be key
for many of these indicators, and international networking among communities, groups,
individuals, NGOs, experts and research institutes is paramount.
However, this overall results framework is only one way of assessing the impact of
the Convention. Eleven years into its implementation, time has come to ask ourselves
whether the Convention is actually fulﬁlling its objectives. We need to ask ourselves theright questions, including:- Has the Convention actually contributed to safeguarding living heritage?
- Has it increased respect for and awareness of ICH?
- Has international cooperation improved in the ﬁeld of ICH through the Convention?
- Have communities actually beneﬁtted from its implementation?
- Has the Convention transformed the way ICH is perceived, transmitted andpractised? And if so, in which way? Has the social and cultural meaning of practices
been aﬀected?

910Opening Remarks- Has the listing system achieved its purpose?
This is an opportunity to explore what the Convention has done but also what it has
not done, a chance to reflect on what the future of the Convention could and shouldbe. In this broader context, this international symposium on ‘Glocal Perspectives on
Intangible Cultural Heritage: Local Communities, Researchers, States and UNESCO’ isan excellent platform to share experiences and reﬂect on the success stories but also thechallenges and lessons learnt from this ﬁrst decade of implementation.
But for this, we need to hear about ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’. We need feedback,not only from all of those who are professionally involved in the safeguarding of ICH,
but also from stakeholders whose activities impact the viability of living traditions.
As part of the eﬀorts to promote a diversity of perspectives in the ongoing monitoring
and reporting of expected results, States Parties are strongly encouraged to involvecommunities, groups or individuals when preparing periodic reports on specificelements. Following a decision taken during the tenth session of the Committee, they
are also urged to engage in multi-stakeholder consultations and to continue to include
information provided by relevant NGOs and centres of expertise. Section III.1 of
the Operational Directives further stresses the importance of encouraging experts toparticipate in a wide range of activities, including identifying and deﬁning ICH, drawing
up inventories, and safeguarding and awareness-raising activities.
It is therefore essential that States Parties remain committed working closely with
communities, cultural brokers, mediators and researchers: implementing the Convention
has always been and must remain an intrinsically collaborative eﬀort.
As part of this endeavour, Category 2 Centres are key partners with a very importantrole to play. With its mandate to instigate and develop research into practices andmethodologies of safeguarding endangered ICH in the Asia-Pacific region, in
cooperation with universities, research institutions, community and other governmental
and non-governmental organizations, IRCI’s important work is perfectly in tune with theobjectives and collaborative spirit of the Convention. Allow me to take this opportunity
to encourage IRCI to continue and further reinforce its collaboration with universities,
research institutions and centres of expertise in Japan and elsewhere in the Asia-Paciﬁc

Opening Remarks

region. It is indeed the expectation of the Secretariat of the Convention that IRCI
becomes a research hub on ICH safeguarding in the region. To this end, IRCI’s initiative
to establish a Researcher’s Network in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region is an important step and I
wish to extend my sincere wishes for its success.
Ladies and gentlemen, I look forward to our fruitful and lively discussions and wish you
all the best for our debates over the coming three days.
Thank you.

11

KEYNOTE SPEECHES

15

Keynote Speech
The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage and Its Glocal PerspectivesKoïchiro MATSUURA
Former Director-General, UNESCO

I am very happy to have this opportunity to say a few words about the 2003 Convention,
which is still very dear to me as it took a great deal of work to present the idea as a
UNESCO oﬃcial.
First of all, I would like to thank the two organisers of this symposium, Seijo University
and the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc
Region. I am really happy to see many participants from both home and abroad. Thissuggests that more people are becoming aware of the importance of intangible cultural
heritage. This was not the case when I decided to propose the new programme back in
1999.
In 1998, I had the chance to be the Chair at the meeting of the World Heritage
Committee held in Kyoto, and throughout 1999, I became involved in the Convention
as the President of the Committee. As a result, I learned so much about the merits
and demerits of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural andNatural Heritage in 1972. One of the major demerits of this Convention was that it did
not include intangible heritage as much. I therefore decided to promote awareness ofintangible cultural heritage in my campaign and drafted a manifesto to suggest that
UNESCO must establish a new international system for its safeguarding and promotion.
I was honoured to be present at the UNESCO General Conference held in the autumn of1999, where the decision on the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible
Heritage of Humanity was adopted. Nevertheless, at that time, it was still a very small
step towards safeguarding intangible heritage at the international level. Therefore, I
repeat that I openly promised in my campaign that once elected, I would work towards
establishing a new mechanism for safeguarding as well as promoting intangible cultural

16

The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and Its Glocal Perspectives

heritage. After a complicated process that lasted four years, as many of you alreadyknow, the UNESCO General Conference in 2003 ﬁnally adopted the Convention.
Ms Noriko Aikawa-Faure, who is present here at this symposium, worked for many
years in the Secretariat of UNESCO and offered her tremendous and invaluable help
in putting my promise into effect. Ms Lourdes Arizpe, who will later deliver a video
message for us, is also one of other experts who worked tirelessly to achieve the goal.
Still, we faced a lot of opposition, largely from some major Western countries, who
believed that the only cultural heritage to be protected was what is covered by theConvention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
and that no other convention is necessary or required. They further insisted that if wewere to protect and safeguard the world’s intangible heritage, it should be done within
the context of the 1972 Convention. At the UNESCO General Conference in 2001, I
encountered strong opposition when I sought authorisation from the authorities of themember states for preparing a preliminary draft for the new convention for safeguarding
intangible cultural heritage. Besides the Western countries, there were quite a few
developing countries that insisted that intangible heritage was important but notnecessarily to be protected by an international convention. Only gradually, I succeededin gaining the authorisation to organise expert meetings to discuss the new international
convention on safeguarding intangible heritage. I then assembled a group of experts,
which included researchers and professors, to discuss the definition of intangible
cultural heritage in the context of a new international convention. I attended a number ofimportant sessions and realized that it was time to begin intergovernmental negotiations
for preparing a preliminary draft for the convention. I vividly recall that the Round Tableof the Ministers of Culture on Intangible Cultural Heritage held in Istanbul in September
2002 was the most crucial moment for the future of the Convention. Although all Asian
countries supported my proposal, some major European countries led by Denmark, at thetime, strongly opposed it. A decision was ﬁnally made, and I was authorised to organise
the intergovernmental negotiations. Finally, owing to the tremendous work by Noriko
Aikawa-Faure, we succeeded in preparing the preliminary draft of the Convention.
This draft was supposed to be presented in a preliminary form at the UNESCO General
Conference in 2003; however, succeeded in presenting it as a formal draft, whichconsequently gained wide support from most member states. But it was unfortunatethat eight major countries openly opposed the convention. Denmark initially opposed inKeynote Speech

2002 but later proceeded to ratify it. Switzerland and Germany also changed their stanceand agreed to ratify it after exhibiting strong opposition in the process. Today, 174 of the
195 member states have already ratiﬁed the Convention. All these episodes recount thediﬀerent process behind the adoption of the 2003 Convention. We worked tirelessly to
overcome a number of such diﬃculties, and today the result is apparent in the support of
174 countries that have ratiﬁed the Convention.
With regard to the symposium’s overall theme, which is to take further important steps
to safeguard and promote intangible cultural heritage, I would like to draw your attention
to an important idea in the Preamble of the 2003 Convention:
Recognizing that communities, in particular indigenous communities, groups and,in some cases, individuals, play an important role in the production, safeguarding,maintenance and re-creation of the intangible cultural heritage, thus helping to enrichcultural diversity and human creativity.
I mention this idea here because the Convention is not simply meant to safeguard
intangible heritage. As you can see, one of the major objectives of the Convention is the
re-creation of intangible cultural heritage. I claim that the provisions for the safeguarding
and promotion of intangible heritage in this convention are diﬀerent from those of theexisting 1972 Convention of World Heritage, in which authenticity and integrity are
crucial: historic buildings and monuments must be maintained without any change,
whereas intangible heritage must be recreated. For example, Nohgaku, Bunraku, andKabuki originated in Japan more than several centuries ago; however, over time, they
were recreated and new elements were added to the styles, and the process continues
even today. This concept of recreation goes against the 1972 World Heritage Convention
and is one of the major diﬀerences between the two conventions.
One point I must mention is that the Preamble of the 2003 Convention stresses theimportance of the cooperation between the two conventions. A new initiative wasdeveloped in 2004 at the UNESCO expert meeting in Nara, Japan. This meeting wasorganised to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Nara Document on Authenticity
and was attended by experts in the fields of world cultural heritage and intangible
cultural heritage. This resulted in the adoption of the Yamato Declaration on Integrated
Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage, which argues

17

18

The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and Its Glocal Perspectives

that these two conventions must cooperate closely with each other. It can be seen thatcooperation is a signiﬁcant keyword.
The title of the symposium, at which we are all present today, includes the term ‘glocal’,which was coined by the Japanese business community. The Japanese, by the way, often
use the phrase ‘Think Globally, Act Locally’. I would rather say ‘Think Globally and
Locally, Act Globally and Locally’. This may help us redeﬁne the term ‘glocal’. Whilethe importance of cooperation amongst local communities, researchers, and UNESCO
is not underrated, I would like to further emphasise the role of member states in thecontext of cooperation between the two conventions. As of today, 174 member states
have ratiﬁed the 2003 Convention, including 42 countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Group
Va). I must argue that even though sub-Saharan Africa regards intangible cultural
heritage as important, their elements of intangible heritage that are registered in the
UNESCO’s lists, namely the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of
Humanity and List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, arelimited. One of the major purposes of this Convention is to urge member states to takenew measures to safeguard the intangible heritage within their own countries. However,sub-Saharan African countries require international cooperation in taking such measures,and therefore we must oﬀer the required assistance. Today, out of 174, 60 member states
have still not registered any of their intangible heritage elements in the lists, and manyof these countries are from sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, we must bear in mind thatinternational cooperation is urgently required for sub-Saharan African countries, so thatthey can establish an internal system to submit proposals to UNESCO.
Now let us go back to the issue of the lack of cooperation between the two conventions.
The List of World Heritage, adopted at the 1972 Convention that has been ratified
by 193 of 195 member states, includes more than 1,000 properties. However, almost
all of the top heritage sites and monuments are from Western countries and China.
Whereas in the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, there are morethan 400 elements inscribed that are mostly from Asian countries, but not many from
Western countries. This clearly shows a signiﬁcant imbalance between the conventions.
Experts and researchers are required to establish a new cooperation between the twoconventions. We have to call for active participation of Western European countries
in the 2003 Convention, so that they can establish safeguarding systems within theirKeynote Speechcountries and submit more elements to be included on the UNESCO list.
I have explained that the role of member states will continue to be crucial in thecontext of the 2003 Convention. We also must pay attention to other actors such as
local communities, researchers, and the UNESCO. Close cooperation amongst these isabsolutely essential in rectifying the imbalance that exists between the two conventions.
Once again, I am honoured to deliver the keynote address today and pleased to see actors
from universities, institutes, researchers, community members, states, and UNESCO
working together. I would like to pay my tribute to the good work done by IRCI andwould like to hope for close collaboration amongst the three Category 2 Centres of
UNESCO in the Asia-Paciﬁc region in the ﬁeld of intangible cultural heritage. I wish to
thank you all who are involved in this work and look forward to further cooperation for
the Convention in the future. Thank you.

19

20

Keynote Speech
Toward Incorporating Local People´s Creativity in a New World
CultureLourdes ARIZPE
Professor, National Autonomous University of Mexico

Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Mr Junichi Tobe, Mr Tomiyuki Uesugi, Mr Wataru Iwamoto,and Madam Noriko Aikawa. It is indeed a great honour for me to be invited to deliver a
keynote address at this very important symposium on Glocal Perspectives on Intangible
Cultural Heritage: Local Communities, Researchers, States and UNESCO hosted by theCenter for Glocal Studies of Seijo University in Japan.

Culture: The “Dreamcatcher” of Human Experience
The extraordinary appeal of the word “culture” is that it is the “dreamcatcher” of thepeoples of the world and, at the same time, the “golden account” of their civilizational
achievements. The Navajo native peoples of the United States build a circle of twigs
with a ﬁnely woven mesh inside it with coloured threads of small feathers that, hanging
over one’s slumber, catches dreams and foretells the future. In just such a manner,culture seems to capture so many dreams, so many questions, so many possibilities aroundthe world. The rapid rise in the use of culture in liberation movements in the ﬁfties andsixties, the “cultural turn” in art and critical theories from the 1980s onwards led to
culture becoming a policy instrument for international development, national politicalmanagement, human rights, gender equality, and ethnic and religious assertions and thetransformation of identities in the second decade of the millenium. At the same time, the“golden account” in the national GDP of countries is now recognized as the economic
contribution of the arts and cultural activities to overall growth in parallel with the “green
account” of environmental activities. Most importantly, many of these changes are partof the ongoing transformation of cosmopolitical models about human existence in the
Earth system.
Culture is often said to be unique to human beings. Even though genetically close

Keynote Speech

primates may acquire some elements of language and cognition, I propose that there
are two traits that allowed humans to evolve from Homo habilis to Homo sapiens: thedesire to know and the will to exchange. All peoples of the world have engaged in coproducing knowledge and exchanging it as well as goods for millennia. The combined
effect of producing knowledge and exchanging leads to the human characteristic thatis highlighted in studies of cultural evolution: cumulative learning. This gave humans
a fundamental advantage in accumulating meanings and in sharing, copying andadopting these from other groups. Who do we learn from? Other people. Who has beenadventurous enough to change what had been learned? Individuals. That is why thedeﬁnition of culture chosen, among the myriad others available, is that culture is madeup of meanings activated through social relations that allow persons to transform theirlives and their environments.
In terms of the ontology, culture has indeed been changing because of the impact ofscientiﬁc discoveries and their technological applications to the ways in which humanbeings develop notions of self, relate to each other individually, in groups and incountries, and think about the world and the cosmos. Indeed, a new slate for discussion
has opened on the concept of “human nature”. My contention, is that humans arecharacterized by two key traits: the desire to know, which creates knowledge, and thewill to exchange, which ensure social reproduction and cumulative learning. On thebasis of these two traits, I believe humans develop the capacity to cooperate leading toconcerted actions and the power to transform their environments. Thus, we are the only
eusocial species that accumulates knowledge, transmits it to younger generations anduses it to cooperate in carrying out its social and political goals. The assumption madethen is that every individual is a scientist and a spiritual seeker who engages with othersin bringing about deliberate outcomes.
Culture, in this sense, keeps adding very favourable connotations in that it represents
reﬂexivity, empathy and ethics. And if there is anything humanity needs today, it is that.
As several participants in many meetings in UNESCO have discussed “Culture speaks
from the heart.”
Today the unprecedented challenge is that people are co-producing knowledge andexchanging within a single global space of communication and trade. The ethical

21

22

Toward Incorporating Local People´s Creativity in a New World Culture

and political framework of this space is still based on the values of the Enlightment,
capitalism, the nation-state, democracy and human rights but they now need to berecast in the new conditions of the post-Recession world market. Culture has beenbrought into the complex transactions leading to the Sustainability Transition, fair
globalization, ethnic and religious inclusion and reconceptualising the role of the Westand other regions in world development. Such negotiations now risk being derailed byactors intent on reviving totalitarian systems no longer based on political ideologies
but on non-negotiable claims to religious and ethnic identities enforced through control
of communications and terrorist violence. In other words, through recent events ofdestruction of cultural heritage, imposition of religious law, and terrorist assassinations
culture may become a nightmare.
The ideas and processes that have generated such contrasting outcomes need to beunderstood in order to stop conﬂicts that lead to a dead end for human civilization and to
manage the sustainability transition in the new framework of the Anthropocene. This is
why I believe it is very important to focus on the local to global cultural relationships, ininternational meetings on culture from 1990 to 2016. As an anthropologist I had becomea life-long ethnographer, that is an observing participant, before I had the honour ofacting as Assistant Director-General of UNESCO in the Culture Sector, thus becoming
a decision-making participant in managing culture programmes around the world.
After returning to Mexico to do fieldwork on intangible cultural heritage, I realizedthat the very rich debates on culture should be usefully systematized to understand how
culture was discussed and transacted for international political and policy purposes.
This vast process to build a world perspective on the most important characteristicof human societies, was summarized and given key concepts in the report of theWorld Commission on Culture and Development presented to the UNESCO General
Conference in 1995.
During the nineties, many different international institutions, science organizations
and political and social movements began to take culture as a key issue in discussing

1 After I became a member of the World Commission on Culture and Development, Mr. Federico Mayor designatedme Assistant Director-General for Culture in UNESCO. Soon after I was put in charge of the Secretariat of the World
Commission.

Keynote Speech

development, world governance, anthropogenic causes of climate change and loss of
biodiversity while concepts such as the “cultural exemption” inﬂuenced trade and market
policies and investment in creative economies. The second wave of feminism surged to
become a worldwide movement of introspection into how cultures construct notions offemininity and masculinity that end up being oppressive to women. Themes related tothe policies applied to cultural groups brought debates on cultural diversity, related toindigenous knowledge and intellectual property, physical and intangible cultural heritage
and the clash or dialogue of civilizations. The fact that many of these debates werepolitical in nature is shown in the proliferations of “–isms”: multiculturalism, cultural
pluralism and what should also be called ethnicism and religionism. The proliferationof such debates, which have surfaced in many diﬀerent cosmopolitical and internationaland now national settings, indicates that people all over the world are deeply concernedwith what they perceive as the basic components for a future global society: culturalsurvival, cultural hegemony and cultural liberty.

International Transactions on Culture
In recent times, many conflicts, especially as reported by the media or when given a
viral whirl in social media, have been interpreted as cultural phenomena. In fact the
majority of them only reﬂect the simultaneity of advances in rights and reconﬁgurationsof previous cultural forms on the one hand, and retrenchments of cultural holders or
religious institutions precisely against those advances and reconﬁgurations on the other.
Previously, many such conflicts would have been qualified as political or ideological.
In fact, in the purportedly “borderless” global world proposed in the neo-liberalprogramme, multiculturalism has transformed cultures into political ideologies, identity
markers and surrogates for religions.
Many of the threads of these discussion help explain the meteoric rise in the use of theterm culture during the 20th century. In the Ngrams oﬀered by Google, which plot theuses of particular words and phrases throughout the corpus of texts written in the world’s
main languages that have been scanned by Google (dating from 1500 to 2008), thefrequency of the word “culture” has overtaken other important concepts used in English
in reference to human society in the following years: “mankind”, 1892; “humanity”,
1897; “tribes”, 1900; “conscience”, 1901; “democracy”, 1920; “consciousness”, 1925;“civilization”/“civilisation”, 1926; “soul”, 1939; “Indians”, 1945; “progress”, 1959;

23

24

Toward Incorporating Local People´s Creativity in a New World Culture“religion”, 1966; “nation”, 1971; “spirit”, 1971; and “revolution”, 1972. “Society” and“country” have both exhibited signiﬁcant decreases in usage in comparison to “culture”
in recent years.
Ngrams are, of course, a blunt analytical tool. The dataset is reliant upon opticalcharacter recognition, which can produce inaccurate renditions of text. The informationis also skewed towards scientiﬁc literature, and there are issues with incorrectly dated
texts. Finally, the analysis ceases in 2008, so more recent correlations cannot be charted.
However, comparison can be made with the frequency of “culture” in book titles insigniﬁcant academic library catalogues. The Copac catalogue, which covers nearly one
hundred major UK and Irish libraries, records 173 titles from 1800 that included theword “culture”. Numbers were still small in 1880 (288) and 1948 (862) but had morethan doubled by 1970 (2,434). Thereafter growth was almost exponentially rapid: 3,516
in 1982, 8,342 in 1995 and 16,382 in 2015. A similar pattern can be charted by searches
in the Library of Congress catalogue and on worldcat.org. Again, this is a blunt tool,
but it gives some sense of the phenomenal rise in the use of the term “culture” in our
language.
It is also interesting to note that, in coining the word “meme” as the core aspect of“culturemes”, Professor Richard Dawkins probably never expected it to become viral inInternet and social media especially among young people. In fact, if meme is taken as anabbreviation of cultureme, then the use of the word meme has not only been meteoric,
as mentioned in previous paragraphs, it has broken the time barrier at warp speed,projecting the 20th century concept of culture into the 21st century microelectronic
revolution of modes of thinking. Of course, its connotations are changing as rapidly but
because it is young people who use this catchy term, meme may become a core concept
in the near future global culture.
So, why has culture absorbed or overtaken all the concepts assessed in the ngram
search? And why has it become particularly prevalent in the last twenty-five years? It
is clear that the wealth of local intangible cultural heritage must now be the basis for a
new vocabulary, semantics, consensual ideas and political platforms that must be built.
Unfortunately, a reiﬁed concept of culture has become a staple of political discourses thatlead back only to the same old debates and to fossilized culture policies in many countries.

Keynote Speech

One of the aims of this Symposim, then, must be to show how debates and negotiations
have been conducted between local peoples, governments and international institutionsin the last twenty years. My intention is to demonstrate the progression of ideas deﬁned
heuristically as condensations of vocabularies, discourses and propositions that weredeveloped in meetings and formalized in documents as the concept of culture became asharpened diplomatic and political instrument in the international agenda. In so doing, I
hope to give guidance on how steps can be taken away from merely rhetorical discourses
towards processes that have a real impact on local people’s possibilities of living. In
other words, consciously advancing towards evidence-based transactions on culture.
At the same time, it is important to guard against what I call “ﬂat culture syndrome”, asa paraphrase of Thomas Friedmann’s coining of the phrase “ﬂat world” to signal that theworld was moving towards equal participation and representation. In terms of cultures,
Christoph Brumann made a very pertinent case for taking into account the textures ofcultures (Brumann 1999). At present, through the influence of multiculturalism, flat
narratives about cultures abound. Yet cultures are not equal, because “cultures” do notexist. They are a heuristic used to organize a fundamentally fluid or even liquefying,according to Zygmunt Bauman reality in which cultural practitioners choose and decide
which path they and their immediate social entourage will take. The key elements inthis selection are the knowledge and cooperation that groups of cultural practitioners
contribute to their environment and to the world. This must become the most importantvalue and measure of the worth of human collective endeavours. Indeed, I will proposethat instead of endlessly debating how values of cultural variants ﬁt together in a global
cosmopolis, a new template must be created in which the positive contribution that each
culturally or defined group, in continuing to develop their intangible cultural heritageis the measure by. In other words, the important question to ask is the question: how do
we advance systematically in rebuilding a cosmopolis in which local peoples´ creativity
provides new insights into thinking about the world.

25

PRESENTED PAPERS

Session 1. How do local communities, local oﬃcials, researchers and government
oﬃcials collaborate for the implementation of the UNESCO’s ICH Convention by
inventory making, safeguarding, nomination and inscription?

29

How to Find Shared Values and Consensus in ICH Communities:
the Case of Multi-national Inscription of Tugging Rituals and Games
Hanhee HAHM
Chonbuk National University

Introduction
This paper reveals the process and issues arising in the case of the multi-national
inscription of tugging rituals and games of four Asian countries: Cambodia, Republicof the Philippines, Viet Nam and the Republic of Korea. These games were inscribed in2015 after the submission of a joint nomination ﬁle of the ICH to UNESCO. Tugging
rituals and games are practiced around the world; however, practice of the games areconcentrated mainly in East Asia and Southeast Asia where they are currently actively
performed. To ﬁnd out the commonality of the games within the context of the Asian
countries, the city government of Dangjin, where Gijisi’s Tug-of-War is identified asa point of cultural pride, initiated the process for making a joint nomination beginningin 2012. Gijisi, a local ICH community, actively participated in the initial process ofinventory and creation of the joint nomination ﬁles. Within the other ICH communitiesof tug-of-war, however, such a positive response and active participation were not
the norm. Some villages were not actively involved in the filing process. In order topresent a complete picture of the multi-national inscription process, I will ﬁrst review
the relevant international and domestic safeguarding policies and issues. Secondly, thepractices and consciousness of ICH community members, local oﬃcials, and researchers
are reviewed from the perspective of the UNESCO Convention. Such a study regarding
the practice and consciousness of ICH community members will contribute to thedevelopment of the multi-national ICH safeguarding policy.

Pursuing Multinational Inscription
The 2003 Convention of UNESCO indicates that “States Parties are encouraged
to jointly submit multi-national nominations to the List of ICH in Need of Urgent
Safeguarding and the Representative List of the ICH of Humanity (RL) when anelement is found on the territory of more than one State Party.”1 The concept of multi1 Operational Directives, I.5 Multi-national ﬁles, 13.

30

How to Find Shared Values and Consensus in ICH Communities

national ﬁles in the realm of safeguarding policies of ICH operates under the premisethat certain cultural heritage exists beyond the boundaries of one, single state. In recent
years, the ICH sector of UNESCO has actively promoted international cooperation andconsultation due to the large inﬂux of nomination ﬁles for inscription on the lists of RL.
UNESCO has also come to realize that it is often diﬃcult to conﬁne a cultural heritage
to a territorial boundary identiﬁed as a state and to recognize a cultural heritage as an
exclusive heritage of a speciﬁc country.
With the encouragement of UNESCO, Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea(CHA) swiftly adopted the multi-national file policy. It should be noted that CHA
pursued other options when Korea received a restriction of nomination ﬁles to RL fromthe Intergovernmental Committee.2 Before receiving the restriction, CHA had been
focused on nominating for inscription to RL only those ICH which drew much attention
from the national and local governments and even practitioners of ICH in Korea. CHA
attempted to increase the numbers of nomination ﬁles of ICH and it eventuated in thegrowth of RL. Some policy makers and practitioner groups set as their goal and focused
their attention on being listed on the RL, which was not aligned with the spirit of theconvention.
After receiving the restriction, CHA changed its strategy and began to focus on the multinational nomination which was prioritized by UNESCO after the 7th Intergovernmental
Committee meeting. In April 2012, CHA informed the local governments regarding
the change in ICH nomination policy and simultaneously posted a notice recruiting
applicants for multi-national nominations. The Mask Dance team of Andong and theTug of War team of Gijisi submitted applications to CHA. Yet, CHA expected more
application ﬁles for joint nominations to be submitted by ICH communities and groups.
CHA’s strategies for drawing attention to the multi-national nomination at the national
level was not successful considering that many applicants for RL nomination are on thewaiting list. In May of 2012, CHA selected the Tug-of-War of Gijisi between the two

2 By the influx of nomination files the 7th intergovernmental Committee held in 2012 decided to limit the number of
acceptable nomination ﬁles to be no more than sixty on a yearly base. It means a long waiting list is created. In addition,
there are a regional imbalance in the inscription lists of RL. Due to these unexpected problems, the Intergovernmental
Committee decided to limit the nomination ﬁles submitted by Korea, Japan and China.

PRESENTED PAPERS

applications and provided guidelines and an administrative aide to Gijisi community’s
Tug-of-War.
Gijisi actively participated in the joint nomination process. First, a preparationcommittee, consisting of some leaders of Tug of War Preservation Society, officers,
curators, folklorists and other specialists, was formed. The committee invited othertug-of-war communities within Korea to join the multi-national inscription process.
Yeongsan, the national intangible cultural property designated in 1969, accepted Gijisi’s
invitation. The two tug-of-war communities cooperated in making the nomination ﬁles.
Four other domestic communities - Uiryeong, Samcheok, Gamnae and Namhae - joined
Gijisi and Yeongsan, but those communities did not have the same level of interest in
preparing the joint nomination. Some intermediary officers and administrators were
working hard to connect the six communities.
Once formed, the preparation committee solicited other communities in East and Southeast Asian countries, particularly member states of the Convention, to participate in
the multi-national nomination filing. The city government of Dangjin where Gijisi islocated, hosted several international forums for the discussion on the feasibility andvalidity of multi-national inscriptions of tug-of-war within East and South-east Asia
region. Researchers, specialists and scholars of folklore were invited to take part in theforums. The attendees of these academic forums mainly discussed whether there werecommonalities among Asian tug-of-war games. Meanwhile, rationality of multi-national
inscription was correspondingly pursued. Since the main purpose of the forums was,in fact, to investigate the appropriateness of a joint inscription in the Asian context,
there was less attention paid to some important points during the forums regarding thedistinctiveness or diversities within the Asian tug-of-war games.
Four rural communities from Cambodia, Philippines and Viet Nam whose villagers
practice tug-of-war games decided to take part in the multi-national nomination ﬁling
process. There are several commonalities within the heritage communities; the games
mainly function as a driver of social unity through diverse steps of social and religious
rituals, including festivity. Another commonality is that all four communities areagrarian communities practicing rice farming. After harvest or during the New Year’s
holiday season, almost all community members participate in the game with a certain

31

32

How to Find Shared Values and Consensus in ICH Communities

kind of roles and contributions. The game is composed of a large number of community
members. It is also noted that each game has a long tradition and are still performed
every year. Yet, the Japanese and Chinese communities are not participating in the joint
inscription on the RL and their absence seems to indicate of lack of something vital in
the joint inscription.

Coping with the Convention
The Convention attempts to improve the mechanism for sharing information in orderto encourage multi-national nominations. Multi-national nominations are encouraged
under the premise that ICH are frequently found in similar forms in territories which
consist of more than one State. It is true that certain communities and people living nearbut on opposite sides of an international border share the same or similar ICH even if
their nationalities are diﬀerent. In other cases, we ﬁnd the same or similar forms of ICH
in separate, remote areas. In such cases, migrations of communities and people could
explain the co-existence of such cultural heritage in separate geographic areas. There
are many examples of ICH shared across international borders. In addition, culturalsimilarities may be based on ecological similarities, such as the shared rice farming
culture of the four communities which are working together on the joint application for
the tugging rituals and games. Below, I brieﬂy summarize some of the commonalities
within the tugging rituals and games of four heritage communities participating in
the joint nomination file. (Nomination File No. 01080 for Inscription in 2015 on the
Representative List of the ICH of Humanity)
Known in Khmer language as lbaengteanhprot, in Cambodia, the heritage element isperformed during the Khmer New Year and/or Chlong Chet, a rice-related ceremony.
It represents social solidarity, entertainment, and the start of a new agricultural cycle.
Moreover, it includes profound religious signiﬁcance, marks the start of a New Year anda new cycle of rice cultivation, and helps bring social stability and prosperity.
In the Philippines, the punnuk is a tugging ritual held at the Hapao River. It is the ﬁnal
activity performed in the huowah or ritual-activities observed after the completion of
harvest. The enactment of the punnuk formally closes the agricultural cycle and signals
the beginning of a new one. The communities are already cooperating in their work in
the rice terrace ﬁelds. Their participation in the activity further strengthens their ethnic

PRESENTED PAPERS

identity as Tuwali. The punnuk highlights their strong belief and high regard for theancestral and nature spirits.
In Korea, most towns in agricultural regions hold tugging rituals and games. This
practice is particularly prevalent in regions with broad flat plains, such as in thesouthwest region of the Korean Peninsula. In each region, the practice of tugging
rituals and games is concentrated in the period between the Lunar New Year and thethird month of the lunar calendar, during which all practitioners, transmitters, and local
residents unite to participate in preparations for the ritual. This encourages solidarity forthe sake of communal well-being and the sharing of a sense of unity. Since the tugging
rituals and games allow children to participate alongside adults, it conﬁrms a sense ofequality within the members of a shared community.
In Viet Nam, the element is concentrated mostly in the northern midlands, the Red River
Delta, and the north-central region, which is the ancient land of the Viet and the cradleof the native wet rice culture, as exemplified in VinhPhuc, BacNinh, and Ha Noi. In
addition, it is regularly practiced by certain ethnic groups, such as the Tay, the Thai, and
the Giay in Lao Cai Province, who are the pioneers of rice cultivation in the northern
mountains. It is often held as a part of the spring festivals held in villages, marking the
beginning of a new agricultural cycle and expressing wishes for bumper crops.
Despite that tugging rituals and games in the four participating countries have theirdifferences in scale, complexity, and historical background, they all share meaningful
themes such as fertility, prosperity, and harmony. In the nomination files, the farming
cultures of East Asia and Southeast Asia which have survived through the cultivation ofrice are emphasized as one of the shared values which should be sustained.

Supports from the Outside
The multi-national nomination files of tugging rituals and games were successfully
inscribed in 2015. Many participants from domestic and foreign governments,
communities and NGOs were involved in the preparation. Local governments andpreservation societies of tug-of-war games tried to raise awareness of the element by
providing public programs and activities. In particular, the Dangjin city government
established the Gijisi Tug-of-War Museum to promote and raise awareness of the

33

34

How to Find Shared Values and Consensus in ICH Communities

ritualized game. Local and central governments contributed signiﬁcant funding for theestablishment of the museum.
Specialists and folklorists in alignment with local governments and preservationsocieties in Korea held international and domestic seminars and forums in order todiscuss meanings, rationale, and common themes of the joint nomination. Some
researchers studied the communities of tug-of-war and documentations of the element.
The research project lacked time, funding and manpower to be effective so there is aneed for further effort in this regard. The joint research team consisting of members
from the four countries will be organized to take an inclusive research on the element
within the various regions.
The Korean government has provided the necessary legal and financial support for
the activities related to the preparation of the joint nomination ﬁles. In fact, the wholeprocess of joint nomination consisted of a diverse range of support and eﬀort provided
from many participants outside of the communities.

Concluding Remarks
In Korea, most local practitioners and communities greatly aspire to be listed in the RL.
Having UNESCO’s emblem on their titles seems to be an ultimate goal for the national
and local intangible cultural property holders, groups and communities. The reason why
they have such aspirations may be that they believe that UNESCO listing is an honor.
They are not really interested in what the Convention is all about or what the multinational inscription actually stands for. First and foremost, they think it is an honor to beplaced on the list. Secondly, they may believe that being on such a list will lead to more
beneﬁts and greater protection and promotion from the national and local governments
or maybe UNESCO as well.
In UNESCO, an ideal form of safeguarding process has been established. The
Convention has repeatedly encouraged “the submission of multi-national nominations
to the Lists of the Convention, considering that such nominations exemplify theConvention’s purpose of promoting international cooperation. When safeguarding
an element is at stake, better results will be achieved with the full participation of thewhole community, regardless of its geographic location.” (7 COM (ITH/12/7.COM/14).

PRESENTED PAPERS

The reality within the multi-national nominations, however, as evidenced in the caseof tugging rituals and games is not aligned with the goals suggested by UNESCO. In
particular, it is very difficult to achieve participation by the entire community in themulti-national nominations. Language barriers, lacks of funds for communications
and network are practical problems that the communities face. Diversity in the forms
and contents of a seemingly similar element is also problematic. It should be studied
by specialists and scholars. Even if the community is supposed to play a key role inidentifying its heritage, it would be relegated to a secondary status in the process ofmulti-national nominations. The central and local governments have great decisionmaking power as to which elements are selected and the preparation of nomination
files. They expect to be able to choose the international partners to work with. CHA
necessarily controls every step from the selection of which heritage is nominated tothe completion of nomination ﬁles. Under the guise of uplifting local practitioners andgroups of ICH, the heritage administration achieves authority and power over thosepractitioners and groups. The community members of tugging rituals and games in
Korea said that they do not feel that anything is diﬀerent even after being listed in the
RL. They are proud that their culture is listed in the RL but they do not fully grasp
the significance. A few of the community members could vaguely understand theinternational safeguarding eﬀorts initiated by UNESCO. But many of them would not
be familiar with the concept of international cooperation and safeguarding throughjoint inscriptions even though their heritage has been listed in the RL through the joint
inscription process.

References
Gijisi Tug-of-War Preservation Society, Gijisi Tug-of-War International Symposium
Proceeding. Dangjin: Gijisi Tug-of-War Preservation Society, 2010.[in Korean]
Dangjin Cultural Institute, 3rd Asia Tug-of-War Symposium Proceedings, 2009. [inKorean]Dangjin City Government & ICHCAP, Diversity and Shared Values of Traditional Tugof-War, Proceeding of 2013.
Rudolff, B. & S. Raymond, 2013. “A Community Convention? An analysis of Free,
Prior and Informed Consent given under the 2003 Convention,” in International Journalof Intangible Heritage 8: 153-164.

35

36

How to Find Shared Values and Consensus in ICH Communities

Websites
Cultural Heritage Administration, www.cha.go.kr
Gijisi tugging rituals and games, http://www.gijisi.com
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), www.
unesco.org
UNESCO, Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, www.unesco.org/culture/ich

Appendix
7 COM (ITH/12/7.COM/14 Paris, 18 Oct. 2012) Convention for the Safeguarding of theIntangible Cultural Heritage Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of theIntangible Cultural Heritage Item 14 of the Provisional Agenda, Mechanism for sharing
information to encourage multinational nominations.
1. The Committee has repeatedly encouraged the submission of multinational
nominations to the Lists of the Convention, considering that such nominations exemplify
the Convention’s purpose of promoting international cooperation. When safeguarding anelement is at stake, better results will be achieved with the full participation of the wholecommunity, regardless of its geographic location. At the same time, there are alreadynumerous elements inscribed on the Lists in their own right that might instead havebeen the subject of a multinational inscription, had circumstances been diﬀerent. In its
previous debates, the Committee had suggested that such parallel or multiple inscriptions
could be avoided, and multinational inscriptions encouraged, if there were a convenientmeans by which States Parties could inform other States Parties and communities
concerned of their possible plans to nominate a given element. In its Decision 5.COM
6, the Committee therefore requested the Secretariat ‘to propose, for its sixth session,
an information-sharing mechanism through which States Parties may make known theirintentions to submit nominations, so as to encourage, where relevant, the submission ofmultinational nominations’.

37

The Government Management and the Role of Communities in the
Safeguarding, Inventory and Nomination of ICH: The Case Studyof Vietnam
Thi Hien NGUYEN
Vietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies

The Convention 2003 states that the works on ICH including the inventory making,safeguarding, and nomination and inscription shall have the involvement of the wide
range of communities. There is the discourse on the active and important role ofthe communities in the safeguarding of ICH, but the Vietnam’s law and other legal
documents on cultural heritage do not state clearly about the role of the stakeholders
and communities. Within the administration system in Vietnam, the management of
the ICH is approached from the top-down from the Prime Minister to the Ministry of
Culture, Sports and Tourism at the central level to the grassroots level. At the local level,
the Provincial Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism is in charge of managing the
ICH in its territory. At the grassroots, the vice chair of the community is in charge of theculture (including ICH). In reality, the community members, the master practitioners,
and the numerous local non-governmental organizations engage in managing andpracticing ICH. In my presentation, I will give a brief overview of the most important
legal documents on ICH, examine the government management and the role of thecommunities in Vietnam and then analyze the collaboration between the government andlocal oﬃcials, researchers and communities in making the inventory, the safeguarding,the nomination of ICH. At the end, I will give some proposals and suggestions on
the enhancement of the consonant collaboration between the government and thecommunities.

Law and Legal Documents on ICH
In Vietnam, among the legal documents related to ICH, there are the Law on Cultural
Heritage and together with it there is the Resolution No 98/2010/NĐ-CP, the Circular
No 04/2010/TT-BVHTTDL on the inventory, and the Resolution 62/2014/NĐ-CP on thedesignation of “the people folk artists” and “eminent folk artistes” in the ﬁeld of ICH.

38

The Government Management and the Role of Communities in the Safeguarding, Inventory and Nomination of ICH- Law on Cultural Heritage
Law on Cultural Heritage indicates clearly that the cultural heritage in Vietnam is thevaluable property of all ethnic groups of Vietnam and has its significant role in thesustainable development of the country.
In compatible with the 2003 Convention Vietnam ratified in 2005, the Law on Cultural
heritage (2001) amended in 2009 with some articles on the identification of ICH,
management, its safeguarding measures and designation of the master practitioners.
The Article 1 on the identiﬁcation of ICH states that “ICH is the spiritual product that is
attached to the communities or individuals, relevant to tangible culture and cultural space.
It expresses the cultural identity of communities, and has been continuously recreated andtransmitted from generation to generation orally, through apprentices, performances andother modes of transmission.”In the Law there is the Chapter 5 on the government management of CH in general.
The content of the government management includes 8 tasks including: (1) Build anddirect the implementation of the strategy, project, plan, and policy on the developmentof the safeguarding and promotion of CH; (2) Promulgate and implement the legal
documents on CH; (3) Organize and direct the activities on safeguarding and promotionof CH; propagandize, publicize, and educate the law on ICH; (4) Organize and manage
the scientiﬁc research activities; training workshops for the cultural cadres on CH; (5)Mobilize, manage, and use the resources on the safeguarding and promotion of CH;(6) Organize and direct the award (communities and individuals) in the safeguarding
and promotion of CH; (7) Organize and manage the international collaboration on thesafeguarding and promotion of CH; (8) Inspect and check the implementation of the law
on CH.
The law also has the following important articles on the ICH as follows:- The article 14 states on the inventory of the cultural heritage as the identification
activity and evaluation and establishment of CH.
- The article 17 states that the government safeguards and promotes the ICH with thesafeguarding measures as follows:(1) Organize research works, collection, inventory, and classiﬁcation of ICH;
(2) Organize transmission, publicization, publication, performance and revitalization

PRESENTED PAPERS

of ICH elements;(3) Encourage and create favorable conditions for organizations and individuals to doresearch, collect, archive, transmit and introduce the ICH elements.
(4) Organize workshops on professional competence on safeguarding and promotionof ICH per request of ICH bearers.
(5) Financially support the safeguarding and promotion of ICH, preventing the risk offalling into oblivion and loosing ICH.”- Article 26 states that the government designates and issues policies on the designationof master practitioners for their excellent skills and credits in safeguarding andpromotion of ICH.
- Resolution No 98/2010/NĐ-CP
The resolution No 98/2010/NĐ-CP on September 21, 2010 regulates concretely on theimplementation of the articles of the Law on Cultural Heritage, amendment of somearticles of the Law, and regulates in details on the safeguarding and promotion of the
ICH.
Basically, the Law on Cultural Heritage and the Resolution No 98 are the important legal
documents that push up the renovation of the activities in order to manage, safeguard
and promote the cultural heritage in Vietnam and that are more compatible with the2003 Convention and meet the principles of safeguarding of ICH in accordance to theinternational Convention. These two documents create favorable conditions to build
up the file of ICH elements to submit to UNESCO with the definitions, safeguarding
measures, national inventory and the consent of communities. Under these important
legal documents, Vietnam has developed the national program and a number of othersub-law documents on the management, safeguarding and promotion of ICH.
- The Circular No 04 /2010/TT-BVHTTDLThe Circular was issued by Ministry of Cultures, Sports and Tourism on June 30, 2010that regulates the inventory of ICH and ﬁles of ICH for the National List of ICH. From2010 to present, the Department of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Sports
and Tourism has held the capacity building workshops on the inventory for the local
cultural managers and communities at the local provinces in all over country. Throughthe workshops, the inventory on ICH in local grassroots in all over country has been

39

40

The Government Management and the Role of Communities in the Safeguarding, Inventory and Nomination of ICH

developed. The local communities have sent their updated entries to the local districts
that make their reports to the provincial departments of culture, Sports and Tourism
and then the provinces send their reports to the Department of Cultural Heritage at the
Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. In these ways of the updating the entries for theinventory at all levels, the national inventory has been updated annually.

Figure 1: Decentralized Administration Related to Intangible Cultural Heritagein Vietnam (See Nguyen Thi Hien 2017)

The Government Management and Role of Community in Safeguarding andPromotion of ICH
The government directs, orients, and supports the community in the safeguarding andpromotion of ICH. Details are as follows:+ Promulgate and manage the implementation of the Law on Cultural Heritage andother legal documents.
+ Direct safeguarding activities of ICH with the national target program on culture, thePRESENTED PAPERS

cultural development of ethic groups and the annual plans of local provinces.
+ Direct and manage the research activities with the ICH projects within the nationaltarget program on culture. There are two Centers at Vietnam National Institute andVietnamese Institute for Musicology for archiving visual products and texts of ICH.
+ Publicize: The goverment directs the propaganda and publicization of ICH in a
number of ways such as cultural diplomacy for embassadors and international ICH
experts, on the national and local television programs. The performing troupes of
ICH such as Quan ho folk songs, Vi and Giam folk songs, and groups of master
practitioners of spirit mediums, gong players, so on perform at international folklife
festivals.
+ Mobilize resources: The government financially supports the activies of ICH
from the national target program on, the national research program, the nationalsafeguarding program on ICH of ethinic communities. Some provinces such as PhúThọ, Bắc Ninh, Nghệ An and Hà Tĩnh ﬁnancially support their ICH elements.
+ Set up the designation of master practitioners: The government started to award thetitle of “people’s folk artists” and “eminent folk artists” with the implementation of
the Resolution No 62/2014/NĐ-CP . On November 13, 2015, the President signed
the Decision No 2533/QĐ-CTN to designate 600 master practitioners as “eminent
folk artistists” and posthumously awarded 17 individuals who had gained their
merits in the safeguarding of ICH.
+ Education Program: On January 16, 2013, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism
and Ministry of Education and Training co-issued the Circular No 73/HD-BGDĐTBVHTTDL on the education of cultural heritage at schools. Within this program, therelevant institutions and bodies have their worshops for teachers of history, geography
and music in 7 provinces and cities. In some provinces, some of the ICH elements havebeen taught at the extra-circular programs such as Vi and Giam Folk Songs of Nghe
Tinh, Xoan Singing in Phu Tho province, Quan ho Folk Songs at Bac Ninh province,and so on.
The Role of Communities in the Safeguarding of ICH
Active roles: Community members are the bearers who have created and transmitted
their ICH elements for thousands or hundreds of years. Their active roles are the keys
in the safeguarding measures of ICH. They are the practitioners who participate widelyin the all steps such as the managing, the practicing, and transmitting of ICH elements.

41

42

The Government Management and the Role of Communities in the Safeguarding, Inventory and Nomination of ICH

Numerous individuals and community members are the devoted people who spend theirtime, money, and works for the collection, archiving, and transmitting of ICH, especiallythe elders who are knowledgeable about their cultural expressions. The authorities andthe cultural managers and researchers are the individuals who assist the local community
members in other related works such as security, monitoring, publicizing and so on.
+ Initiative roles: Community members are the initiative practitioners who havecreated, practiced and managed their ICH elements such as village traditional
festivals, rituals, folk games, folk performances, so on. The ICH elements that thecommunities have been safeguarded themselves have been kept with their values
and functions better for their cultural bearers. For years, they contribute their energy,
time and money to safeguard them as their responsibilities and duties.
+ Decisive roles: Communities roles in safeguarding ICH are decisive, because they
are the people who have their rights to decide what and how their ICH elements areand safeguarded. The communities are in the best position in the identiﬁcation andsafeguarding ICH. Thus they involve virtually in their practices and self-decide,self-manage the activities of the ICH. The community members play their decisiverole due to the fact that they themselves practice their ICH elements for hundreds,
even thousands of years. The outsiders and government management may lead tothe appropriateness of the ICH elements from their cultural bearers (Salemink 2013)and lose their values and functions for the local community.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Figure 2: The relationship between the government management and the role ofcommunities in safeguarding and promotion of ICH elements (see Nguyen Thi Hien
2017)

National Inventory
Since Vietnam launched the Law on Cultural Heritage in 2001 and amended in 2009, theinventory of the ICH has been an important task in the safeguarding and promotion by
the cultural management institutions from the central organizations to the local divisions.
In 2010, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism issued the Circular No 04/2010/TTBVHTTDL regulating how to make the inventories and the ﬁles for the National List of
ICH. The Department of Cultural Heritage (Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) has
organized the workshops on the implementation of the Circular to cultural managers andlocal community people who involve in the inventory. The researchers, local cultural
managers and community members concerned discuss on the appropriate approaches tothe inventory of the ICH depending on the domains and locations of the ICH.
Up to present, there are 61 of 63 provinces have their reports on the ICH elements at

43

44

The Government Management and the Role of Communities in the Safeguarding, Inventory and Nomination of ICH

their territoried to be sent to the Department of Cultural Heritage to update the national
inventory.1 The national inventory is updated annually with the total of more than 63
thousand ICH elements.
People’s committees in all provinces and cities direct the plan and budget for theinventory as being regulated in the law on the state budget for the provincial departmentsof Culture, Sports and Tourism to carry out the work.
The inventory work is to meet the following requirements:- To identify fully communities and their representatives;- To ensure that only the elements which the communities see as theirs are inventoried.
- To ensure that there is the free, prior and informed consent to the inventory from thecommunity, group or individuals concerned;- To respect the customary practice governing access to the specific aspects of the
ICH;
Updating of the National Inventory of the ICH:
The Directors of the Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism in provinces andcities have their duty to annually make their reports to the Chairman of the People’s
Committees of the provinces and cities and Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism on
the inventory and make it publicity.
The Department of Cultural Heritage has the software program and website on the
management of the data on the ICH including the inventory and the other institutions
converned and provincial Departments of Culture, Sports and Tourism have theiraccess to the website for their use and updating of the data on the inventory. Besides
this, the Vietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies also has created the
Cultural Heritage Data and its inventory on the ICH that is based on the products
from the projects funded by the National Target Program on Culture. The Institute hascollaborated with the Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism to provide more data
for the natonal inventory, especially on the heritage on the Representative List of the
ICH and the List of the ICH in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (See the national inventory

1 See the annual report by the Department of Cultural Heritage in 2016.

PRESENTED PAPERS

by Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism at http://dsvhpvt.dsvh.gov.vn/HeritageLocal.
aspx).

Nominations and Inscriptions
The National List and Inscriptions
Vietnam has established the National List of ICH since 2012. With the agreement by
the provincial People Committee on the national nomination, the cultural managers
from the provicial Deparmtent of Culture, Sports and Tourism collaborate with the local
communties (master practitioners and knowlegeable elders) to work on the file of thelocal ICH element. It includes the national ICH form, the short video up to 10 minutes,
10 photos and the other supporting documents such as the consent letters signed by thecommunities members and the extracts of the inventory about the element. The ﬁle issigned by the leader of the provinces and submitted to the Ministry of Culture, Sports
and Tourism. The Committee of ICH (established by the Ministry of Culture, Sports
and Tourism) will evaluate the element and then recommends to the government for its
inscription on the Naitonal List. At present, in June 2017, there are 221 elements thathave inscribed on the National List.2
The UNESCO’s Lists
In the context of Vietnam, the National Committee of Cultural Heritage has the functions
and duties to provide its advices to and counsel the Prime Minister on heritage, including
the ICH. Thus, Vietnam has its UNESCO’s potential list that has been approved by theOﬃce of the Government in 2012. The document included 10 elements approved thatare supposed to be submitted to UNESCO during the period of 2012-2016. By now,some of the elements on the approved list by the Vietnamese government have notbeen submitted to UNESCO. There are only two elements on the list that have been
inscribed, including Ví and Giặm Folk Songs of Nghệ Tĩnh (inscribed in 2014) and thePractices related to the Việt beliefs in Mother Goddesses of Three Realms, the original
title of which was the Chầu Văn ritual of the Việt. And elements on the list have been
approved for the compilation of the ﬁles and submission to UNESCO, including the Artof Bài Chòi of the Việt in the Central Part of Vietnam (to be inscribed in 2017), the Then

2 See the biannual report by the Department of Cultural Heritage in June, 2017.

45

46

The Government Management and the Role of Communities in the Safeguarding, Inventory and Nomination of ICH

Ritual of the Tày (submitted to UNESCO for the evaluation in 2019). The other twoelements such as the Xoè Art of the Thai People, the Art of Cultivation in Small Stone
Caves of the Minorities in Ha Giang province (Nghệ thuật canh tác hốc đá của các dân
tộc thiểu số ở Hà Giang) are in the nomination process. The other elements, namely the
Art of Đông Hồ Woodblock Painting, the Initiation Ritual of the Dao people, the Art of
the Traditional Pottery Making of the Cham, the Art of Dù Kê of the Khmer people in
the South, have not been considered for the compilation of the ﬁles for submission to
UNESCO. Meanwhile, the inscribed elements of the Art of Đờn Ca Tài Tử Music andSong in Southern Vietnam (2013) and the Tugging Rituals and Games (2015) were noton the approved list.
To build up an UNESCO’s nomination, the general procedure is as following:- The local province makes its request to nominate an element in its territory to the
Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.
- The responsible organization such as Vietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts
Studies or the Vietnamese Institute for Musicology is designed by the Ministry of
Culture, Sports and Tourism to work on the ﬁle.
- The local province and the designated institution work together on the nomination
process.
- The nomination committee is set up including the provincial authorities, theinstitute’s director, the research members, the secretary, and the local representatives.
- The working research group goes to the field and work with communities on the
updated inventory, identiﬁcation, ﬁlm and photo of the current status of the element.
- They collaborate with master practitioners, knowledgeable elders and the community
representatives to carry out the nomination works and data.
- The community members such the elders and master practitioners provide theirknowledge on the identiﬁcation, on the practice, transmission and proposals on thesafeguarding measures.
- In some cases the local communities provide their videos, photos and collections to
the research group.
- The research group organize worshops to explain the nomination process and havetheir free, prior, and informed consent letters.
Through these collaboration process, the nomination process has the full support of thePRESENTED PAPERS

local communities and their involvement in the all steps inluding the updated inventory,
the identiﬁcation, safeguarding measures, and ﬁlm and video.
- The ﬁnal nominations have been presented to the National Committee of the Cultural
Heritage and approved by the Prime Minister and then signed by the Minister of
Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.
- The nomination file is submitted to the Secretariate of 2003 Convention for theevaluation process.

Proposed Suggestion and Conclusion
As abovementioned, the Law on Cultural Heritage has been effective since 2001 andthen amended in 2009, but the sub-law documents have been issued slowly and very
lately, such as the National List was set up in 2012 and the Circular on the designation of
the people folk artists and the eminent folk artists in ICH was on 2014 and the ﬁrst batchof the designation was in 2015 (13 years after the eﬀectiveness of the Law on Cultural
Heritage).
As seen from the top-down approach in the Law on Cultural Heritage and other legal
documents, the roles of the concerned communities, groups and individuals are notstated clearly. In reality, the works on the safeguarding, inventory, and nomination
started to be in collaboration with the local community members and their active,
initiative and decisive roles have been acknowledged. One of my suggestions is that
the Law on Cultural Heritage would be amended and adapted more objectives of the2003 Convention on the role of local communities in the safeguarding, inventory,
and nomination. The law and the sub-law documents shall have their articles on the
involvement of the local communities and stakeholders in the ICH and encouregementof their roles and contributions in the safeguarding of ICH. This way will help to havethe balance of the top down and bottom-up approaches in the safeguarding of ICH
element.
In Vietnam within the national target program on culture including the projects on
ICH the required products are the video and photos and texts and are archived at theVietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies and the Vietnamese Insitutefor Musicology and the provincial museums. The new national program on culture
was launched in 2016 shall focus on the safeguarding of ICH in communities and for

47

48

The Government Management and the Role of Communities in the Safeguarding, Inventory and Nomination of ICH

communities, not for archiving. Thus, in 2017, my institute started 5 projects on ICH
on the transmission of the epics of ethnic groups in the Central Highlands and therevitalization of the gongs in the Central Highlands. The concerned research groups haveworked closely with the local communities in safeguarding of the epics and the gongs in
the Central Highlands.
Thus, on the one hand the law, the sub-law, and the legal documents on ICH serve as
the legal framework to develop safeguarding plans, research projects, national inventory
and set up the National List and build up the UNESCO’s nominations. In reality, they
have not met fully to acknowledge and encourage the role of the local communities,groups, and indivisuals in the field of ICH. However, recently the central researchers
have been worked themselves closely in collaboration with the local communities in thesafeguarding, national inventory, and nomination. The discussion on how to encourage
and work out in a consonant manner with the local communities members has been paid
attention in the scholarly confenrences on the ICH and scholarly publications (See Le
Thi Minh Ly 2008; Nguyen Van Huy 2012; Le Hong Ly and et al 2014).
To conclude, I would like to emphasize that Vietnam has developed numberous policies,
national programs and strategies on culture in general and ICH in particular, but only apart of the allocated money from the government was provided for the communities inthe safegarding of their ICH elements. In the future, Vietnam shall have safeguarding
measures and plans on ICH with the focus on the community’s roles and more ﬁnancial
supports are allocated to the local communities for safeguarding measures, transmissions
and performances of their ICH elements.

References
Nguyen Thi Hien, 2016. Final Report of the project at Ministerial level “Resolutions of
the Relationship between the Government Management and the Role of Communities
in Safeguarding and Promoting ICH in Vietnam”, 2014-2016.
Nguyen Van Huy, 2012. “Vấn đề bảo vệ và phát huy giá trị của lễ hội truyền thống: thảoluận về một số khái niệm cơ bản” (Safeguarding and Promoting Traditional Festivals:
Discussion on Some Basic Concepts). Tạp chí Dân tộc học (Journal of Ethnology), No
4, Pp. 44 - 54.
Le Hong Ly, et al, 2014. “Bảo tồn và phát huy di sản văn hóa trong quá trình hiện đại

PRESENTED PAPERS

hóa: Nghiên cứu trường hợp tín ngưỡng thờ cúng Hùng Vương (Phú Thọ), hội Gióng(Hà Nội), tháp Bà Poh Nagar (Khánh Hòa) và văn hóa cồng chiêng của người Lạch(Lâm Đồng)” (Safeguarding and Promotion of ICH in the Modernization Process: The
Case Study of the Worship of Hung Kings (Phu Tho Province), Giong Festival (Hanoi),
Poh Nagar Tower (Khanh Hoa Province) and Gong Culture of the Lach People (Lam
Dong Provine). In Di sản văn hóa trong xã hội Việt Nam đương đại (Cultural Heritage
in the Contemporary Vietnam). Nxb. Tri thức (Publication House of Tri Thuc).
Le Thi Minh Ly, 2008, “Cộng đồng bảo vệ di sản – Kinh nghiệm thực hành tốt từ Dựán Nhã nhạc” (Communities Safegaurd ICH-the Good Experience from Court Music
Project). Tạp chí Di sản văn hoá (Journal of Cultural Heritage), No 4, Pp.38-41.
Salemink, Oscar, 2013. The ‘Heritagization’ of Living Culture in Vietnam as
Intangible Cultural Heritage. This paper presented at Hoi An conference The 10 Year
Implementation of the UNESCO -Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible
Cultural Heritage: Experiences, Lessons and Future Directions. Vietnam National
Institute of Culture and Arts Studies.

49

50

The Current State and Future of the Safeguarding of Cultural
Properties in Japan: Focusing on Intangible Folk Cultural Properties
Minoru KOBAYASHI
Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs

Introduction
The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage operates withthe premise that its target cultural elements are protected by safeguarding measurestaken by States. Therefore, in Japan, the cultural properties covered by the Convention
are basically those designated by the national government. Japan has a basic law
called the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. The national government
implements various safeguarding measures in accordance with this law and its related
regulations. Under the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties, it is not only thenational government that plays a part―local public organizations also have roles. The
national government is also not directly involved in safeguarding measures of bearers(preservation associations); rather, there is a support system that is comprised of threeadministrative groups including representatives of prefectures or cities, towns, andvillages.
*Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties=enacted in 1950, amended in 1954,
1975; system of designation for Important Intangible Cultural Properties=established in
1954 with the amendment; system of designation for Important Intangible Folk Cultural
Properties=established in 1975 with the amendment

The Process of Safeguarding Cultural Properties
In Japan, those elements of intangible cultural heritage considered important are
identified as Important Intangible Cultural Properties or Important Intangible Folk
Cultural Properties in accordance with the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties.
Then, after these elements are designated appropriately, safeguarding measures are
put in place. This sort of process exists not only in the national government, but in theprefectures or cities, towns, and villages as well―in fact, the process has three levels
that are related to each other. Currently, there are 47 prefectures and 1,741 cities, towns,

PRESENTED PAPERS

and villages (including special wards). All of these prefectures and cities, towns, andvillages have local ordinances that are in line with the provisions of the Law for theProtection of Cultural Properties, and cultural properties are being safeguarded byadministrative district. It should be noted that this system is not meant to show how
superior or inferior certain cultures are. Rather, the national government, the prefecture,
the city, town, or village have different ways of viewing the significance of cultural
heritage in the region. Consequently, when viewed from the national level, the system ofdesignation is a “pyramid” of cultural properties, so to speak.

Typical and Representative Examples of Nationally DesignatedCultural Properties
Needless to say, the elements of intangible cultural heritage designated by the national
government are based in Japan. They are designated after considering their geographicalrange, their current state, or their historical nature and comparing them with otherelements. Hence, nationally designated cultural properties are those that show a kind ofregional distinctiveness, such as those found in the domains of the old Japanese clans,
those in local natural environments, or those in local geographical conditions. They are
elements that are typical to or representative of the region. In other words, other thanthe cultural properties designated by the national government, there are many similar
cultural properties designated by the cities, towns, and villages and similar elementsof cultural heritage that have yet to be designated. Therefore, the cultural properties
that have been designated by the national government are only the tip of the iceberg.
The relevant regions consider the local cultural properties treasures born in the region
that should be transmitted under the local leadership. This is called the “on-the-sitepreservation” principle regarding cultural properties.

Various Safeguarding Measures for Transmission and Utilization
Japan implements various safeguarding measures for transmission and utilization basedon the process and way of thinking explained above. For example, there are subsidized
programs of various types, such as those that aim to repair or create tools; secure raw
materials; nurture successors; hold lectures, recitals, performances, or other events toshow cultural heritage; make the element more well known or disseminate information;or create and publish or distribute written or visual documentations. In some cases, these

51

52

The Current State and Future of the Safeguarding of Cultural Properties in Japan

programs are carried out with the advice of experts or researchers. Cultural properties
designated by the national government are supported by a system comprised of threeadministrative groups: the national government, the prefectures, and the cities, towns,
and/or villages; a similar support system exists for cultural properties designated by
prefectures or cities, towns, and villages.
*Percentage of subsidy provided to subsidized programs 50% from the national
government and the other percentages vary by prefecture, city, and/or preservation
association.

Conclusion
The safeguarding of cultural properties in Japan begins with each element of cultural
heritage being identified, being compared to other elements and deliberated on, thegroup that should transmit the element to the future (preservation association) being
identified, and the person(s) responsible for safeguarding being made clear. In termsof legislation, this can be said to be an extremely inductive approach. Furthermore, it
is not only the national government that involves itself in safeguarding. Local publicorganizations also join in on safeguarding through dialogue with the relevant parties.
This is the current state of safeguarding. However, this inductive method that is basedon the current law makes it diﬃcult to designate elements as cultural properties that arecultural acts practiced by individuals or families over a wide area and that do not always
have preservation associations or person(s) responsible for safeguarding. Therefore, how
to take a deductive approach to designating cultural properties is an issue for the future.

53

A Voice from the Heritage Community of Yeongsan in Korea
Young Joon HA
Yeongsan Tug-of-War Preservation Society

Introduction
We are proud of our annual tugging rituals and games called Yeongsan juldarigi. The
main reason is that even if we do not know when it began, we still practice it every
year. It has been transmitted as a part of our village life. We are enjoying ‘juldarigi,’
performing worshipping rituals, procession parade, and tug-of-war. It consists of many
festive events so that all the villagers and even outsiders love to participate in it. During
the festive events people would pray for winning, good harvest and prosperity ofcommunity. The 1st of March and before and after in Yeongsan are full of enjoyment,
vigorous energy and passion. Cooperation and solidarity among community members
are enhanced by the main game and its succeeding events. It has been also praised as thebest practice model among similar folk rituals and games in the contemporary Korea. It
was thus designated as the nation’s important intangible cultural property in 1969 andeventually inscribed in the UNESCO’s representative list in 2015.
The town of Yeongsan consisting of 9 villages is located in Changnyeong-gun,Kyeongsang-namdo, a southeastern part of Korean peninsula. The main industry in thisregion is agriculture, which in the past was predominantly rice farming, but now mainlycommercial crops. Onions, garlics, peppers and livestock are the main sources of income
for the villagers. The size of population is about 6,000 and the number of households isabout 2,500. The population of Yeongsan has been remarkably reduced since the 1980’s.
In particular, not many younger generations are living in this town.
I will brieﬂy introduce the Yeongsan Tug-of-War Preservation Society. Our society wasestablished when the Yeongsan Tug-of-War was designated as Important Intangible
Cultural Property in 1969. The society mainly works for transmitting, training and public
relations. It now consists of 17 members including an honorary bearer who resigned as
chief bearer, an assistant instructor, and 15 transmitters (isuja, literally means those who

54

A Voice from the Heritage Community of Yeongsan in Korea

complete the training course). Mr. Kim Jong Han's resignation left a vacancy in the postof chief bearer. He is now an honorary bearer. I am president of the society and also one
of 15 transmitters.

Keeping Our Tradition
Yeongsan juldarigi is known to be the biggest festival practiced in rural communities
of Korea. Guest participants from neighboring villages, cities and even overseas takepart in the game. Yeongsan tug-of-war consists of several stages: collecting rice straw,
formation of the two team, selection of generals, and making ropes. The collecting ricestraw is the ﬁrst step toward a successful festival. Each household donates its own shareof rice straw. However, currently the collecting straw is not enough for making jul orropes so that extra straws are purchased. Rope production itself requires the concerted
efforts of the entire community over a period of almost a month. The ropes used intugging rituals and games symbolize the mythological animal of a dragon, which isbelieved to bring rain in the rice-farming cultures of Korea.
The game is practiced between two teams. The community of Yeongsan is divided into
the east and the west. The east team and the west team are formed. Each team selects
three generals or captains as the presiders of rituals and games. They are supposed to be
sturdy-looking since they are called ‘janggun’ or generals who must defeat enemies inthe battle ﬁeld. When the ropes are ready, we prepare special ceremonies as a pre-gameritual for the spirits of rope. The worshipping rituals are taken seriously in front of therope because its spirits and/or village gods are believed to control the whole process ofthe game. The east and west teams have the worshipping rituals in separate places. After
ﬁnishing the rituals villagers moved the ropes to the place where the tug-of-war gametakes place. The two teams respectively proceed to the game ﬁeld circling around thetown of Yeongsan. The parade with a big size of rope carrying on the shoulders itself
gets more people together in the game. The parade makes all people excited.
When the parade is over, the actual tugging game begins with a command of the captainor the highest general. The two team members are concentrated in pulling the rope withthe desire of winning. When the game is ﬁnished, we are altogether playing music anddance in order to celebrate the festivals.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Inscribed as an Element of UNESCO’s Representative List
Yeongsan tug-of-war is famous because it is very amusing and also has a high spirit ofsolidarity and harmony. The Korean government designated Yeongsan tug-of-war as animportant intangible cultural property elements in 1969. Since then, we have made ourtug of war the best local festival in Korea. In addition it was successfully inscribed on
the UNESCO’s representative lists in 2015.
However, we do not exactly know what the UNESCO’s representative lists are. One
day a phone call came from the curator of the Gijisi Tug-of-War Museum to us. He said
that the Gijisi Tug-of-War Preservation Society planned to submit the multi-national
nomination ﬁle. He also asked if our team would join them. At that time I was a regularmember so that I did not have direct contact with them. The former president, Shin Jun
Shik, had in charge of contact with them. Upon receiving the proposal Mr. Shin started
to discuss about it with our society members. Even if we did not know much about thejoint inscription on the UNESCO’s Representative Lists, we all agreed with the proposal.
Since then the former president delivered our consent form to the preparation committee.
Mr. Shin had many calls and meetings with the committee members. In the ﬁrst place,there were only two teams that showed interests in making the joint nomination ﬁles.
Gijisi and Yeongsan teams were thus expected to lead the preparation process. However,we, Yeongsan team, did not have man power and funds to do so. Gijisi held an initiative.
Curators, specialists and folklorists gathered in the town of Gijisi and helped the
preparation process. We had to stand aside and watched.
In Korea there are many rural communities still performing tug-of-war games when theyhold their festivals. However, those communities did not show any interests to the joint
nomination ﬁles. I fully understood it since we had the same problem when we had the
proposal from Gijisi. Not us but those who had manpower and aids from outsides did
take the role of leadership in preparation for the joint nomination ﬁle. They were active
and had passions for doing complicated communications with regional and central
governments, specialists, and other overseas’ communities’ of tug-of-war. They did lotsof administrative work including internet communications. Finally and successfully, themulti-national nomination ﬁle was adopted by UNESCO in 2015.
We think that to be listed in the UNESCO’s RL is good in the sense that we get an

55

56

A Voice from the Heritage Community of Yeongsan in Korea

honorable ‘prize.’ Furthermore, it is even better that the ‘prize’ is awarded by aninternationally renowned organization, UNESCO. However, we would ask ourselves
why and how our tug-of-war was inscribed. It is questioning what we are going to do asa UNESCO listed heritage community. At present we are facing many diﬃculties suchas demographic decline, aging and economic hardship. In order to overcome these crisis,
our community members put much eﬀorts into ﬁnding a good solution.

Facing a New Stage
Lastly we are now in the process of transition. As noted above, there was a ranking
system for the preservation of intangible cultural property element: bearer, assistanttrainer, and transmitters. It was clearly indicated in the law of Cultural Property
Protection Law (CCPL) in Korea. It applied to all elements of intangible culturalproperty. However, a new law called ‘Intangible Cultural Property’s Preservation andPromotion’ which was enacted last year (2016) states differently about the systemof transmitting, training and preservation. We are in confusion. CHA proclaims thatheritage communities without the selection of any bearers are encouraged. It means thatthe transmitting system through the preservation societies is no longer necessary for thecommunity based elements like us. We are advised not to select a new bearer. It meansthat CHA would not ﬁll a vacancy in a bearer position. Whether a new bearer would beselected or not is at stake in our community. Some agree with the CHA’s new proposal
but others strongly oppose to it. The new protection system needs to be discussed more
seriously within our community and within the policy makers as well.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Session 2. What has been the transformative impact of the Convention, notably
how have communities assessed its impact?

59

Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Community
Involvement in India: An Individual View from the Field
Shubha CHAUDHURI
Archives and Research Centre for Ethnomusicology, American Institute of IndianStudiesThis symposium raises important and interesting issues about the 2003 Convention interms of the “glocal” the intersection of local and global among others. The issue that I
have been charged with is the role of the community in the light of Intangible Cultural
Heritage, based on my own ﬁeld experience. To provide some background of my work,
I have been working in an ethnomusicology archive that receives field collections aswell as carries out ﬁeld work projects from time to time, for the past three decades. My
interaction with the Intangible Cultural Heritage is through this work, and later comingin contact with the 2003 Convention through meetings and conferences addressingthese issues. This also extended to my involvement with the International Council of
Traditional Music. Perhaps the most intensive and recent involvement has been as a
trainer for capacity building which has deepened my understanding of the Convention
and its implications on the ground.
Coming to the issue of community and ICH - to assess the involvement and beneﬁt to
the community becomes a diﬃcult issue as the concept of community is wide, and tosome extent nebulous as it needs to be. In which case how does one assess the extent
of beneﬁt - limited to the practitioners, the audience and patrons, to a region or culturalarea?
The question I would like to address is whether we are looking at the issue ofcommunity involvement as part of the implementation of the 2003 Convention (as asignatory of the convention), or are we looking at safeguarding through documentation,
preservation, revitalisation and sustainability whether or not as a formal implementationof the Convention? I will attempt to address this through some issues related to the
Implementation of the Convention in India and case studies of institutional initiatives
which are based on community participation.

60

Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Community Involvement in India

In India, initiatives of documentation, preservation and safeguarding some aspects ofwhat we now term Intangible Cultural Heritage predate the convention though they may
not always be in what we call the “spirit of the convention”. This includes governmental
as well as non-governmental institutions and agencies.
We need to look at these against the issue of the awareness of the Convention andimplementing it with the deﬁnition of ICH that it involves, and along the lines stipulatedby the Operational Directives, as well as various initiatives that deal with the issues andconcepts that the Convention represents.

Implementing the 2003 ICH Convention
Though the implementation of the Convention in India leaves much to be desired, there
is no doubt that the Convention has brought issues regarding ICH to the fore, given
them a place in governmental structures and provided a vocabulary and concepts that areappropriate to it.
Inventorying
The creation and maintenance of a National inventory is one of the obligations of theState Parties who are signatories of the 2003 Convention. An oﬃcial inventory related
to nomination of ICH was maintained by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts
(IGNCA) and more currently by the Sangeet Natak Akademi.
These are not comprehensive and do not go beyond the very minimum needs of thenomination process. There are also multiple levels of what may be termed inventories atstate, region level and the national level, in various stages of detail and completion. They
are the product of documentation projects rather than databases created with the express
purpose of inventory making, and do not necessarily follow the UNESCO criteria.
Cultural Atlas
An attempt to carry out the cultural mapping of India was undertaken by the UNESCO
New Delhi office including tangible and intangible cultural heritage. To this end,
templates were designed for monuments, spaces, crafts, performing arts and folklore,
events such as fairs and festivals. The intention was to carry out the cultural mapping of
to create an online space which would work with a wiki model so that various agencies

PRESENTED PAPERS

could input data along with audio video and image ﬁles. However for various reasons,this initiative has failed to take oﬀ.

Major Challenges
Creating a National Inventory
The aim of inventorying is to identify elements of ICH with the involvement of thecommunity or communities, in a “systematic way” to create a baseline document, if wemay call it that to be able to then create strategies to create respect and recognition, raiseawareness and appreciate all elements in an inclusive fashion, and most importantly tosafeguard the ICH within the borders of a nation. To prevent this from being a top down
exercise, the Convention has further added the requirement that the inventorying, as well
as Safeguarding plans be Community based and involve “free prior informed consent”.
If we then begin inventorying with an attempt to collate and combine existing
inventories and databases in various countries, we may ﬁnd that the data collected may
not fulﬁl these criteria and thus perhaps not ﬁnd place in a “national inventory” as per
the “spirit of the Convention”.
To create a community based inventory which includes community members needs
the creation of a large task force that would work in each region or province, state andtown or city, with a focus on being inclusive. Those who have been involved in any
ethnographic ﬁeldwork would be aware of the extent of this work if we are to collectdata from each community and cultural group the elements that constitute all or most of
the domains of ICH.
There are also inherent issues in an inventory which is community based as the very
definition of community is broad and variable as and thus the representation of acommunity or group or even an individual is allowed. Identifying the appropriate leader
or representative needs sensitivity and time, and the ability to understand community
dynamics which may not always be feasible. Inventorying can also include the idea ofcultural ownership and shared ownership which is often contested, and like much of ICH
ﬂuid and changing.
Finally, the national and State level of inventorying is subject to bureaucratic structures

61

62

Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Community Involvement in India

and mechanisms that may lead to giving a fixity to the ever changing nature of ICH
elements if they are to be kept alive and vital.
It is however important to point out that it is not only the process of inventorying thatcarries with it the risk of “freezing” traditions. Any form or oﬃcial recognition, whether
through broadcasting, festivals and competitions carries the same risks.
The issue of rights and permissions is a complex one and in many situations “free priorand informed consent” may be diﬃcult to procure and thus is often implemented in theletter rather than the spirit. There are many elements such as festivals where there is norepresentative who can provide consent or permission.
Inventorying and Nomination
Though the process of inventorying is meant to be a precursor to nomination, theissue of inscribing elements to the Representative List seems to become the centre of
the Convention in public perception. Often the emphasis of the implementation is on
nomination rather than inventorying or safeguarding.
The challenge is thus to create a structure of Community based Inventorying where
awareness and training is carried out at the community level where the practitioners
themselves carry out the inventory, and are able to participate more actively in thenomination process.
Nomination:
The nomination of elements to the Representative List has been the most active part ofthe implementation of the 2003 Convention in India, which is perhaps not an uncommon
trend.
India has been active in nominating elements for inscription on the Representative List:
At this time, the elements that are inscribed are :Kutiyattam;, Ramlila; Vedic Chanting;Navroze (multinational); Ramman, Chhau dance; Kalbelia; Mudiyettu, Sattriya dance,
Thatheras of Jandiala Guru, Buddhist Chanting, Sankirtana.
There have however been no nominations to the Urgent Safeguarding List or to thePRESENTED PAPERS

Register of Best Practices.
The nominated elements do have the benefit of greater publicity and opportunity of
exposure, and have beneﬁted from safeguarding measures involving training centres.
The nominations and indeed the implementation activities of the Convention have been
within the ambit of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts and the Sangeet NatakAkademi. I would like to discuss the examples of two elements here:
1. Kuttiyattam
Kuttiyattam was one of the earliest elements which was part of the Masterpieces of Oraland Intangible Heritage which later became part of the Representative List. In carryingout a literature survey for IRCI we found that it is the only element which has been
written about in terms of the impact of the nomination. Perhaps most of these writings
have as their source a seminar, papers of which were published in a special issue of
Indian Folklife and also by Leah Lowthorp . The funds that were made available
through the Government of India through various agencies such as the Sangeet NatakAkademi have had an impact for practitoners, on what was in the rest of India, a lesser
known performing art. However as its language was Sanskrit, it has carried the prestige
of India’s ancient heritage, and authenticity which is associated with it.
To give an example, in 2005 I had carried out a survey for WIPO of archives,
museums, musicians and cultural institutions to collate information on rights
management and issues of IPR. I had added a last and perhaps unrelated question
asking whether they were aware of the fact that Kuttiyattam was recognised by
UNESCO as a Masterpiece of Oral and Intangible Cultural Heritage. There was nota single positive response, from a list that comprised institutions that worked in theperforming arts and folklore. This illustrates the lack of awareness even in scholarly
and academic circles about the status of nominated elements.
2. Ramman
Ramman, a ritual theatre form of the Garhwal was nominated to the Representative
List in 2009. According to Dr. Molly Kaushal of the Indira Gandhi National Centre
for the Arts, this element was at the cusp of being extinct when it was nominated. It isonly through the recognition gained through the nomination process that the IGNCA,
the national and state government and even the district authorities have provided
funding and support that has led to the revival and revitalisation of this element. A

63

64

Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Community Involvement in India

resource and training centre and museum is being created after members of the local
community were provided training by the IGNCA. Thus according to Dr. Kaushal,apart from the funding from State agencies all the “safeguarding” activities are carriedout by the community. This is an element which is restricted to a small area of a
district in the state of Uttarakhand. Perhaps the very limited area which constitutes thecommunity makes such a project possible.
As we see the State based emphasis on nomination, does raise awareness to some extent
and safeguarding to the extent of supporting, training revitalisation, and performance
opportunities, to at least a section of the community of practitioners. The limitation ofan approach based on nomination is or has been that of ICH being largely limited toperformative arts - extended to crafts at the most.
Awareness RaisingThis remains a weak point of the implementation. Even where the term ICH is known, it
does not always carry the association of UNESCO. The term is gaining currency mostly
as providing an umbrella for oral traditions, performance and crafts to a certain extent.
As far as practitioners are concerned, the familiarity of the term UNESCO is largely
limited to those individuals and institutions who are involve in the nomination process.
The activities and in some cases the creation or support of institutions is attributed to theagencies that fund them or are seen as funding them such as the IGNCA and the Sangeet
Natak Akademi.

Community Based Initiatives - a Few Case Studies
The concept of “community based” or community involvement has many and diverse
implications. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are;- to what extent does a community initiate a plan to safeguard its traditions?
- what can be the role of State parties or NGOs to create or support such initiatives?
and ﬁnally,- how successful can such initiatives be – in terms of safeguarding or to ﬁnanciallysustain the practice of ICH.
The documentation of cultural traditions has largely been the domain of academic andPRESENTED PAPERS

cultural institutions in India. Though discussions of local versus global, and subaltern
studies abound, the idea of a community based inventory even is one that is notseen as “practical” and to which there is unspoken resistance. Community based orcommunity led programs have been more the realm of development initiatives, whether
governmental or NGO based.
A common factor we see is that the idea of community involvement in the case studies
that are describe here is not a part of ICH implementation or perhaps even awarenessbut the conviction of individuals or institutions that preservation or safeguarding oftraditions can only succeed if it is part of the community.

Kutch Embroidery
The region of Kutch in Gujarat is known for its crafts and textiles - among which is theintricate and highly evolved tradition of embroidery. The embroidery done by women isspeciﬁc to each caste in terms of stitches and patterns. Traditionally, women embroideredgarments for themselves and their families. The beauty of these textiles started attracting
museum buyers and tourists who bought them in most cases directly from the families,
for what would be considered a pittance today. As these were not created as commercial
commodities the idea of a market or price was not a major consideration. It was after afamine, and later a major earthquake, that a few NGOs emerged using the highly skilled
embroidery tradition to create a market that would provide an income to women. Though
it is not possible to list all the organisations and their specific contributions, Shrujan,
Kala Raksha and Qasab are the organisations on which I am basing this case study.
These organisations all undertook documentation of the embroidery traditions, worked
at improving the declining standards, involved designers to create new products for an
urban market and created cooperatives.
Kala Raksha has created a museum of embroidery that has been documented by the
women of the community, and to which the community has access. The pricing andselection is also done by the women and profits shared. Kala Raksha Vidyalaya is a
design school for practitioners where they learn elements of design and the ability ofcreating new products for themselves and the ability to market. Likewise, Qasab of theKutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan runs as a women’s cooperative where the women makedesign and pricing decisions. Shrujan, which was a pioneer in this area has also created

65

66

Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Community Involvement in India

a museum based on detailed documentation carried out by community members.
This very abbreviated description is to give a background to the issues that follow.
These initiatives have emerged as highly successful in terms of providing women an
independent income that contributes to their family, has provided women empowerment
and their involvement with the NGOs have paved the way for greater exposure in theareas of health and education.
The issues here are to what extent is this successful as safeguarding, and what questions
does it raise? These initiatives are clearly from institutions which were community
based in their philosophy and thus worked towards not only community involvement but
attempt to give ﬁnancial control of the products to the artisans, hence the community.
Such NGOs also provide training and empowerment by involving community members
in decision making. The success has been the preservation of a craft tradition which may
not have survived to the extent it has, based only on individual needs as it is very time
consuming. The preservation of older pieces being made available to the community andthe ability to sell items at a higher price when they have higher artistic value has also
revived the standard of embroidery. However the major beneﬁt has been to that of theempowerment of women.
What has been the change and where can we see the compromises? The tradition of
ICH of embroidery for personal use with no financial gain has been changed to thatof a market commodity. Creation of products for the urban market changes the items
produced, and the creativity of the embroiders is to a greater or lesser extent subject oreven subservient to the market forces and external designers.
As times change, and financial expectations and needs grow, the need for an income
beyond subsistence level pastoralism and agriculture is to some extent fulfilled by
women using their traditional skills which they may not have had the leisure andfreedom to pursue.
However the tradition of women needing to embroider a certain number of blouses fortheir dowry still exists. In some communities where the embroidery is very intricate andtime consuming, women have started commissioning pieces from within the community!

PRESENTED PAPERS

Goa Chitra Ethnographic Museum
This ethnographic museum in Goa - a coastal area of India with a history of Portuguese
rule, is run by a private trust or more accurately an individual.
The Goa Chitra museum has a large collection of objects and artefacts related toagriculture and the everyday life of the people of Goa, representing traditional life styles.
It has as its basis varying degrees of community involvement. A very important one, isthe fact that the organisation of the implements and the documentation has been donewith the involvement of the community that uses them, and are duly acknowledged oneach panel in the museum. Thus one can distinguish a hoe that is used for breaking clodsof earth is diﬀerent in the North and South of Goa according to the soil type. Measures
for grain varied between those used by the landlord or peasant. A more active part ofcommunity involvement are the workshops held by the museum for artisans, helping
them adapt to the modern market, interactive workshops where children can work withartisans and so forth.
The Museum also provides a venue for performance for local traditions as well as thosefor the more global elite. The most recent initiative is a museum on the ﬁshing traditionsof Goa which is being developed for the fishing community to run it themselves
involving a homestay run by them, which would contribute to its sustainability.
This is an initiative that needs to rely on tourism, whether cultural or educational innature to sustain itself. It relies on gate fees, events and donations to support itself. The
beneﬁt to the community that is represented is variable. It creates a consciousness andperhaps respect and awareness of the agricultural community. A homestay that involves
a museum opens up another venue for communities to extend their income showcasing
their traditional knowledge in times when perhaps the traditional ways are no morepractical or in use.

Archives and Research Centre for Ethnomusicology (ARCE)
I would like to describe here some initiatives and collaborations of the ARCE withwhich I have been involved.
1. Archives and Community PartnershipThis project was carried out in two areas - Western Rajasthan and Goa. A primary

67

68

Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Community Involvement in India

goal was archive musical traditions with the involvement or rather leadership of thecommunity, of repertoire that they felt the need to preserve. The recordings included
discussions and interviews as well as musical performance. Local documentation
teams were trained in the use of recording equipment, as well as in the basics of
documentation using their own perceptions. Copies of all recordings were given to theperformers and community along with full rights to use them as wished.
According to the community, the process of documentation made them more aware ofissues that they had not thought much about, and they felt the recording increased theinterest of the younger generation. Though there were many aspects of the project the ones that had the most impact according to the community members in Rajasthan
specifically were the Manganiar children’s workshop and the CD Series “Mastermusicians from the archives”. (The Manganiar are a professional caste of musiciansfrom Western Rajasthan, one of the communities involved in the project.)
Two week-long training workshops for children were held with senior musicians of
the community providing the training. Though ARCE along with Rupayan Sansthan (a Rajasthan based institution) were involved in the ﬁrst workshop, un the second one
was structured, planned and run by the musicians. The workshops have had a great
impact on the young boys who were participants.
Likewise the CD Series 35% of which were given to the community, are a source of
attraction to the younger generation, some of whom have started singing songs fromthem as the booklets contain the lyrics. The four CDs are of 3 iconic musicians of thecommunity in response to requests for access to archival recordings of these famousmusicians.
In an experiment to widen the scope of dissemination – a mobile app which featured
3 musicians and 9 tracks with detailed notes, and ﬁve programs on a local community
radio were also developed. The community radio is one that targets migrant labour in
urban areas.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Support to Community Archives
Manganiar Lok Sangeet Sansthan (MLSS)
A by-product of the Archives and Community Partnership project described above was
the support to this community organisation of the Manganiar musician community ofWestern Rajasthan which is based in Jaisalmer.
It should be mentioned that this community has over 200 registered organisations. The
MLSS was registered as a Society and had a small collection of recordings, newspaper
cuttings, photographs and song texts. In response to the young musician who headed
it, ARCE provided audio and video recorders, a scanner, a hard drive for backups andtraining in the use of these. The process of recording and documentation continue to bemade and copies of these are also archived at ARCE.
Soorvani (Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan)
ARCE provided consultative support to Soorvani a musician’s collective which is a partof the Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan, in the Kutch district of the state of Gujarat. This
was to enable the setting up of a community archive, as well as a plan and a pilot projectfor documenting musical traditions with community participation. The KMVS is a NGO
who work in Kutch using a cooperative model, and requested the help of ARCE to set up
a structure and plan for local musician communities. A documentation project over two
years was carried out with community participation on all levels, and an archive set up at
Soorvani. Along with the documentation and archiving, various safeguarding measures
were attempted – providing performance opportunities on a local as well as urban stage.

Chekrezemi Society for Cultural Preservation
This was the outcome of collaboration with U-ra-mi-li - a project recording the‘everyday” songs of communities. Their work in Phek, Nagaland with the Chakesang
Nagas resulted in collaboration with ARCE, and resulted in the formation of the
Chekrezemi Society of Cultural Preservation created by the village of Phek. ARCE
donated audio and video equipment as well as a computer to this initiative. There wassome training and support provided by U-ra-mi-li for this community organisation towork on documenting their own musical traditions.
The question to be asked here is - To what extent are these community initiated? In allcases, to some extent. The impetus was from the community and supported by ARCE
took direction in a variety of ways.

69

70

Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and Community Involvement in India

Conclusion
The issue of community benefit is rather more complex and perhaps even ephemeral.
As governmental implementation of safeguarding seems to center around nominatedelements, there is a tendency to nominate performance traditions and crafts. This isprobably impacted by the choice of governmental institutions which are charged withresponsibility of nominations.
Non-governmental or privately run initiatives largely rely on urban markets and tourism
to provide sustainability and thus also are limited in their scope of what is addressed
within ICH. There are a few examples though small where traditions are supported
locally or within the community.
Social practices, oral traditions that are not performative, and traditional knowledge are
valuable aspects of ICH which ﬁnd no place in safeguarding initiatives.
In cases such as those described by our own work in ARCE, it is more a case of being
able to work in ways that support one’s conviction. The beneﬁts are to a few and slow
to show any impact. These require an ongoing receptivity for opportunities to support
community initiatives, and funding to sustain them.

71

The Campaign of Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding in
China: Signiﬁcance and Challenge
Deming AN
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Since the traditional Chinese opera kunqu ( 昆曲 ) was listed as one of the ﬁrst group of
19 Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity in May 2001, which
was launched by UNESCO in 2000, and guqin ( 古琴 ), the seven-string zither was listed
as one of the second group of 28 Masterpieces in November 2003, the Chinese people
who were eager to distinguish their traditional culture in an international sphere havebeen greatly encouraged. Related agencies of the state and local governments, oﬃcial or
academic institutions, and organisations, various individuals from diﬀerent backgrounds
have all been engaged in the campaign of intangible cultural heritage safeguarding,which has currently been developed into a well-known and popular movement in China.
In 2003, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Finance ( 财政部 ), in collaboration
with the State Ethnic Affairs Commission and China Federation of Literary and Art
Circles, launched a project of protecting folk and ethnic culture as a kind of a response
to UNESCO’s series of action on safeguarding traditional culture or intangible heritage.
An administrative system in charge of related affairs has been hence set up, which
included a leadership panel, an expert committee, and a national centre for the project.
Organisational institutions on local levels have been also accordingly established inprovinces, regions, and municipalities. The National Center for the Project of Protecting
Folk and Ethnic Culture ( 中国民族民间文化保护工程国家中心 ) worked actively until
2006 when it was renamed to the China National Center for Intangible Cultural Heritage
Protection ( 中国非物质文化遗产保护中心 ) after China ratiﬁed the Convention for
the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003 in 2004. It was authorised
as the sole oﬃcial agency in charge of matters related to ICH safeguarding in China,
such as providing policy advice for stakeholders, organising general investigations andacademic discussions, and advising or guiding the implementation of safeguarding
measures in various localities or communities.

72

The Campaign of Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding in China

The comprehensive participation of the governmental departments is very helpful in thefurther promotion and implementation of the project of ICH safeguarding. The Ministryof Culture, in cooperation with several other related ministries, formulated an Interministerial Joint Committee as a focal point of the project, to address major issues ina coordinated way; the Ministry of Finance set aside a special fund, and a number ofprovinces, regions and cities also collectively appropriated funds to support the project.
This has greatly attracted the wider attention of the whole society to the project of ICH
safeguarding. Institutions and people from all backgrounds have become involved, andthus shaped a new cultural movement throughout the country. 1
The movement has already made great achievements in practice. Here are somestatistical information about China by the end of 2015: The information about 879
thousand ICH elements has been collected; 38 elements have been inscribed on
UNESCO ICH Lists (including 30 elements on the Representative List of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage of Humanity, 7 elements on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in
Need of Urgent Safeguarding, and one element on the Register of Good Safeguarding
Practices); 1372 elements have been included in the national inventory of ICH; 1986
inheritors have been identiﬁed as Representative Inheritors of ICH at National Level; thecentral government has appropriated more than 4.2 billion Chinese Yuan (around 600
million US dollars) in total to support the ICH safeguarding programme.
It has shown its significance of the survival of folk tradition as well. Many genres offolk tradition, such as temple festivals and other activities concerning folk beliefs, havebeen functioning in people’s everyday life for a long time. However, in the past they
had been labelled as feudal, superstitious vestiges, and were restrictedly prohibited forseveral decades. Although these kinds of tradition became revived after the Cultural
Revolution, they were still struggling to receive the legitimacy from the governmental
discourse. As a most remarkable achievement of the ICH protection movement, in the

1 As mentioned by Barbro Klein (2006), since the term ‘cultural heritage’ had been introduced and applied widely in theacademic domain in Sweden, not only many museum specialists celebrated it as a self-evident concept to describe what
they had been doing all along, but also many university-based ethnologists who recently denied that their ﬁeld had nothing
to do with efforts of preserving and presenting culture or with any activities tainted with the worst aspects of ‘the oldfolklife research’ started to increasingly use it. Similarly in China, many other academic disciplines that used to look down
on folklore studies have also began to ‘jump on the bandwagon’ initiated mainly by folklorists.

PRESENTED PAPERS

中国民族民间文化保护工程普查工作手册 (Guiding manuals for general investigationof Chinese ethnic and folk culture) published by the National Center for the Project ofProtecting Folk and Ethnic Culture in 2005, folk belief was listed as one of the genres
to be investigated. This is actually an indication that the folk belief or religious practicereceived considerable legitimacy in the oﬃcial discourse. In this situation, oﬃcials or
legislators will have to be cautious when they deal with folk culture such as temple
festivals and other traditional religious practice. It therefore provided those kinds of
tradition more space for survival and maintenance (Gao 2013).
Along with the confusing translation ‘intangible cultural heritage’ ( 非物质文化遗产 ,literally ‘non-material’ cultural heritage) which became increasingly popular, growing
numbers of communities, tradition bearers, and even entrepreneurs would like to use thisunusual coinage to label their cultural items. By doing so, these individuals or groups
might not only gain economic beneﬁts for their speciﬁc items, but also endow it withmore significant and multiple meanings in the global perspective, and hence improvetheir social status. And this was greatly reinforced by the legislative establishment of
the National Cultural Heritage Day ( 文化遗产日 ) in 2008, and the promulgating of thenational Law on intangible cultural heritage in 2012.
Folklore studies and other related disciplines also celebrate new opportunities. This
does not mean the superficial prosperity similar to when the one that the so-calledfolklore experts received through praise and recognition from the governments,
local communities and mass media. Instead, this movement enables scholars to think
thoroughly and deeply about the relationship between culture and people’s lives; itenables them to investigate Chinese folklore more deeply and more comprehensively,
with strong support from governmental agencies; it also allows searching for a way tosolve the big dilemma embedded in the movement itself. Therefore, it makes it possible
to contribute with new perspectives and methods based on Chinese experiences, both tothe academic domain and to the campaign of ICH.
During the 9th annual session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguardingof the Intangible Cultural Heritage held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 24–28
November 2014, the Committee decided to establish the Evaluation Body (consisting of
six NGOs and six independent ICH expert scholars) for the evaluation of nomination for

73

74

The Campaign of Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding in China

inscription on the UNESCO Lists from 2015. China Folklore Society ( 中国民俗学会 )was successfully elected into the Evaluation Body for a term of three years. This enabled
Chinese folklorists to participate in aﬀairs concerning ICH on a more international level
as opposed to the domestic one. Through closer communication with related policies andpractices of UNESCO and various countries, Chinese folklorists have been ever since
trying to build a new bridge for the mutual understanding of ICH between UNESCO
and the Chinese government, and between communities and government. In termsof establishment of this rapport, we can mention two of the most notable examples:the modification of strategic principle of ICH safeguarding in China from the earlier‘safeguarding the ICH according to its original ecology’ to the current ‘safeguarding the
integration of ICH’ or ‘safeguarding the ICH along with its living context’, and the focus
on tradition bearers that has changed from ‘active bearers’ (those who possess particular
traditional knowledge) to all ordinary people, stated in the conception ‘everyone is theculture bearer’.
Since the concept of intangible cultural heritage was introduced into China, for quitea while the dominant idea about the ICH safeguarding strategy among the involved
scholars and governmental agencies has been maintaining the authenticity or the originalnature of concerned items. As a result of strong concerns and alarms about the severe
misuse of traditional culture and the widespread artiﬁciality claimed as tradition basedon rapid development of tourism and commercialisation, this idea emphasised the needto keep the tradition pure. Nevertheless, it resulted in a critique from some folklorists
who had been focusing on the academic history of the controversial concept of ‘folklore
as survival’, and that of the so-called authenticity. It was those scholars’ continuousargumentation and promotion that led to the growing debate among diﬀerent participantsof ICH studies and practice. Most of the stakeholders finally came to a reflective
agreement on the impossibility of ‘safeguarding authenticity’, and on the new principleof safeguarding ICH in an integrated way.
Tradition bearers are another main focus of ICH safeguarding. For quite a long time,in accordance with the situation of the academia, the attention of most participants of
the ICH programme has been mainly paid to the active bearers, who are usually very
active in the transmission of speciﬁc cultural items, and have special talents in particular
cultural genres. However, when the concept of community as integration was introduced

PRESENTED PAPERS

to the public, together with more and more scrutiny on the distinction between the ‘active
bearers’ and ‘passive bearers’ by some folklorists (Yang et al. 2011, 23–24), it has been
gradually accepted that those ordinary people who are not specialists in any cultural
items actually shape the main foundations of the viability and vitality of the concerned
traditions. Based on increasingly more discussions and adequate communication, theconcept of ‘everyone is the bearer of traditional culture’ was promoted as the theme
word on the 4th Chengdu International Conference on Intangible Cultural Heritage in2013. As a new way of understanding nature of people and their relation to culture, this
modiﬁcation was in fact in accordance with the idea of safeguarding the integration of
ICH. Moreover, a new light has been shed on the timely and reasonable adjustment of
the safeguarding strategies and measures throughout the country.
The entire project has also brought many negative impacts, among which there has
been some competition and even conflict. Because of the system of inscription on
the Representative Lists (or the proclamation of masterpieces at the beginning), or
nomination on various administrative UNESCO levels (national or local), there has
emerged a certain amount of discordance among local people, as well as disputes over theownership of speciﬁc cultural items among communities or localities within same nation,or even between different nations. This has sometimes led to disturbances in people’s
regular relationship within societies or among communities. For many speciﬁc culture
items or events, there used to be various claims of origin and ownership from diﬀerent
areas or groups. Through long-term arguments and disagreements, the concerned people
or communities have reached compromises or agreements, which has also formed a vital
foundation to maintain the vitality of related cultural items. However, the proclamationof representative items would reinforce those existing tensions and upset this balance,
especially as it is associated with economic and other visible or imagined benefits. In
China, the most remarkable event concerning this aﬀair was the debate about the ‘property
rights’ to the Duanwu Festival between the Chinese and Korean internet users. 2
2 In 2005, the Gangneung Danoje Festival (Dano Festival) in Korea was proclaimed by UNESCO as a Masterpiece of theOral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. Although this festival is diﬀerent in content and ceremony form from the Chinese
Duanwu Festival (or Dragon Boat Festival), since the two festivals take place on the same day (the 5 May according to the lunar
calendar) and share the same Chinese concept of ‘Duanwu’ in the name, many Chinese people thought the Dano Festival camefrom China, and the UNESCO proclamation would disable Chinese ownership and intellectual property of the Duanwu Festival
in the global context. This caused bitter hostility and ﬁerce quarrel between internet users from the two countries, which lasted
for several months and damaged the relationship, which costed a lot of time and eﬀort of the two countries to make up.

75

76

The Campaign of Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding in China

Folklore, or intangible cultural heritage, is highly affected by transformation andtransmission. Its time and space constantly change, adjusting and adapting to newcontexts. In this process, many customs absorb inﬂuences from other cultures and hence
retain their vitality. In the time when the world is closely tied together, emphasising thedistinctiveness of each culture in a hierarchical way might to some extent create sourcesof new conﬂicts; the legislative proclamation of the bearers and practitioners who havespecial responsibilities in the practice and transmission of a traditional cultural item,
which is simply understood by people as ‘ownership’ of the element concerned, in fact
restricts or even hurts the viability and vitality of the cultural item itself.
The project of ICH safeguarding was founded on principles of equality and diversityof human culture, but unfortunately, it in fact produced new hierarchy among cultures,and within a unique culture. The experts and UNESCO have the privilege to determine
what item is suitable to be inscribed on the Representative List, which in the public
mind means a certiﬁcate to the more valuable; whereas the actual bearers of a particular
cultural item cannot have their voice on it. This is another signiﬁcant problem embeddedin the project itself. Although community participation is always emphasised by
UNESCO, community members actually are only objects in the schemed frameworkof ICH. To some extent, they might be treated according to the desire of those who arehigher in hierarchy. This leads to a paradoxical situation where it is the government
agency that decides which culture or whose culture constitutes culture (or cultural
heritage), and folklorists who are supposed to be made by folklore will decide what is
folklore. In this process, ordinary people are actually losing their last remaining power
to express themselves through their own tradition, becoming divided into two separate
groups through being recognised as ‘having the identified cultural heritage’ or ‘nothaving the identiﬁed heritage’.
All these issues are deeply rooted in the inevitable paradox between the ideal UNESCO
theory and the actual practice in various situations. There exists a fundamental
contradiction between UNESCO’s initial purpose of shaping equal understanding andmutual appreciation among diﬀerent traditions, and the pursuit of the beneﬁts related tointellectual property of various ICH items in the practice of diﬀerent countries. The latteris in fact the initial motivation for many countries to start or participate in this campaign
at the beginning, which derives from the perception or realisation of the people inPRESENTED PAPERS

developing countries about the economic potential embedded in the industrialised
culture, and the possibility of accelerating the development of the economy with thispotential. 3 It is hard to say that such kind of motivation or pursuit is wrong; instead,considering the contradiction mentioned above, either UNESCO or academia needto accept the fact that the ICH programme was originated and facilitated by diverse
forces with different appeals. It is therefore crucial to stress the principles expressedin concepts such as ‘cultural diversity’, ‘ICH of humanity’ and ‘mutual respect’ in the
ICH safeguarding campaign, and it is also necessary to pay close attention and genuine
respect to the appeal to intellectual property embodied in various intangible cultural
heritage items from many states parties of the 2003 Convention; especially nowadays,
when the cultural industrialisation is becoming increasingly more popular andinternational. Only by doing so, UNESCO and various states parties can make a feasible
step forward to solve this problem.
Another serious example of the paradox between theory and practice centres on theconcept of ‘community’, which came from my observation when I participated in
the UNESCO ICH evaluation work as a member of the Evaluation Body team as
representative of the China Folklore Society. According to UNESCO’s requirement of
the nomination for diﬀerent lists (Representative List of ICH of Humanity, List of ICH
in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, and the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices),the community’s participation, consent, and leading role in the whole process of
safeguarding the ICH item should be adequately demonstrated in the nomination, andthe lack of any of these counterparts will result in a ‘request for additional information’.
The emphasis on the community is actually an emphasis on the tradition bearers, whichis in agreement with the ﬁnal aim of safeguarding the rights of ordinary people throughculture protection. However, because of the heterogeneity and diversity even within
a single community, and due to cultural, political, and economic differences between
3 For example, the Ministry of Foreign Aﬀairs and Religion of the Republic of Bolivia submitted a Proposal for International
Instrument for the Protection of Folklore to the Director-General of UNESCO in 1973, which was later regarded
as one of the first signs of the ICH project in the UNESCO framework. The main argument in that proposal was topropose a legislative protection of the folklore or cultural forms of expression that were ‘undergoing the most intensive
clandestine commercialization and export’ as a result of commercially oriented transculturation destructive of traditional
culture, and thus to protect the proprietary rights of a nation or people in that nation to their traditional cultural heritage(Intergovernmental Copyright Committee 1973, Annex A).

77

78

The Campaign of Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding in China

various countries, it leads to the dominance of the government in the ICH safeguarding
practice. In some situations, communities concerned with a specific ICH item might
actually prefer to rely on the dominance of the government in the safeguarding of anitem, which can be a better way in dealing with particular issues in this special context.
Such a fact is however not an excuse for any government from the UNESCO state party
to reject the central role of community, and states should aim to limit their ambition tointerfere and exert their power in the process; however, a long time is necessary to solve
this paradox.
Nevertheless, by closer and deeper investigations of the movement and by continuous
reﬂection on the theory and practice, the ICH communities, scholars including folklorists
worldwide, and the state powers will negotiate a better way to maintain the healthy
development of the campaign. In this regard, the concept of ‘cultural conversation’ (Baronand Spitzer 2008, 77–103) developed by American folklorists might be helpful. As
outsiders who cooperate with the community, the state power, as well as scholars should
treat each other as cultural brokers instead of owners, in order to come to a culturalrepresentation based on mutual collaboration. This might be one of the ways to reducethe diﬀerence between the insider and outsider, and thus to lead to a better practice of
ICH safeguarding.
As a result of the stronger consciousness of national identity and closer contact with
the international society of contemporary China, the intangible cultural heritage
safeguarding has been developed into a quite prevalent and influential movement in
the country. In accordance with the principles and actions of UNESCO, China has
acted very positively and has made various achievements in the practice and academic
studies of ICH safeguarding. The widespread prevalence of the movement also has shedbright light on the ways of life of Chinese society. However, by scrutinising different
practices of the projects inside and outside China, we may also find that it causes agreat deal of negative impact. For instance, it does only stimulate competition, but also
conflict between different places, inside a country, or among various countries whenclaiming property of traditional events. It also facilitates a new cultural bureaucracy andhegemony, that might diminish the authority and conﬁdence of the common people as
traditional bearers to express themselves through their own culture. All those problems
are deeply rooted in the paradox between UNESCO’s theoretical proposal and diverse

PRESENTED PAPERS

practices of diﬀerent countries. And since the campaign of ICH safeguarding has alreadydeveloped into an arena for diﬀerent forces to display and present their views – which
is far beyond UNESCO’s initial purpose of launching the programme – to ensure therespect and protection of cultural diversity according to the 2003 Convention – the space
between theory and practice is much broader.
Moreover, the project has provided a framework for various participants from diﬀerent
backgrounds to communicate, understand, negotiate, and make compromises with eachother. It is necessary for scholars to raise alarm in response to any ambiguous aspects
both in theory and practice of the programme, in order to nurture it and ensure its healthy
development.

References
Baron, Robert, and Nick Spitzer, eds. 2008. Public Folklore. Jackson: University Pressof Mississippi.
Gao, Bingzhong. 2013. Zhongguo de feiwuzhi wenhua yichan baohu yu wenhua gemingde zhongjie 中国的非物质文化遗产保护与文化革命的终结 [Intangible cultural
heritage protection and the end of Cultural Revolution in China]. Kaifang shidai 5:
143–52.
Intergovernmental Copyright Committee. 1973. “Proposal for International
Instrument for the Protection of Folklore.”. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0000/000058/005845eb.pdf.
Klein, Barbro. 2006. “Cultural Heritage, the Swedish Folklife Sphere, and the Others.”
Cultural Analysis 5: 57–80.
Yang, Lihui 杨利慧 , Zhang Xia 张霞 , Xu Fang 徐芳 , Li Hongwu 李紅武 , and Tong
Yunli 仝 云 丽 . 2011. Xiandai koucheng shenhua de minzuzhi yanjiu——yi sige
hanzu shequ wei gean 现代口承神话的民族志研究 —— 以四个汉族社区为个案
[An ethnographic study of orally transmitted myth in contemporary society: Basedon investigations in four Han Chinese communities]. Xi’an: Shaanxi shifan daxue
chubanshe.
Zhang, Zichen 张 紫 晨 . 1985. Zhongguo misu yu minsuxue 中 国 民 俗 学 与 民 俗 学[Chinese folklore and folkloristic]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang renmin chubanshe.

79

80

Would Inscription on UNESCO’s List of Intangible Cultural Heritage
Contribute to the Sustainability of Intangible Cultural Heritage?:
Cases of “Mibu no Hana Taue” and “Ojiya-chijimi, Echigo-jofu”
Tomo ISHIMURATokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

Introduction
The theme of this session is “What has been the transformative impact of theConvention, notably how have communities accessed its impact?” I would like todiscuss this theme in reference to a couple of case examples in Japan, namely Mibu
no Hana Taue of Hiroshima Prefecture and Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu of Niigata
Prefecture. Both are inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage of Humanity.
In this presentation, I shall focus on whether or not the inscription of a heritage on the
Representative List beneﬁts its sustainability. In recent years, the UNESCO Convention
for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage has come to be widely known insociety, and the inscription of a heritage on the Representative List is now consideredgood news. However, I do not think that the inscription should be a goal. As long as
the Convention’s purpose is the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, I thinkintangible cultural heritage must be able to be succeeded to the next generation in asustainable fashion.

Mibu no Hana Taue
The first case we examine is Mibu no Hana Taue of Kitahiroshima Town, Hiroshima
Prefecture. This is a custom in which young women plant rice seedlings while singing asong accompanied by drums and ﬂutes that are played to a caller’s beating of a bamboo
instrument called sasara. It is an agricultural ritual to worship the god of the rice paddy
and pray for good health and agricultural fertility, at the same time it provides a creative
way to enjoy the hard work of rice planting. In other words, it was originally a ritualistic
festival that was performed by the hands of the local people for their own beneﬁt.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Mibu no Hana Taue was designated by the government as an Important Intangible Folk
Cultural Property in 1976. An organization called Association for Preservation of Mibu
no Hana Taue was established at this time, mainly composed of local residents, andwas certiﬁed as a conservation group by the government. Thereafter in 2011, Mibu no
Hana Taue was inscribed on the Representative List as a UNESCO intangible cultural
heritage.
In 2013, the preservation association established an NPO, as a ﬁrst attempt of its kindby a conservation group for an Important Intangible Folk Cultural Property. Throughthe establishment of the NPO, the Association became able to sell DVDs, register a
trademark, and otherwise engage in proﬁt-making operations.
The safeguarding of Mibu no Hana Taue involved not only the Association for
Preservation of Mibu no Hana Taue, but also the active participation of local residents
in general. For example, the Mibu no Hana Taue Festival is held with the participationof some 200 local residents every year. Furthermore, primary schools in the region teachabout the festival through a children’s dengaku program. Children begin learning about
dengaku rice-planting rituals in the fourth grade, and participate in a festival procession
through the streets in the ﬁfth grade.
These initiatives have become a model case of activity to surrounding communities thathave similar festivals. Particularly after inscription on the Representative List, Mibu
no Hana Taue has garnered administrative-level attention from the government andprefectures, and has received an increasing amount of support. Voluntary participationby private companies also increased, such as in the form of product development
utilizing the Hana Taue theme, and earnings have come to be obtained from their use of
the trademark.
In terms of tourism, the number of visitors who come to see Mibu no Hana Taue has
increased from 7,000 in 2011 before its inscription to 15,000 in 2012 after its inscription.
Since the festival is held only once a year, there is naturally a limit to how dramaticallythe number of visitors to the entire region can increase, but even so, the annual numberof visitors to Kitahiroshima Town has increased by 84,000, from 1,663,000 in 2006 to
1,747,000 in 2012.

81

82

Would Inscription on UNESCO’s List of Intangible Cultural Heritage Contribute to the Sustainability of Intangible Cultural Heritage?

In this way, the inscription of Mibu no Hana Taue on the Representative List has clearly
contributed to revitalizing the region. However, Mibu no Hana Taue itself is, for allpractical purposes, an activity by the local residents, for the local residents, and not a
performing art of professional entertainers. Mr. Takayuki Fujimoto, Chairman of the
Association for Preservation of Mibu no Hana Taue, says as follows: “When someone
begins to sing, a unison of young women’s singing voices is heard from somewhere, andthe sounds of drums and ﬂutes further overlap with the singing. The singing gradually
becomes louder, and the drums resound even more strongly. Then, almost unawares,
a troupe of dengaku dancers fall into formation and begin performing the Hana Taue.
There are no spectators there, however. That is certainly ﬁne as such.”

Ojiya-chijimi, Echigo-jofu
The next case is that of Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu. These are fabrics made from theramie plant mainly in Ojiya City and Minamiuonuma City in Niigata Prefecture. They
are cool and soft to the touch, and are particularly suited for traditional summer clothing.
The surface of Ojiya-chijimi displays ﬁne crepe-like wrinkles called shibo, while thatof Echigo-jofu is smooth. The most salient characteristic of Ojiya-chijimi and Echigojofu is that they are bleached by exposing them to snow. It is for this reason that they
developed in the snowy region of Niigata Prefecture.
In 1955, Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu were designated by the government as Important
Intangible Cultural Properties. Thereafter in 1976, the Association for Preservation of
Echigo-jofu and Ojiya-chijimi, composed of local producers, was designated by thegovernment as a Holder Group of Important Intangible Cultural Property. Furthermore,in 2009, Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu were inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative
List.
As National Important Intangible Cultural Properties, Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu
must satisfy all of the following designated requirements.
1. Yarns must be made solely of hand-picked ramie.
2. The kasuri pattern must be applied by binding the yarns by hand.
3. The izari hand loom must be used to weave the cloth.
4. The shibo must be made by hot water rinsing and foot stomping.
5. The cloth must be bleached by exposing it to snow.

PRESENTED PAPERS

The definition of Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu as an intangible cultural heritage
inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative List is the same as their deﬁnition as National
Important Intangible Cultural Properties. Therefore, Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu, as
defined as a UNESCO intangible cultural heritage, must also satisfy all of the abovementioned requirements.
It is also worthy of mention that Ojiya-chijimi as a woven fabric has also been certiﬁedby the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry as a Traditional Craft, based on the Act
Concerning the Promotion of the Traditional Craft Industries. The Act was establishedin 1974 with the objective of protecting and promoting traditional crafts as important
industries. It should be noted that designation under this Act diﬀers from the designation
as an Important Intangible Cultural Property under the Act on Protection of Cultural
Properties.
Ojiya-chijimi, as a Traditional Craft by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry,
must satisfy all of the following requirements.
1. It must be a kasuri-patterned fabric woven according to the following technologies
or techniques.
1-1. It must be pre-dyed and plain-woven.
1-2. The kasuri yarn should be used for the weft or for the weft and warp.
1-3. The weft must be twined.
1-4. The kasuri pattern should be woven by manually matching the kasuri patterns andselvedge marks.
2. The shibo texture should be produced by hot water rinsing.
3. The kasuri yarn should be dyed by hand-binding or hand-rubbing. In doing so, akobajogi ruler should be used as a horizontal measure.
The raw material poses a problem here. As National Important Intangible Cultural
Properties, Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu must use yarn made from hand-picked ramie.
However, this is not necessarily a requirement for Ojiya-chijimi as deﬁned as a METIdesignated Traditional Craft. Moreover, only an extremely limited amount of ramie is
produced in Japan today.
Showa Village in Fukushima Prefecture is one of the few regions where ramie is
produced. Most of the ramie produced here is used in Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu.

83

84

Would Inscription on UNESCO’s List of Intangible Cultural Heritage Contribute to the Sustainability of Intangible Cultural Heritage?

As only a small amount of ramie is produced in Niigata Prefecture, Ojiya-chijimi and
Echigo-jofu are in eﬀect supported by the ramie produced in Showa Village.
Even so, the number of residents who engage in ramie production in Showa Village
has decreased from before. For this reason, Showa Village’s “karamushi (ramie) plant
production” has been named a Selected Conservation Technique by the government in
1991, as a measure for its safeguarding, and the Showamura Association for Preservationof the Karamushi Production Technique, composed of agricultural producers of theramie plant, was designated by the government as a Holder Group of the technique.
Furthermore, in Showa Village, the local government and the preservation associationcooperated in launching the “Orihime (weaving princess)” experience-based ramie
weaving program in 1994. Every year, the program invites a group of young people fromoutside of Showa Village to live in the village for roughly a year while experiencing theseries of processes involved in making ramie fabric, from cultivating and harvesting theramie plant, to reeling, dyeing and weaving the yarn. Some 100 people have taken partin the program so far, and around 20% of them have chosen to reside permanently in
Showamura Village or neighboring communities thereafter.
Showamura Village’s ramie production technique, however, is unfortunately not acomponent of UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage of Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu.
In light of such situation, it should be necessary to hereafter properly recognize the valueof intangible techniques that support intangible cultural heritage as a cultural heritage
itself.
Next, let us focus on the economic aspect of Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu. Ojiyachijimi and Echigo-jofu originally comprised a major industry in the region. Annual
production is said to have reached 220,000 rolls of fabric during the middle of the Edo
Period (1 roll corresponds to the amount needed to make one kimono). Today, however,production has fallen drastically. In 2014, the production of Ojiya-chijimi and Echigojofu that satisfy the requirements of Important Intangible Cultural Properties amounted
to 3 rolls of Ojiya-chijimi and 30 rolls of Echigo-jofu, for a total of a mere 33 rolls.
Due to this limited production, Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu as Important Intangible

PRESENTED PAPERS

Cultural Properties became extremely expensive, with a roll worth one kimono selling at
a retail price of no less than several millions of yen. Meanwhile, however, similar fabrics
that do not satisfy the said requirements and are made using machine-spun yarn, forexample, may be purchased for a moderate price of several ten thousands of yen at thelowest.
This situation has been brought about by the fact that the ramie plant, the raw material,has become extremely difficult to acquire, as well as because the process of making
hand-picked yarn requires a lot of time and eﬀort. The large decrease in the number ofcraftsmen who engage in the production of Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu compared tobefore, is also one of the background factors.
Still another factor is the major change that has taken place in the lifestyles of theJapanese people over the past half-century, which has caused a drastic drop in theabsolute demand for Japanese clothing. This is an issue that not only pertains to the
production regions, but also a nationwide issue.
Recent years have seen an increase in the production of Ojiya-chijimi using reasonablypriced, imported hemp yarn as a substitute for yarn made from the diﬃcult-to-acquireramie plant. Another large impact is that mass-produced, machine-woven fabrics havecome to be imported from foreign countries. Ojiya-chijimi and other such traditional
crafts tend to display slight surface irregularities compared to machine-woven fabrics,
because they are woven by the hands of craftsmen. Originally, such irregularities wereappreciated as lending a special touch, but consumers these days seem to tend to preferaffordable machine-woven fabrics that display uniform quality. In this regard, it may
have been inevitable that Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu have taken the path of becoming
luxury goods, to the contrary.

Conclusion
Lastly, let us compare the two cases. Kitahiroshima Town, Hiroshima Prefecture, where
Mibu no Hana Taue is performed, and Ojiya City and Uonuma City, Niigata Prefecture,
where Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu are produced, are both rural regions that face such
issues as depopulation and ageing.

85

86

Would Inscription on UNESCO’s List of Intangible Cultural Heritage Contribute to the Sustainability of Intangible Cultural Heritage?

However, in the former, the inscription of Mibu no Hana Taue on the Representative
List in eﬀect revitalized the region, and new industries based on the Mibu no Hana Tauebrand have begun to emerge.
On the other hand, in the latter, the inscription of Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu on
the Representative List did not necessarily help to solve the fundamental issues of theregion, such as the decline in production and craftsmen, although it did have the positiveeﬀect of strengthening brand power.
The two also diﬀer in that Mibu no Hana Taue was originally performed by the local
residents, for the local residents themselves, while Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu wereoriginally a local industry. Additionally, it can be said that the former met success byattaching a new meaning to Mibu no Hana Taue and matching it with today’s economic
activities, such as with trademark-based product development and the tourism industry.
The latter, on the other hand, is a case where the weaving industry has been left behindfrom the flow of today’ economic activities due to changes in the lifestyle of theJapanese people over the past half-century. It can be said that even inscription on the
Representative List could not reverse the decline of the weaving industry. That said,
inscription on the list did in fact strengthen the Ojiya-chijimi and Echigo-jofu brandpower, so their production and techniques might be able to be sustained by hereafter
producing even higher-grade products.
In this way, the UNESCO convention for intangible cultural heritage is not a panacea
for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. The necessary measures for theirsafeguarding diﬀer according to the type of heritage and their regional circumstances. In
other words, inscription on UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage list should not be agoal. It is necessary to formulate a vision of how inscription on the list could ensure thesustainability of a region and its heritage.

87

Impacts of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage on the Preservation and Transmission of“Yama, Hoko, Yatai, Float Festivals” in Japan: Featuring Hitachi
Furyumono
Hiroyuki SHIMIZU
Ibaraki Christian University / Association for the Preservation of Hitachi Hometown
Performing Arts

Through this presentation, I would like to feature “Hitachi Furyumono” to report on
the impacts of UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage on the community.
“Hitachi Furyumono” was first inscribed on UNESCO’s “Representative List of theIntangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity” based on the Convention for the Safeguardingof the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2009, and then re-inscribed again in 2016 as oneof 33 “Yama, Hoko Yatai Float Festivals” celebrated in Japan.
Before I get started, let me introduce Mr. Hisakatsu Mizuniwa, President of the“Association for the Preservation of Hitachi Hometown Performing Arts,” a safeguarding
association engaged in promoting and transmitting “Hitachi Furyumono” to the next
generations. President Mizuniwa has been involved in succeeding and transmitting thisfestival since he was a teenager, and he is now nearly 80 years old. In recognition of his
long-standing activities to safeguard and transmit the festival, he was awarded the Orderof the Rising Sun, Silver Rays from the Japanese government in 2015.
I was born in Hitachi City, Ibaraki Prefecture in 1955. Hitachi city is home to anelectronics giant, “Hitachi Limited.” When I was 10, I became a performer of Shishimai,or Lion Dance that has been passed down in the local communities for more than 300
years. Afterwards, I worked as a curator of folklore at the Hitachi City Museum, andthen took on administrative work for preserving local cultural properties in 2003. Since
I retired last year, I have been a member of the “Association for the Preservation of
Hitachi Hometown Performing Arts” and playing a part in transmitting the tradition

88

Impacts of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on the Preservation and Transmission

to the next generations. As you can see, I have experience in the safeguarding andtransmitting of the intangible cultural heritage not only as part of the local government
but also as a successor of the element at the local safeguarding association.
I would like to emphasize here that this report is based on my own research and analyses
and does not represent official views of either Hitachi city or the Association for the
Preservation of Hitachi Hometown Performing Arts. Therefore, I clearly state that any
responsibilities in regard to this report are attributed to me.
Here, I would like to present a conclusion ﬁrst as to the theme in Session 2. Firstly, I willtalk about “changes brought by the Convention.” The inscription of the element on thelist of the Intangible Cultural Heritage “raised awareness of people in the communities
towards their own culture.”
This festival has long been dedicated to their local shrine in prayers for peace and wellbeing of themselves but it is now recognized as a significant cultural heritage at the
global level, too, giving them an opportunity to reaﬃrm their own identity. As a result,they are now empowered to take on new initiatives to rekindle the once stagnant “Spiritsof Furyu.”
Next, I will touch on the “impacts of the Convention on the communities.” The
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage brought to thecommunities a new value system that was different from the existing designation
framework to preserve cultural properties under the Law for the Protection of Cultural
Properties in Japan. This particular value system was quite signiﬁcant in that this madethe community members realize that their intangible cultural heritage transmitted
for about 300 years as a “culture in the local area” is actually one of the diverse
cultures existing in the world as well. In addition, the communities also feel that thestatus, “UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage” can serve as an appealing symbol toextensively promote their own folk performing art as well as attract young people who
can be its successors.
In order to understand what a festival is truly like, we must actually go there and feel it.
However, we cannot bring in the real ﬂoat of Hitachi Furyumono to this venue as it is 15

PRESENTED PAPERS

meter tall. Instead, I will show you its video submitted as one of the materials to apply
for the inscription on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2009. I hope you
enjoy it.
The video you have just watched was produced all by amateurs including myself incharge of the script. We edited video footage collected from local people and had an ALT(assistant language teacher) from a local school narrate it. Therefore, the production cost
was very small.
The following is the overview of “Hitachi Furyumono,” one of Japan’s traditional Yama,
Hoko, Yatai, ﬂoat festivals. There are a numerous number of Shinto shrines across Japanthat enshrine their own “Kami” or indigenous deities. “Hitachi Furyumono” is a “Yama”
or ﬂoat dedicated by the followers of our local Kamine Shrine to its deity who comes
down from heaven on the occasion of its rites and festivals. The ﬂoat has an imitated
big rock mountain in the back because this is a place considered as “Yorishiro” where
the deity comes down and dwells. Equipped with various ingenious gimmicks andmechanics that are based on unique ideas, this “Yama” accommodates the puppet theaterin order to entertain both the deity and people through puppet plays. Such creativeand ingenious ideas and approaches are known as “Furyu,” and this is why this ﬂoat iscalled “Furyu-mono (literally means an object of Furyu).” One of the important aspectsof “Hitachi Furyumono” is that this huge, magnificent float is devised and operated
completely by amateurs in the local communities.
Many of such Yama, Hoko, and Yatai ﬂoats in Japan, including “Yamahoko, the Float
Ceremony of the Kyoto Gion Festival” that was inscribed on the Intangible Cultural
Heritage concurrently with “Hitachi Furyumono in 2009, are adorned with various
traditional art work made by professional craftspeople specializing in engraving, metal
work, lacquering, textiles, and puppet making, etc.
In “Hitachi Furyumono,” however, everything used in the festival, including floats,
puppets and all the gimmicks and mechanics, is devised, crafted and operated byamateurs who normally are commoners such as farmers, ﬁshermen, and factory workers.
Next, I will explain the organizations that have been working on the transmission of

89

90

Impacts of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on the Preservation and Transmission“Hitachi Furyumono.” Until the pre-war period, this festival was conducted by the entire
communities in unity through the organizations of shrine followers and community
members but most of the equipment and puppets were destroyed during World War
II. Once the war was over, a revival project was launched for this tradition amid therestoration efforts for the communities even though its revival was thought to be
impossible.
This move was triggered by the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties that cameinto eﬀect in 1950, and local people kept up their eﬀorts with a view to achieving thedesignation of the element as a cultural property under this legislation. Thanks to that,“Hitachi Furyumono” became Japan’s ﬁrst Important Folk Material in 1959, and the ﬁrst
Yama, Hoko, Yatai float festival designated as an Important Intangible Folk Cultural
Property in 1977.
Then, let’s see how such traditional followers and community-based organizations
are different from the safeguarding association that was formed after the Law for theProtection of Cultural Properties was enacted. Traditionally, young men living in thecommunities were obliged to join the junior groups of their neighborhood organizations
once they reached about 17, and were required to play various roles in their community
activities including festivals and events. It was within these organizations that various
skills, techniques and traditions were handed down through generations.
Meanwhile, the safeguarding association, formed after the enactment of the Law
for the Protection of Cultural Properties, became separate and independent from thefollowers organizations to preserve the folk cultural property based on the principle ofthe separation of religion and government stipulated in the Japanese Constitution. As aresult, the members of the organizations of followers and community members now get
involved in “Hitachi Furyumono” as their duties only when it is performed as part of theGrand Festival dedicated to the Kamine Shrine. However, they either stay away or get
engaged on a voluntary basis when it is demonstrated in local events that are aimed to
attract sightseers and revitalize the local economy because these events are not dedicatedto their shrine but considered as the “exhibition programs of designated culturalproperties.”PRESENTED PAPERS

Traditionally, the entire communities were involved in transmitting “Hitachi
Furyumono” through generations but the safeguarding association has been regarded asa party responsible for preserving and transmitting this tradition since its foundation.
Next, let’s take a look at how many times this “Hitachi Furyumono” has been
demonstrated over time, and how the repertoires of performance have fallen into arut. Until World War Ⅱ, the floats of “Furyumono” were demonstrated in line withthe rituals of the Great Festival held irregularly at the local Kamine Shrine by its
followers. However, since its safeguarding association took on the role of preserving
and transmitting the tradition, this festival has been performed approximately 10 times
more frequently as an exhibition project of the designated cultural property at events topromote the local tourism and economy than it has at the Great Festival. Meanwhile, it
was originally a rule to keep secret the titles of puppet plays performed in the festival
until the festival day. This gave each community an opportunity to outsmart others andreceive better reviews by surprising their audience with their unique, innovative ideas
and approaches.
Since the safeguarding association took over the role, these puppet plays have been
performed mainly at local events, resulting in their repertoires fixed and limited.
Unfortunately, practitioners ended up performing the same plays over and over, losing
chances for them to polish their skills of “Furyu,” the quintessential value of “Hitachi
Furyumono.” This led the attraction of “Furyu” itself to diminish as well.
In addition, the safeguarding association is a voluntary group that doesn’t oblige
young people to join it unlike community-based organizations until the pre-war period.
Therefore, the loss of “Furyu” makes it diﬃcult for them to magnetize young people aswell. As a result, the members of the safeguarding association are aging and having a
hard time ﬁnding their successors.
Amid such stagnant situations, however, this festival was able to earn the status of
UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2009. This inscription allowed the members
to become conscious that people watch their “Hitachi Furyumono” performance as anintangible cultural heritage registered at UNESCO.” They also started to develop a senseof self-esteem that they want to show a decent level of traditional “Furyu” techniques

91

92

Impacts of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on the Preservation and Transmissionthat deserve the inscription.
I think this epitomizes the purpose of UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of theIntangible Cultural Heritage, “ensuring visibility and awareness of the signiﬁcance of theintangible cultural heritage.” In line with the inscription, the local government, which I
was part of back then, also launched a project to “nurture successors of this traditional
festival” together with the safeguarding association.
This succession project consists of three main pillars. “Furyumono puppet-making
workshop” is held to teach the general public the techniques required to make puppetsthat were once handed down only through generations of the ﬁrst sons of the families
in charge of puppet making and manipulation. Participants can take their puppets
back home after the workshop. When this project was proposed, some members of thesafeguarding association expressed strong dissatisfaction because most of them had
never experienced making puppets before. Therefore, we invited local elderly people
who had expertise in making puppets to teach the members before opening the workshop
to public so that they could fully learn the puppet-making techniques beforehand. As
a result, the members have developed conﬁdence about puppet-making and now enjoyteaching these techniques to others.
As for the research activity, we expanded a scope of research not only in the Hitachiarea but in other cities and safeguarding associations as well that are also responsible fortransmitting their Yama, Hoko Yatai ﬂoat festivals. We actually observed these festivals
and interviewed local government officers in charge of cultural properties and thesuccessors of each festival for analyses. In most cases, however, we had to take days-oﬀ
on our own and conduct research voluntarily due to budget constraints. For the purposeof sharing the ﬁndings obtained in this research with other association members and thegeneral public, we oﬀered them the oral tradition course as the third pillar of the project.
We also invited some renowned researchers as well to deliver lectures including Prof.
Satoru Hyoki of Seijo University.
Although this project was launched for the purpose of “attracting new successors byshowing them an inclusive, open-minded safeguarding association,” we also had hidden
objectives of raising awareness and changing mindsets about “Hitachi Furyumono”

PRESENTED PAPERS

among the general public and within government organizations. Unfortunately, however,I am no longer engaged in this succession project directly due to mandatory retirement
so similar events have been held repeatedly under this project every year recently.
This is a snapshot of the puppet-making workshop. One of our members is teaching amother and her daughter how to make a puppet in a half scale.
This is the summary of my presentation. First of all, I would like to stress that “UNESCO
Intangible Cultural Heritage” or “Intangible Folk Cultural Properties in Japan” haveever-changing characteristics.
Although how each element emerged vary, I think the significance of it is that its
practitioners have handed it down from generation to generation and entrenched it intheir communities with their strong wills in spite of various hardships they experienced
over a long period of time. In order to be transmitted through generations, these elements
had to keep changing according to the requirements of people in different periods.
Through this process, many elements failing to meet these requirements and losing theirpractitioners became obsolete over time. That is why the cultural heritage still remaining
today is invaluable.
In Japan, they say there are “Yaoyorozu no Kami (multitudinous gods).” Each Kami has
their own characters that are reﬂected in a wide variety of festivals held in Japan. Thisepitomizes the “reflection of diversity and evidence of human creativity” advocatedby the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Therefore, all 33 “Yama, Hoko, Yatai ﬂoat festivals” inscribed on the list of UNESCO
Intangible Cultural Heritage last year should have their unique origins and different
expressions. Because of this, I personally felt reluctant to recommend all of them as asingle element for inscription. However, considering the members of other safeguarding
associations who aspired to have their festivals inscribed on the Intangible Cultural
Heritage List, I was not able to insist on my feelings. There are said to be over 1300
Yama, Hoko, Yatai ﬂoat festivals in this country. I sincerely hope that these festivals will
eventually become UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in the future as well.
“Hitachi Furyumono” was revived from the war devastation and became ﬂourished as a

93

94

Impacts of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on the Preservation and Transmission

registered cultural property but it gradually moved away from the local people throughthe activities led by the safeguarding association that was separated from the traditionalorganizations of shrine followers and community members. However, its inscription
on the Intangible Cultural Heritage List raised awareness of the people about their own
culture and motivated them to promote its safeguarding and transmission activities withmore local people and the local government involved again.
Thanks to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, thepeople in the communities reaﬃrmed their own culture and discovered the signiﬁcanceof transmitting the tradition. Safeguarding and transmitting the intangible cultural
heritage is a responsibility the entire nation should bear.
Taking this great opportunity, the inscription of 33 Yama, Hoko, Yatai float festivals
on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage List, all interested parties including thesafeguarding associations, local people and the governments should make coordinatedeﬀorts to further promote the safeguarding and transmission activities.
Lastly, let me show you the conclusion again. UNESCO’s Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage enabled the successors, local people
and even the local government to objectify “Hitachi Furyumono.” Previously, we had an
inner-looking mindset that this tradition was “our own festival” but the Convention madeus realize that this tradition is actually “one of the diverse cultures in the world, andsucceeding and transmitting the festival is a signiﬁcant task. This “light bulb” gave us
motivation to launch the succession project. As this case indicates, the roles UNESCO’s
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage is playing are quite
important and significant for humanity. Therefore, I am determined to move forward
various studies and activities for Intangible Cultural Heritage while respecting theConvention’s purposes.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Session 3. What is the role of researchers as “cultural brokers”in assessing theimpact of the implementation of the Convention?

97

Brokering Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand: Lessons
Learned from a Nomination Process
Alexandra DENES
Chiang Mai University

Introduction
When I began preparing my paper for this symposium, I quickly realized that thequestion posed for this session was actually more complex that I initially thought.
Namely, this is because in this session, we are asked to consider not only the role ofresearchers in assessing the impact of the Convention, but more speciﬁcally, to discuss
the role of researchers as “cultural brokers.” Reviewing the academic literature on this
topic, I found a range of uses of the term “cultural broker” across different fields. In
applied anthropology, for instance, Willigen (2002) described cultural brokerage asfollows:
Cultural brokerage is an intervention strategy of research, training and service thatlinks persons of two or more sociocultural systems through an individual, with theprimary goals of making community service programs more open and responsive tothe needs of the community, and of improving the community’s access to the services.
While other types of intervention aﬀect the community in substantial ways, cultural
brokerage substantially affects the service providers. In other words, the focus ofchange processes are agencies themselves (130).
In the ﬁeld of heritage more speciﬁcally, the proliﬁc scholar and anthropologist, Richard
Kurin, who has played an important role in the UNESCO Convention for ICH since
its inception, authored a book titled Reﬂections of a Culture Broker: A View From theSmithsonian (1997). In the book, he argues that scholars working in the ﬁeld of heritage
are brokers in the sense that they must engage deeply with communities and help “people
grapple with institutions and situations of power (24).” Furthermore, he proposes that
cultural brokers are obligated to serve as advocates for communities and practitioners innegotiating with the various state and non-state institutions involved in documenting andrepresenting cultural heritage to wider audiences, including museums, ﬁlm, television,

98

Brokering Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand

radio and the internet.
Representations of peoples, cultures, and institutions do not just happen. They are
mediated, negotiated, and yes, brokered through often complex processes with myriad
challenges and constraints imposed by those involved, all of whom have their own
interests and concerns ... Making these decisions necessitates due consideration of themeanings held by the participants, the public and the press, the power of the people
involved, and their fiscal resources, expenditures and impacts. Like other forms ofbrokerage, cultural dealings rely on an extensive base of knowledge, formal andexperiential, but they are, in the end, an art (27).
Linking these ideas of cultural brokerage directly now to the implementation of the
UNESCO ICH Convention, it seems clear that the primary role of researchers should beto ensure that communities and local ICH practitioners are not only informed about theobjectives of the ICH Convention, but moreover, that they are involved as equal partners
in the development and implementation of safeguarding initiatives. When necessary,
cultural brokers should help translate, represent and convey community and practitioner
perspectives about ICH to government and nongovernment actors and UNESCO, withthe aim of improving the quality and relevance of safeguarding measures, and ensuringthat they reﬂect community concerns and interests.
The reality is, however, that given power relations around heritage management andthe often marginal and temporary position of researchers, there is no guarantee thatgovernment and non-government agencies will be responsive to incorporating their ideas
or recommendations. As numerous recent studies have shown (Arizpe & Amescua 2013;
Bendix, Eggert and Pesselmann 2012), state heritage authorities in particular often have adiﬀerent agenda with regards to the UNESCO ICH Convention, which has more to do withpromoting national heritage on the international stage rather than ﬁne-tuning communitybased ICH safeguarding initiatives. What then, might be done structurally in terms of theimplementation of the ICH Convention, to ensure that state and non-state agencies will
listen and incorporate feedback from communities and their cultural brokers?
With these questions in mind, in this paper, I would like to share my own experience asa researcher and cultural broker who has been involved in the nomination process forPRESENTED PAPERS

an element of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand called the Salak Yom Festival.
Through this case study, I hope to illustrate both the possibilities and the limitations
faced by researchers vis-a-vis state heritage authorities, and in conclusion, I aim topropose measures that could potentially strengthen the role of cultural brokers inassessing the implementation of the ICH Convention.

Thailand and the UNESCO ICH Convention
In Thailand, the state authority in charge of implementing the Convention is the
Department of Cultural Promotion under the Ministry of Culture (hereafter the
DCP). The DCP initiated its involvement with the ICH Convention many years prior
to becoming signatory in 2016, organizing regional public forums to introduce theConvention, discussing the terminology, and debating the merits and potential drawbacks
of becoming signatory. It also launched a national ICH inventory process in 2009broadly modeled on the Convention, listing new elements on the registry each year. In
March 2016, Thailand promulgated a Law for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage,
which established the legal framework for safeguarding ICH and identiﬁed responsible
authorities for its implementation at the national and provincial levels. It should be said
that while the Thai bill for safeguarding intangible heritage draws upon the UNESCO
deﬁnition of ICH as living culture belonging to communities, it completely leaves out
the UNESCO language of community rights to participate in safeguarding their heritage,and instead places authority to select heritage for the national registry in the hands ofexpert committees at the provincial and national level.
In spite of this gross omission in the Thai national law, the UNESCO Convention
nevertheless obligates signatories to demonstrate how they are involving communities
in the intangible heritage management plans, both in the development of nominationﬁles for the listing of heritage on the Representative and Urgent Safeguarding List, andin their periodic reporting. Indeed, it was this prerequisite of community participation
which led the Thai Ministry of Culture’s Department of Cultural Promotion to contact
me in December 2015, to ask whether I would be willing to serve as a project director
for the nomination of the Salak Yom festival to the UNESCO Representative List in
2017. DCP acknowledged that they were in the habit of inventorying cultural heritage
following the more familiar pattern of subcontracting to academic researchers, whogathered information for the national registry, without necessarily acquiring consent

99

100

Brokering Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand

or engaging communities actively in any way. As Thailand would become signatory in
2016, they were eager to support a nomination process that could serve as an example
for what kinds of actions were involved in meeting the Convention’s obligation ofcommunity participation. The Salak Yom was one of four elements whose nominationﬁles would be prepared during 2016.
As for why the DCP selected the Salak Yom, this was mainly due to the fact that theagency was already aware of the community-based research on this festival that I had
been involved in since 2008 under the auspices of the Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre’s
Intangible Cultural Heritage and Museums Fieldschool. Therefore, they knew that as a
researcher and a cultural broker, I already had substantial data and local networks, not tomention English proﬁciency and familiarity with the ICH Convention.
Before agreeing, I consulted with my counterparts in Lamphun, including the local
historian and museum curator, Naren Panyaphu. Naren felt it would be a good
opportunity to draw wider attention to the history of the Salak Yom and the eﬀects of its
state-led revitalization, and also to garner perspectives from the communities where it
was originally practiced about how it should be safeguarded going forward. He agreed
to be part of the research team, along with Suwipa Champawan, a native of Lamphunand a researcher at the Lanna Studies Institute and Chiang Mai University, and Linina
Phuttitarn, a Bangkok-based researcher and Field School alumni who had conducted her
own research on the Salak Yom and had worked with UNESCO Bangkok on various
ICH-related projects.
We agreed that our condition for accepting the DCP project was that we would take animpartial position with regards to the nomination. In other words, we would present
the UNESCO ICH Convention to the communities, explain the objectives behindnomination and listing, and outline possible positive and negative impacts, including
overcommercialization from tourism. If the communities did not want to nominate
Salak Yom, we would not proceed further. We also agreed that one of our project aims
would be to ensure that data gathered over the course of our community-based researchwould be accessible to the practicing communities for education and transmission
purposes. Towards this end, my students at Media Arts and Design would be involved indeveloping web resources featuring audiovisual materials from ﬁeldwork and interviews.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Engaging the Community: Brokering Differing Views on the Meaning ofSalak YomIn April 2016, we held our first community forum at the Senior Association in Luk
Village. The aim of the forum was threefold: ﬁrst, to explain about the UNESCO ICH
Convention; second, to present the ICH nomination process and pros and cons of listing;and third, to garner perspectives from ethnic Yong communities about the signiﬁcance of
the Salak Yom festival and how it should be safeguarded.
One hundred and thirty one participants from three sub-districts joined the forum,
including dozens of senior residents who had participated in the festival in their youth.
Divided into four groups, participants were asked to create a timeline of Salak Yom
events in the past in their own communities as they could remember them, to describe
the preparation of the oﬀerings and to explain the ritual’s purpose and meaning.
Participants explained that the Salak Yom practiced among the ethnic Yong was a local
variation of a northern Thai Buddhist ritual held in the tenth month of the lunar calendar,
between September and October, known as Kuay Salak or Salakapat. The Kuay Salakis a collective rite of giving alms oﬀerings to the Buddhist Sangha by lottery, to makemerit for the deceased and to invite their spirits to receive oﬀerings of food and otherobjects. The Salak Yom, however, was unique, in that the towering, tree-like oﬀerings
were traditionally given only by unmarried, ethnic Yong women around the age oftwenty. These young women would spend months preparing the material components
for the Salak Yom offering, such as the woven bamboo covers for the Buddhist palm
leaf manuscripts, and they would save money for years to purchase gold necklaces,
silver belts, and silver betel containers to hang on their Salak Yom trees. The Salak
Yom oﬀering was a demonstration of a young woman's diligence, handicraft skills andability to manage a household economy-all of which was evidence that she was readyfor the responsibility of marriage. Through their participation, young women not only
made merit for their own future happiness and prosperity, but also for the spirits of thedeceased, all of which cemented their ties to family and the Buddhist Sangha.
Another distinctive aspect of the Salak Yom was called the kalong singing. The kalong
was a poem written by a former monk in the Lanna script, describing all aspects of the
Salak Yom tree, the donor and her family. The poem included personal details about

101

102

Brokering Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand

the young woman's upbringing and her family, her birth, education, important events,
hobbies and special skills. The kalong also described the Salak Yom, including theofferings of money and valuables, and the support provided by friends and family inconstructing the tree. It also included Buddhist teachings as well as stories. The kalong
was sung during the preparation of the Salak Yom, as well as on the day of the ritual,
before the drawing of the lots, to remind everyone in the community about the virtues
and qualities of the young women oﬀering the trees.
In terms of purpose, oﬀering the Salak Yom was a way to accumulate a great store of
merit and virtue (bun anisong) for oneself, and was also a chance to transfer merit to a
multitude of deities and spirits, including one’s deceased ancestors, domestic animals,the Earth Goddess, Indra and Brahma, and hungry ghosts. When asked further about themeaning, participants said that it was a ritual that brought families together (samakhi)
through the many days of preparation.
Regarding the history of practice and its transformation, older participants describedthe decades between 1930s-1960s as being the peak years of the Salak Yom. Mae
Buariew, a 92-year old resident of Ban Luk, said she remembered seeing the first
Salak Yom oﬀerings in her village at the age of 7, in 1932. The biggest festival in theforum participants’ memory was in 1947, when 32 Salak Yom trees were offered at
Luk Monastery. And the last time the Salak Yom was organized locally according toparticipants was in 1982, at Lam Chang Monastery.
As for why the practice faded from the 1980s onwards, there were many reasons given,
mostly related to major socioeconomic changes over the past 40 years. The mostsigniﬁcant of these was the shift from agricultural to industrial production. While older
generations are still employed in the agricultural and handicraft sectors, producing
longan fruit, vegetables, and handmade cotton goods, the younger generations today
are employed in the many industrial states in the province. The 8-5 workday means thatmost young people cannot participate in the Salak Yom preparation. Another signiﬁcantfactor were the rising costs associated with Salak Yom, as more of the oﬀerings had tobe purchased rather than made by hand, and the price of gold and silver had also risen
steeply.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Forum participants explained that the Salak Yom practiced in Lamphun today was a very
diﬀerent event. Following the period of decline due to social and economic changes over
several decades, the Salak Yom was revived in 2004 by the local Sangha and the Cultural
Council, with the ﬁnancial support of the Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO).
Rather than encouraging young, unmarried women to prepare the Salak Yom, provincial
religious and administrative authorities provided funding to communities to prepare a
Salak Yom offering collectively, with the added incentive of competing for monetary
prizes for the best Salak Yom tree. Whereas the Salak Yom used to be held at local
monasteries with predominantly ethnic Yong residents, the new, provincially-sponsored
event was held ﬁrst at the royal temple, Wat Phra That Hariphunchai, and only then at
the local temples that took turns hosting the event.
With regards to how the recently revived Salak Yom differed from the past, forum
participants said that ﬁrst and foremost, the Salak Yom used to be oﬀered by women,
whereas the contemporary Salak Yom were oﬀered by lay communities of monasteries,
organizations or very wealthy, prominent individuals. A second point was that the
Salak trees were no longer adorned with handmade goods and other valuable items, butrather with purchased goods and colorful paper decorations, a situation that participants
summed up as ngern khaw kaad kradaad khaw wat, which means “money flows into
the market while paper ﬂows into the monastery.” In terms of the kalong poem, today
these were still recited at the annual festival to create an ambience, but some felt thecontent of the poems was lacking in substance compared to the past. Lastly, few young
people participated in the preparation process, and those who did had a limited skills or
understanding of the ritual’s signiﬁcance. Participants acknowledged that the provincial
authorities had tried to support community revival by providing funding of 20,000 baht
and organizing a contest for the best Salak Yom, but this amount was not enough tocover all the expenses, and furthermore, the contest had led to conﬂicts between villages
that were competing for the monetary prizes.
When we asked participants for their suggestions, many people said that it would
be preferable not to have a competition, because so much emphasis was placed on
constructing Salak offerings of ten meters or more, which was also very costly. They
recommended that instead of focusing on height, the organizing monasteries should
encourage devotees to offer smaller trees which are more elaborately adorned with

103

104

Brokering Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand

handicrafts rather than purchased goods. Finally, the participants proposed that it wasvital for young people to acquire a deeper understanding of the history and meaning of
the ritual, as well as to gain the skills to create the Salak Yom oﬀerings.
As for submitting the nomination for the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage of Humanity, we explained to the participants that one of thepotential negative outcomes of listing could be an increase of the number of tourists
and consequently even more of a focus on the festival as a cultural spectacle rather
than a Buddhist ritual practice. In spite of this, many said they would be proud to have
UNESCO recognition, and through a blind vote, the participants expressed unanimous
support for nominating Salak Yom.
After this initial forum, our research team organized several more meetings with local
stakeholders including participating schools and monasteries, and continued withindividual interviews and field research to gather data for the nomination file and the
web resources. We also participated in the Salak Yom festival organized from 1416 September at the main temple, Wat Phra That, and the local festival at from 2325 September at Wat Chaimongkol, and interviewed community leaders involved in
the state-led revitalization, including the Abbot of Pratupa Monastery, the Abbot of
Wat Phra That Hariphunchai, and the Head of the Lamphun Provincial Administrative
Organization. On February 20, 2017, we met with the Governor of Lamphun to brief
him on the research and the nomination process.
Over the course of the three days of the festival, the traditional signiﬁcance of the SalakYom for the women in Lamphun’s ethnic Yong communities was mentioned a few
times by loudspeaker by the event organizers, and thus it can be said that this history
had not been completely forgotten. Nevertheless, it was clear that with the organization,
promotion and sponsorship of the Provincial Administration, Sangha and Cultural
Council, the Salak Yom had become a state-sponsored, cultural event, representing not
the ethnic Yong but rather the collective identity of the province as a whole.
When asked about their rationale for organizing the Salak Yom as a provincial event,representatives of the Provincial Administration and Buddhist Sangha Council explainedthat the funding for the Salak Yom competition was an important ﬁnancial inducement

PRESENTED PAPERS

for communities to participate. They argued that traditional gender roles had changed,
and young women today had entered the workforce and were delaying marriage, andthus were no longer inclined to oﬀer the Salak Yom as they had in the past. In order torevitalize the Salak Yom, key local government and religious authorities said that they
had needed to adapt the traditional meaning and function of the ritual to the changing
times, in part by oﬀering material incentives for communities, and in part by making the
Salak Yom a festive event that would draw more visitors to participate. Judging solely
from the considerable turnout at the festival, one might be inclined to say that they had
succeeded in reviving a waning tradition. And yet, as we learned from discussion withthe ethnic Yong communities where the Salak Yom originated, the situation was much
more complex, with wideranging viewpoints about how, or even if, the Salak Yom
festival should be sustained.
Over the course of this research, it became increasingly clear that local views about
how to safeguard the festival were far from uniform. These differing perspectives
about the practice of Salak Yom today raise challenging questions around community
representation and implementation of the 2003 ICH Convention. Returning now to theissue of the role of cultural brokers, whose perspective should be given priority? How
does one begin to talk about measures for safeguarding given this range of perspectives
within the ethnic Yong community and the broader context of stakeholders in Lamphun?
If we give greater priority to older generations of ethnic Yong who are calling for a
return to simpler times through an elimination of the contest, are we reifying the practicearound nostalgia for the past and notions of authenticity? On the other hand, if we
accept the premise of the Provincial Authority and Buddhist community leaders who
advocate the promotion of the festival as a provincial event to draw tourists and outside
donors, doesn’t this constitute the “decontextualization,” “commercialization” and“misappropriation” that the Convention’s Operational Directives (UNESCO 2012: para
102) caution against?
I do not claim to have the answers to this dilemma. I do maintain, however, that the roleof the cultural broker is to make an eﬀort to ensure that these diﬀerent local perspectives
and understandings of intangible culture are given equal weight and recognition, and to
facilitate discussions about safeguarding measures which might reﬂect the complexity ofintangible heritage rather than simplifying it to a single uniﬁed narrative.

105

106

Brokering Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand

During the period of research and consultation in 2016, a number of concrete measures
were developed in consultation with the original communities where Salak Yom waspracticed, as follows: While local communities agreed that the provincial Salak Yom
festival and contest at Wat Phra That Hriphunchai should continue, in order to encouragea renewal of Buddhist values at the local level, it was proposed that the Salak Yom heldin the three subdistricts should do away with the contest, and instead residents should
be encouraged to participate in the ritual by preparing their own Salak Yom oﬀerings forthe main purpose of donation and merit-making.
Secondly, the provincial Salak Yom festival should recognize the ethnic Yongcommunities of Pratupa, Rimping and Nong Chang Khuen as the original creators of
the Salak Yom by providing information about the history of the ritual to visitors, i.e.
through brochures, booklets, or temporary exhibits.
Thirdly, web resources about the Salak Yom should be developed, including historicalinformation, archival photos, and interviews with senior residents who participated in
the ritual prior to its revival. These materials should be incorporated into formal andnon-formal school activities.
Fourthly, it was proposed that a local Salak Yom Association comprised of community
leaders and representatives from the three ethnic Yong subdistricts be established inorder to encourage dialog between communities and to plan and oversee safeguarding
activities within these communities. The Association should formally register with theProvincial Cultural Council in order to be eligible for funding for activities.
Lastly, another proposed safeguarding measure was to strengthen youth networks andencourage young people's participation in the Salak Yom festival, particularly young
women. Historically, the Salak Yom celebrated the role of women in the community, andthis feature of the ritual should be transmitted by educating a new generation about thisimportant history.
All of these proposed measures were incorporated into the nomination ﬁle, and were alsopresented in February 2017 by our research team to the recently established provincial
committee responsible for implementing the ICH Convention according to the new ThaiPRESENTED PAPERS

ICH Bill. At present, however, it is unclear whether the committee is prepared to takeaction or provide resources to implement the above measures. This delay is due in part tothe fact that the DCP decided in March 2017 to postpone the Salak Yom nomination inorder to submit the Khon masked dance nomination, an element of ICH which represents
Thailand’s royal classical heritage and thus has greater national prominence and prestige
when compared to the Salak Yom festival. This reﬂects the point made at the outset of
this paper, namely that cultural brokers are frequently limited in their capacity to change
the understanding of heritage authorities regarding the purpose of the ICH Convention.
Ultimately, they will decide which ICH elements should receive special attention andsupport at the national and international level via listing.

Conclusions
As stated at the outset, the role of cultural brokers in assessing the impact of the ICH
Convention is to advocate for communities and practitioners who are the primarystewards of intangible heritage. This means that cultural brokers must not only engage
communities to gain a deep understanding of their ICH, but also to represent and convey
their interests to state and non-state agencies involved in heritage management. As wehave seen in the case of the Salak Yom in Thailand, however, cultural brokers may
facilitate, advise and advocate for community inclusion in ICH processes, but they do nothave decision-making power regarding how ICH is recognized or safeguarded. I would
like to propose that researchers could be brought more formally into the assessment of
ICH implementation by including a field-based, external evaluation component in the
periodic reporting. In this way, researchers could confirm whether inventorying andnomination processes are genuinely community-based and participatory, and also advise
in their own reports on how more eﬀective participation could be achieved. While sucha requirement might arguably be complex and costly for states parties, I argue that it
would strengthen the community-based objectives of the Convention and lend credibility
to the role of the cultural broker as a community advocate in the growing ﬁeld of ICH
management.

References
Amescua, Cristina. 2013. “Anthropological Perspectives on Intangible Cultural
Heritage.” In Anthropological Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage, edited by

107

108

Brokering Intangible Cultural Heritage in Thailand

Lourdes Arizpe. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bendix, Regina, Eggert Aditya, and Peselmann, Arnika, eds. 2012. Heritage Regimes
and the State. Vol. 6. Gottingen Studies on Cultural Property. Gottingen: Gottingen
University Press. http://www.networkedheritage.org/2012/12/10/heritage-regimes-andthestate/.
Kurin, Richard. 2014. Reflections of a Culture Broker: A View from the Smithsonian.
Smithsonian Institution.
Willigen, John V. 2002. Applied Anthropology: An Introduction. Greenwood PublishingGroup.
UNESCO. 2016. “Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for
the Safeguarding of the Intangible Heritage - Intangible Heritage - Culture Sector UNESCO.” UNESCO. https://ich.unesco.org/en/directives.

109

Considering the Role of Researchers at Local Governments (as“Cultural Brokers”) in Japanese Cases of ICH
Satoru HYOKI
Seijo University

History of the Policy for Preserving Intangible Folk Cultural Properties inJapanThe ﬁrst law in Japan aimed toward the preservation of cultural properties is the Ancient
Temples and Shrines Preservation Law (Kosyaji hozonhō 古社寺保存法), legislated in
1897. And after several waves of legislation and revision, the Law for the Protection ofCultural Properties (Bunkazai hogohō 文化財保護法, hereafter the Law) was establishedin 1950. This law has been in force for over 65 years and still has great inﬂuence.
This law, as is well known, has covered not only tangible but also intangible culturalproperties from the very beginning1. Along with these two categories, folk culture
was also regarded as an object of protection, although its deﬁnition was very limited.
The definition of tangible cultural properties in the first text of the law exemplified“folk materials” (minzoku shiryō 民俗資料) as one of the candidates for designation ofimportant tangible cultural properties.
The ﬁrst major amendment of the Law was established in 1954, adding a new category
covering folk culture separated from tangible cultural properties. This new category
covered both the tangible and intangible2, even though the name of the category itself
was “folk materials.” The reason why it was not called “folk cultural properties” (minzoku
bunkazai 民俗文化財), in the same manner as other categories, seems to be that each itemof folk materials had not been regarded as “property” that had its own value. The text of
the Law deﬁned folk materials as “indispensable for understanding the transition of theways of life of the Japanese people,” which suggests they were regarded as important
1 Category of “intangible cultural properties” (mukei bunkazai 無形文化財) consists of two sub-categories: “craft techniques”(kōgei gijutsu 工芸技術) and “performing arts” (geinō 芸能).
2 The object of preservation of “intangible folk materials” was regarded as “manners and customs” (fūzoku kansyū 風俗慣習)
in the broad sense.

110

Considering the Role of Researchers at Local Governments (as “Cultural Brokers”) in Japanese Cases of ICH

materials, namely resources, for comparative study to ﬁgure out the historical transitionof “national” culture. It was the most signiﬁcant subject of folklore studies in Japan atthat time.
Furthermore, the law regarded intangible folk materials as possessing uniquecharacteristics. Unlike tangible folk materials recognized for their need of conservation,
intangible folk materials were not considered an object of conservation. The chairpersonof the Secretariat of the National Commission for the Protection of Cultural Properties(Bunkazai hogo iinkai 文化財保護委員会, hereafter the Commission) gave an account
why the Commission had not recognized the need for the conservation of intangible
folk materials. According to that, it seemed impossible, or even meaningless to conserve
intangible folk materials as they were, because their forms naturally varied in tandemwith social change. With this reasoning, it was enough to conduct intensive research andto make accurate records or documentation of their existing states. As a consequence,
intangible folk materials became an object of “selection” (sentaku 選択) as “folkmaterials requiring documentation and other measures that should be taken” (kiroku
sakusei tō no sochi wo kōzubeki mukei no minzoku siryō 記録作成等の措置を講ずべき無形の民俗資料).

In 1975, the Law underwent its second major amendment, and folk materials wererenamed “folk cultural properties” in a similar manner to other categories. At the sametime, “intangible folk cultural properties” became an object of designation linked to theintention of conservation. This might mean the change of recognition that “the formof intangible folk cultural property naturally varies in tandem with social change”,
as mentioned in previous paragraph. And in accordance with this amendment, folk
performing arts which had been treated as intangible cultural properties till then came tobe regarded as intangible folk cultural properties. In 2004, a new subcategory of “folktechniques" was added to intangible folk cultural properties. Thus, the current system ofintangible folk cultural properties was established3.

3 It consists of three subcategories: “manners and customs” (fūzoku kansyū 風俗慣習), “folk performing arts” (minzoku geinō
民俗芸能) and “folk techniques” (minzoku gijutsu 民俗技術).

PRESENTED PAPERS

Distinctive Way and Procedure for Preserving Intangible Folk Cultural
Properties
I had worked for 10 years as a researcher of the intangible folk cultural properties
section at the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties Tokyo, which wasestablished by the national government after a few years of the Law was legislated.
While I was in that position, I attended some international meetings held by UNESCO or
its cooperative organizations to establish the 2003 convention. On those occasions, I was
sometimes asked about what is the diﬀerence between “intangible cultural properties”
and “intangible folk cultural properties”, and why we diﬀerentiate those two categories.
Many of the people who asked such questions may have thought that this distinction
would regarded folk culture as something low against high culture such as ﬁne art. For
such questions, I usually answered that the diﬀerences were in the way and proceduresfor preservation.
The biggest difference is that implementing bodies of preservation of folk culturalproperties are mainly local governments, such as prefectures and municipalities. In
many cases, even the project plans for preservation of nationally designated intangible
folk cultural properties are usually made by the local government, although it should
be made according to the general guidelines established by the national government,
and they propose such projects to the agency for cultural aﬀairs to get subsidies fromnational government. Intangible folk cultural properties are diverse and each of them has
its own circumstances. To address these issues, it is necessary to develop and implement
preservation from the perspective of local context. In this regard, the importance of therole of the “cultural brokers”, which is the theme of this session, becomes a problem.

Local Government Workers as Cultural Brokers
When considering the role of cultural brokers or intermediaries, the involvement ofNGOs seems to have become a topic in recent international discussions. 4 In this regard,
Japan seems to be behind the world. NGO activities related to the preservation of ICH
have begun to emerge slightly, but it is difficult to say that they are very active. This

4 See, for example, Lewis, David. 2014. “Understanding the Role of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) as Cultural
Brokers.” VOLKSKUNDE, no. 3: 293–98.

111

112

Considering the Role of Researchers at Local Governments (as “Cultural Brokers”) in Japanese Cases of ICH

situation, however, means that local administrative support, established in the long
history and with a great deal of experience as described above, is still functioning
appropriately. In this presentation, I would like to reevaluate their eﬀorts. And I would
like to get perspective for considering how to make them more effective and broaden
their potential through that work.
I can ﬁnd two types of typical cultural brokers in Japanese cultural properties system.
The first are the public officers in charge of cultural properties at local government.
Currently there are 47 prefectures and more than 1800 municipalities nationwide.
Every local government has at least one, or sometimes a few, persons in charge ofpreserving cultural properties in its administrative area. Many of them are researchersof archaeology, anthropology and/or folklore. They may not necessarily be professional
scholars (although some of them have more results than professors in universities), but
in many cases, they have studied these disciplines at graduate schools.
The second are the curators of local museums which is mostly established by the local
government. It is said that there are more than a thousand of local museums of history
and/or folklife over the nation. About 780 museums among them belong to the Japanese
Liaison Council of History and Folk Museums.5 Many of them are public museums andhave been established by the subsidy by the agency for cultural aﬀairs since 1970. These
museums are powerful institutions of employment for postgraduate students of field
science, especially of folklore studies. These widely allocated human resources and theirorganizations are one of the distinctive characteristics of “cultural heritage regime”6 inJapan.
Hereafter I would like to consider the role and importance of them as “cultural brokers”
by focusing on three points that may attract our attention.

(1) Local Government Workers as a Member of the Community of Practice
In today’s social circumstances in Japan, involvement of local government workers
5 全国歴史民俗系博物館協議会 http://www.rekimin.com
6 Bendix, Regina F., Aditya Eggert, and Arnika Peselmann. 2013. “Introduction: Heritage Regimes and the State.” In
Heritage Regimes and the State, edited by Regina F. Bendix, Aditya Eggert, and Arnika Peselmann, Göttingen:11–20.
Universitätsverlag Göttingen.

PRESENTED PAPERS

is almost indispensable to practice and transmission of intangible cultural heritage(intangible folk cultural properties). It is not just that economic support from the local
government is necessary. Various miscellaneous services such as permission to use
facilities, publicity, advertisement, traﬃc regulation, and so on, which are indispensable
to realize events, festivals, and performing arts, is commonly conducted through local
government workers. Also, local government workers are often involved in training
successors and raising awareness among residents. Their existence is essential,
especially when considering the succession and education to younger generations.
Because in many cases, the people in charge of cultural properties belong to the sameboard of education as they would take over school education among local governments.
I usually engage in academic research on performing arts. And from my experience, it isdiﬃcult to accept the idea that the essentials of performing arts will be attributed only toperformers. The more deeply you know about performing arts, the more you can’t ignore
the importance of the people who helped behind the scenes. This must be the same for
events or festivals.
It would be productive to think of community that is the holder of intangible cultural
heritage as a community that appears through the practices of cultural expressions
or cultural activities as a whole, rather than thinking as a group of specific essential
attributes. By taking this way, the government workers should also be regarded as amember of the “community of practice”7 that transmits the intangible cultural heritage.

(2) Importance of “Cross-Community” Point of View
In the discussion on cultural heritage, the gap in recognition between different sociopolitical layers is often problematic. Everyday life in the world of local communities
is far from the argument that is made in the state’s policy and the internationalorganization. The word “glocal”, another keyword of this symposium, is likely to be theintention of connecting such diﬀerent scale or layer. When talking about the international
convention of intangible cultural heritage, we usually focus on the cultural broker’s role
7 Originally conceptualized by Lave and Wenger (Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), but here I referred to Japanese anthropologist
Kyōnosuke Hirai’s book. Hirai, Kyōnosuke. 2012. Jissen to Shite no Komyunithi: Idō, Kokka, Undō. Kyōto: Kyōto Daigaku
Syuppankyoku.

113

114

Considering the Role of Researchers at Local Governments (as “Cultural Brokers”) in Japanese Cases of ICH

of bridging such diﬀerent layers. Of course, this is a very important role, and needless tosay, the researchers of local government play the role of that kind.
On the other hand, if we think about their day-to-day work, they may have anotherrole of brokerage. They are generally involved in various types of intangible cultural
heritage, such as dances, dramas, shrine festivals, Buddhist ceremonies, New Yearcelebration events, funerals, or craft techniques with regional characteristics, and so on
so forth, in a deﬁned area. There are also examples that same type of performing arts or
festivals are distributed in a certain area, but these groups do not always interact actively
with each other group. In some cases, they are competitors that scramble for local
audience or opportunity of performance. They are strongly concerned about the activitiesof neighboring groups, but there are limited opportunities to exchange information witheach other.
In such a situation, the role expected to the researcher of local government is large.
When a tradition faces a crisis, the core members of the community of practice will
be interested in what the other groups that may be in similar circumstances are doing.
In such a case, researchers of local governments, who are involved in across various
communities as a marginal member, would be the best person who facilitate dialogue
between the groups. In other words, researchers of local government can play a role ofbridging not only over the diﬀerent socio-political layers (the world and the state andthe community) vertically, but also across various practices at the same level and makepeople have more general perspective.8(3) Expected Versatility: Utilizing Cultural Properties/Heritage System
For those who have heard my presentation so far, safeguarding intangible cultural
heritage led by UNESCO and preserving intangible (folk) cultural properties in Japanmight be understood as almost the same system with same purpose. In fact, however,there is quite a little diﬀerence between those two concepts. The concept of intangible
cultural heritage that has spread from UNESCO’s eﬀorts is to respect the autonomy of
traditional culture, and aims to revitalize the entire dynamic process that transmit ICH
8 Cf, Kitō, Syūichi. 1998. “Kankyō Undō/Kankyō Rinen Kenkyū ni okeru ‘Yosomono’ Ron no Syatei: Isahaya Wan to
Amami Oshima no ‘Shizen no Kenri’ Sosyō no Jirei wo Tyūshin ni.” Kankyō Syakaigaku Kenkyū, no. 4: 44-59.

PRESENTED PAPERS

to the next generation. It is distinct from Japanese concept of protection of culturalproperties, derived from protection of tangible culture, which aims to conserve certainstyles as much as possible.9 Such a concept of ICH should be highly appreciated.
However, the philosophy or principles of convention do not always effect directly on
the site of tradition facing crises or diﬃculties. What is important is not to infuse thephilosophy and principles of the convention to the local community. For the researchersof local governments confronting the difficulties of tradition, a new development ofconcept of cultural heritage is meaningless unless it appears as the expansion of themeasures of support that can be taken on people’s request.
In recent years in Japan, political measures related to preservation and promotionof regional culture have rapidly diversified. It goes beyond past cultural policies,
cooperating with tourism, regional development, agricultural promotion, and so on.
The Agency for Cultural Affairs launched “Japan Heritage”10 in 2015, which might
be influenced by the concept of UNESCO’s cultural heritage, and may compete with
cultural properties system.
Governmental organizations for cultural policies are vertically structured, but when it
comes down to the tail end, only a few persons in charge have direct contact with local
communities. They are required to have versatile ability to manipulate various programsfor preserving or promoting local culture by their discretion. There is no one-size-ﬁtsall way in safeguarding tradition. Rather, it is important for them to have a wide rangeof choices in order to fully respond to the people’s expectations. And to achieve this, itis necessary not only to promote dialogue between communities, but they themselvesalso have active relationships with researchers in other regions and exchange theirexperiences.
We recently launched a study group concerned with administration of folk culturalproperties. Members are all folklorists or anthropologists, but among them only two

9 See, Hyōki, Satoru. 2015. “‘Mamoru-beki Mono’ kara Manabu-beki Koto: Minzoku Geinō Kenkyū no Furonthia to shiteno
Mukei Bunka Isan.” Minzoku Geinō Kenkyū, no. 59: 56–75.
http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/nihon_isan/
10「日本遺産(Japan Heritage)について」

115

116

Considering the Role of Researchers at Local Governments (as “Cultural Brokers”) in Japanese Cases of ICH

belong to universities, and others are public oﬃcers of local government or curators of
local museums. They have rich on-site experience, but from now on we need to sharethe experience and try to establish methodologies.

Conclusion
The idea of dichotomy between the world or the state and the community of holders of
ICH is unproductive. Rather it is necessary to look at the importance of the researchersof local governments that bridge over the gap of diﬀerent layers. In case of preservationof ICH, especially intangible folk cultural properties, the role of researchers of local
government, those who have already been allocated over the nation, cannot ignore when
we think about the importance of cultural brokers. This system and organization that has
been prepared for a long time is an invaluable resource.
Their roles are complex and multivalent. In the sense that many intangible cultural
heritage is difficult to be held without their engagement, they are members of thecommunity of practice of ICH concerned. At the same time, they can also givecommunity members more general perspective by cross-community involvement withvarious types of practice. In addition, they are required to have versatile ability tooperate various programs provided by higher administrative organizations by listening to
the voices of their communities constantly to fulﬁll their demands.
What I argued about here is ideal in a sense. In fact, it may not be said that researchersof local governments are always fulﬁlling their role in every case. Rather, it can be said
their abilities are not fully demonstrated in various restrictions, and there are many ofthem who are unconscious of their role and importance. But I believe that they havesuch potential. That is why researchers like us and higher-level administrative agencies
must consider how we can encourage them to display their potential, and create anenvironment that can be fulﬁlled. Unfortunately, Japanese bureaucracy system seems to
be required to consider “what must not be done”, rather than “what can be done”. That
is why there is a need for organizations that are not subject to administrative restrictions
such as NGOs. However, as previously mentioned, the human resources that havealready been allocated nationwide are important assets of system that safeguard cultural
heritage in Japan. How to manage their potential is an important issue for the practicalchallenges of the “safeguarding” of intangible cultural heritage in this country.

117

From a Local Festival to the Hikiyama Festival in Nagahama: theRoad Towards a World Festival
Seiichi NAKAJIMA
Former Director of the Nagahama City Hikiyama Museum

Originally a Local Yet a Global Festival, the Nagahama Hikiyama Festival
The Fujioka family, the creator of the Nagahama’s Hikiyama ﬂoats were originally from
Mita, a rural area in suburbs of Nagahama. The ﬁrst generation created mikoshi (portableshrines) and the butsudan (family altars). From the fourth generation, the family has
been crafting the Nagahama’s Hikiyama floats for a long time. For the detailed parts,
wooden curving was accomplished by craftsmen in the Maibara Nyu area, the metalﬁttings that decorates the Hikiyama done by blacksmiths from the Kunitomo area andthe famous Okumura Sugaji living in the Zeze Otsu area. The stage paper screen alongwith the drawings of the Gakuya are artworks of the Nagahama’s Yamaga Giho andother painters in Kyoto. Further, many of the stage curtains which are one of the biggest
craftworks, were imported all the way from Europe and China.
The sanyaku including the choreographer, tayu (johruri reciter), and shamisen player
which are the essential roles for the children’s kabuki played on the Hikiyama stage wereinvited from the neighboring rural areas, Kyoto, Osaka and other regions. In addition,
the shagiri music players and the Hikiyama ﬂoat pullers mainly gathered from the rural
areas. In this sense, both physical and human resources to perform in the Nagahama
Hikiyama Festival were procured not in the festival area rather from the surrounding
rural areas and other regions.
Interaction of people and exchange of goods by means of festival had been practiced inthis Nagahama Festival ever since the Edo period on a global scale. This is the originalscene of the “Nagahama Danna Festial” of the Nagahama Festival.

The Post-War Nagahama Hikiyama Festival that We See Today
The festival’s system changed drastically after the Asia Paciﬁc War. People in the ruralvillages in the Kohoku region turned in half farmers half industrial workers. This lead to118

From a Local Festival to the Hikiyama Festival in Nagahama

a decline of people’s preference towards performance arts. At the same time, the festival
started to face some diﬃculties in securing the sanyaku, the main roles for the children’s
kabuki. To help solve the situation, in 1990 (Heisei 2) local residents established asanyaku training school where lessons for the tayu and shamisen players were oﬀered.
Today, students from the school perform on the Hikiyama stage. As for the shagiri, anassociation to preserve the tradition was formed in 1971 (Showa 46) and today it still
carries out its activities.
The fall of the danna-shu in the post-war time brought about a big structural change
in the economy of the Nagahama Hikiyama Festival. Residents of the town where
the Hikiyama belonged too (yamagumi) started to share the festival cost equally. The
yamagumi members called for ﬁnancial support and in 1950 (Showa 25) during a fullfledged festival restoration after the war, the Nagahama City Tourism Association
granted a subsidy for the first time for kabuki performance. In 1957 (Showa 32), theNagahama Hikiyama Festival was designated as Shiga Prefecture’s Intangible Folk
Cultural Property followed by the national designation of the Nagahama Hikiyama
Kyogen in 1970 (Showa 45), and ﬁnally in 1979 (Showa 54) the Nagahama Hikiyama
Festival’s Hikiyama Attraction became the nation’s designated Important Intangible
Folk Cultural Property. Moreover, in 1985 (Showa 60), among the many Hikiyama
floats in Shiga Prefecture, the “Nagahama Hikiyama Festival’s float Tsukeyamagura”
was selected as the ﬁrst Prefecture’s Tangible Folk Cultural Property. This meant thatthe government’s subsidies covered the performing of children’s kabuki and repair of
the Hikiyama ﬂoats which had now oﬃcially become a cultural property. The Hikiyama
ﬂoats were originally built in mid-Edo period, started to have a chin (arbor) on top inlate Edo period making it a two-story structure, went through various design changes
until the Meiji and Taisho periods, and finally became an unchangeable designatedcultural property which will be transmitted to the future generations.

Town and Public Reaction after Registration to the UNESCO’s List
Finally, in 2016 (Heisei 28) the festival was inscribed on the UNESCO’s Intangible
Cultural Heritage Representative List, which was long desired by the local people
in Nagahama. Stakeholders had started keeping records and forming promotion
committees since 2010 (Heisei 22), thus the registration was truly signiﬁcant to those
involved. However, people do not actually know what they ought to do in concrete.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Amid such situation, the 13 ﬂoats performing for celebration in April 2017 (Heisei 29)
and the performance at the National Theatre Tokyo in July were a big surprise for the
yamagumi members. While challenges in preparing signs for non-Japanese tourists
and accommodation raised, people hardly discuss the purpose and significance of theinscription to the UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list. There is an increasing
sense of responsibility felt such as “now that our tradition has been registered on
the UNESCO’s list, we must transmit this festival in the current way to the coming
generations”. And it is the mass media that focuses on lack of successors who will passdown the tradition for years to come.
In the early Heisei period (early 1990s) the town of Yogo in the northern part ofNagahama City was facing a massive depopulation. It was in 1990 (Heisei 2) when
the Shiga Prefecture’s designated Intangible Folk Cultural Property “Nakakawachi
taikoodori Tsuketari yakkofuri” marked its end of tradition due to population decrease
and the town’s aging society. The village population was 126 in 1989 (Heisei 1), andtoday as of June 13, 2017 (Heisei 29) it has dropped to 34. The old town of Nagahama
Hikiyama Festival is not an exception too. Although the area looks prosperous withmany souvenir shops and tourists around, in fact, the local population has declined thus
some yamagumi are maintained only by around 10 groups. The number of children
performing in the children’s kabuki for the Nagahama Hikiyama Festival is shrinking as
well.
Today it is a custom to have local village children to perform in the kabuki, howeverin the past not all actors were from the local area. Young village people have a keenobservation on which child best fits the role of kabuki actor. Yet, in the Edo period,
the quality of performance was prioritized, thus those talented children from othertowns or prefectures were often invited as “borrowed actors”. Taking the depopulationof the young into account, something had to be done at Nagahama to “maintain thequality of kabuki to be performed”. In the near future, it is perhaps unavoidable for the
Nagahama Hikiyama Festival to decline because of the falling population. Just as theafore-mentioned “Nakakawachi taikoodori”, deterioration and extinction of folk cultural
events deprive the local people of their dignity and aﬀection to their native area. It is
obvious that by having a certain event (festival) as the village’s goal enhance the local
ties and help stop depopulation. This links to the task which was cast upon registration

119

120

From a Local Festival to the Hikiyama Festival in Nagahama

to the UNESCO’s list of how to transmit the Nagahama Hikiyama Festival, a uniquevalue, to the future generation. Each element among the 33 groups which were inscribed
together now encounters the necessity to come up with eﬀective measures. What will theway for Nagahama Hikiyama Festival to be sustainable? The author also intends to show
the essential role of the museum, as there are not so many museums attached to the 33
elements of Yama, Hoko, Yatai ﬂoat festivals inscribed on the list.

Museum as the Main Institution to Help Sustain the Festival
At present, the Nagahama Hikiyama Museum is operated by the Nagahama Hikiyama
Culture Association. It opened in 2000 (Heisei 12) and exhibits the actual Hikiyama ﬂoat
stored in an air-tight case. The museum also has a humidity-adjustable repair workshop
equipped with a lift for disassembling the ﬂoat and coating lacquer. You can also ﬁnd atransmission studio where the performing arts are shown to public. The facility is welldesigned with due consideration. Curators, the museum specialists, play an importantrole by making full-use of the resources. Here in this museum, curators not only
exhibit tangible and intangible works related to the festival, but also conduct research,preserve and keep records, and they even patrol and pull the Hikiyama during thefestival. Their work also covers receiving various complaints from people and providing
consultancy services to the yamagumi members on festival matters. By assuming allthese miscellaneous work, curators gain trust from the yamagumi, and become theother essential actor of the festival. The messages communicated from curators create
an immense impact. Another way of supporting the sustainability of the festival is tokeep on sending messages related to the spirit and soul of the ancestors who believedthat “festivals are the only way to survive”, along with the signiﬁcance of the festival toboth the local people and visitors through exhibitions, lectures, and the media. This is inother words, to “preserve the intangible cultural heritage which possesses a truly uniquevalue”. It is therefore the high-dimensional business of the museum that helps local
residents be proud of their festival, which is an intangible cultural heritage, and to be
attached to their region, thus be conﬁdent to keep the tradition of the festival.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Session 4. What are the possible feedback mechanisms for local communities tocommunicate to UNESCO the impact of the Convention on them?

123

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation
and Participation in the Implementation of the 2003 Convention at
the International Level
Janet BLAKE
Shahid Beheshti University

Introduction
The 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention represents the first time that the role ofthe community (and groups and individuals) in the identification, safeguarding andmanagement of their heritage has been explicitly acknowledged in international law. Thisis a move that carries with it signiﬁcance both for international law and for the paradigm
by which government agencies have hitherto protected ‘national heritage’ and even for
the identiﬁcation of that heritage itself. Indeed, a central point I wish to make here is thatthe question as to how can communities be further integrated into the intergovernmental
processes of the Convention cannot be dealt with in isolation from the issue of how they
are integrated into national policy- and decision-making around ICH safeguarding.
With the adoption of the 2003 Convention a new paradigm in international heritage
protection was established (Blake 2014) in the far more participatory and democratic
relationship it envisages between the State and cultural communities in the safeguarding
process.1 In the past, much of what we now call “intangible cultural heritage” (ICH) was
safeguarded without any official sanction, support or framework and the Convention
has encouraged the development of related national legislative, administrative, ﬁnancial
and other responses. Communities and individuals (often operating through cultural
associations and other similar groups) have been and continue to create, enact, maintainand transmit ICH elements as a matter of course and as a part of their way of life.
The speciﬁc questions I will look at here are: (1) who or what are the “communities”
as understood by the 2003 Convention (and how do they relate to other collectivities
as conceived of under international law); (2) what is the specific role accorded tosuch communities (groups and individuals) under the 2003 Convention; and (3) what
1 Certainly, one can now observe a number of examples of where governmental heritage agencies have begun to ﬁ nd newforms of engagement with communities over their intangible cultural heritage (ICH) and are, in some cases, creating new
structures to enable this.

124

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

approaches should States Parties take towards engaging with them in its implementation
at the international (and national) level.
In order to respond to this last point, I will consider how some other international treaty
regimes and intergovernmental organizations have managed to fulfil a requirement
for greater civil society participation in their governance structures. These include theWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the UN generally (with regard to
Indigenous peoples), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN Convention
to Combat Desertiﬁcation (UNCDC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the International Labour Organization(ILO) and even UNESCO itself within the World Heritage Committee and the 2005
Convention on the Diversity of Cultural expressions. Since space is limited I willtake a few representative examples of these to demonstrate how international bodies
have thus far sought to accommodate the need to involve non-state actors

mostlyIndigenous peoples — in their policy-setting and decision- making processes andconsider how far these can be a useful model for the 2003 Convention. In addition, ofcourse, it is also important to see what developments have already taken place within
the intergovernmental committee of the 2003 Convention (the ‘IGC’) and see how thesemight be developed and built upon.
The “participation” of “cultural communities” in the implementation of the 2003
Convention was seen as a significant principle throughout the development of theConvention and even the early intergovernmental meetings.2 However, it remains unclear
as to what this should mean at all levels of implementation as noted by an internal
UNESCO evaluation of the cultural heritage Conventions.3 This apparently progressive
approach has turned out, according to Bartolotto4 to be “an opaque move”. The lack of
2 Noriko Aikawa-Faure in her essay “From the Proclamation of Masterpieces to the Convention for the Safeguarding ofIntangible Cultural Heritage” in Laurajane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa (eds.) Intangible Heritage : Key Issues in Cultural
Heritage Series (London and New York: Routledge, 2009) pp. 13-44 at p.14.
3 IOS report: “Although community participation is at the heart of the 2003 Convention, it has proven to be one of the mostchallenging aspects in its implementation. Community participation needs to be enhanced in many areas related to theimplementation of the Convention, including in inventorying, in the elaboration of safeguarding programmes and projects,
and in the preparation of nomination ﬁles.” (paras. 9-10) .
4 Chiara Bortolotto “UNESCO and Heritage Self-Determination: Negotiating Meaning in the Intergovernmental Committee
for the Safeguarding of the ICH” in Nicolas Adell, Regina F. Bendix, Chiara Bortolotto, Markus Tauschek (eds.) Between
Imagined Communities and Communities of Practice (Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2015) pp. 249-272 at p. 251.

PRESENTED PAPERS

clarity on this question after more than 10 years of operation of the 2003 Convention (thatentered into force in April 2006) has become a matter of some strong criticism today,even by representatives of the States Parties.5 This comes down to the simple fact thatsafeguarding ICH is by its nature controversial since it can be achieved only throughrecognition of the central role communities play in its creation and safeguarding.6
We must remember that the requirement placed on States Parties (by Article 15) to
operate in as participatory a manner as possible is more exhortatory than obligatory7
and they can choose the manner in which they do this. In this way, State sovereignty
is well protected and so it is important to demonstrate that they have signed up to suchparticipatory approaches in other international fora in order to encourage them to do so inthis one. However, achieving a strong role for “communities”' in the intergovernmental
process may be tricky because, unlike Indigenous peoples, they do not have any legal
status per se in international law beyond the mention in the Convention.8
This paper, then, will examine how non-state actors (in large part NGOs representing
Indigenous peoples) have been brought into the intergovernmental process throughintergovernmental bodies and treaty processes to see what lessons may be learned forachieving this within the framework of the 2003 Convention. Following this, it will
focus on the 2003 Convention itself, addressing its speciﬁcities, seeing what progresshas been made thus far and, then, proposing some ways forward.

Examples from Various Intergovernmental Processes
Most of the models shown below relate specifically to mechanisms establishedspecifically to ensure better representation of Indigenous peoples in treaty and otherintergovernmental processes. Article 18 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of
5 Dawson Munjeri has stated in “Following the length and breadth of the roots: some dimensions of intangible heritage” inLaurajane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa (eds.) Intangible Heritage - Key Issues in Cultural Heritage Series (London and
New York: Routledge, 2009) pp. 131-150 at pp. 143-4 that “ one ﬁnds it incomprehensible that four years after the adoptionof the ICHC, there is still debate on an acceptable deﬁnition of ‘community’, and on whether or not, and to what extent, thecommunity’s consent should be sought when considering what constitutes intangible cultural heritage.”
6 Janet Blake Commentary on the 2003 UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UK:Institute of Art and Law, 2006) at p. 35.
7 Ibid at p. 76.
8 The fact that the 2003 Convention always mentions them alongside “groups and individuals” further complicates the issue.

125

126

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) states that Indigenous peoples “have the rightto participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, throughrepresentatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as wellas to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions”.9 This,
then, is an approach based on the special status rights now accorded to Indigenous
peoples in international law, including their right to a form of internal self-determinationthat includes control over ancestral lands, their natural resources and social, culturaland economic policy-making. It therefore goes much further than the rights generally
ascribed to other local and cultural communities and so it is important to understandthat the mechanisms established for respecting these rights of Indigenous peoples inintergovernmental fora do not automatically extend to non- Indigenous groups.10(A) Intergovernmental organizations
UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was established in July 2000 as anadvisory body to ECOSOC to discuss issues related to the Indigenous peoples’ economic
and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights.
The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is made up of 16 members acting in an
individual capacity as independent experts on Indigenous issues. Eight of the members
are nominated by Governments and eight by the President of ECOSOC, on the basis ofbroad consultation with Indigenous groups. It holds one two-week session each year,
usually in May. Its mandate covers the following main actions:
・Providing expert advice and recommendations on Indigenous issues to ECOSOC,
as well as to programmes, funds and agencies of the United Nations, throughthe Council Raising awareness and promote the integration and coordination of
9 Previous to this, the ILO Convention on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal peoples (no. 169 of 1989) had called on
Governments, in applying the Convention, to “establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least thesame extent as other sectors of the population, at all levels of decisions-making in elective institutions and administrativeand other bodies responsible for policies and programmes which concern them” (Article 6.1 (b)).
10 Henrietta Marrie “The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and the protection
and maintenance of the intangible cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples” in Laurajane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa(eds.) Intangible Heritage - Key Issues in Cultural Heritage Series (London and New York: Routledge, 2009) pp. 169-192
suggests at p.190 that “[T]o ensure their participation in the implementation of the Convention, Indigenous peoples would
want to ensure that their appropriate representative bodies could apply for ‘observer status’ to enable them to attend, in a
non-voting capacity, meetings held under the Convention.”

PRESENTED PAPERS

activities related to Indigenous issues within the UN system
・Preparing and disseminating information on Indigenous issues
Permanent Forum sessions are open to delegates from Indigenous organizations andNGOs working on Indigenous issues, responding to one of the fundamental demandsof Indigenous peoples. Organisations of Indigenous peoples are therefore allowed toparticipate as observers in the meetings of the Permanent Forum, in accordance with theprocedures that were developed in the Working Group on Indigenous Populations which
was open to all Indigenous peoples’ organisations, regardless of their consultative status
with ECOSOC. States, UN bodies and organs, intergovernmental organisations andNGOs with consultative status with the ECOSOC may also participate as observers.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
In 2000, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established anintergovernmental committee looking into IP protection of traditional knowledge, genetic
resources and folklore (WIPO IGC) which followed a series of consultations held in
1998-9 with Indigenous (and local) communities on sui generis IP protection of theirtraditional culture and practices.11 Following this participatory start, the WIPO IGC madeit possible for Indigenous and community representatives to observe and participate
in its meetings. In order to facilitate this, WIPO works with an Indigenous caucus thathelps newcomers to become familiar with the culture and mode of negotiation within
WIPO.12
Today, there are 329 NGOs accredited to the WIPO IGC and this confers ad-hoc
observers with a seat bearing the organization’s name plaque during sessions of the
IGC and they may be given the floor by the IGC Chair; generally, this provides anopportunity to engage with Member States in the course of the negotiations. Althoughobserver status does not usually allow NGOs to present proposals, amendments andmotions, the WIPO IGC has always given observers the opportunity of intervening
during its sessions on all agenda items and to table proposals if they are supported by
11 Draft articles for the protection of (1) traditional cultural expressions and (2) traditional knowledge were adopted by the
WIPO IGC in 2014.
12 This capacity-building aspect of the caucus is essential for effective participation, and the NGO Forum for the 2003
Convention is currently developing capacity-building modules for NGOs wishing to participate in the IGC.

127

128

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

one or more State member of the WIPO IGC. In addition, presentations are deliveredby a panel of representatives of Indigenous and local communities at the beginningof sessions of the WIPO IGC in which they present information on the experiences,
concerns and aspirations of Indigenous and local communities concerning the protection,
promotion and preservation of traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions
and genetic resources.13
At its tenth session, the WIPO IGC identiﬁed ten key questions relating to the protectionof traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore (TCEs/EoF) and traditional
knowledge (TK). It established a commentary process on these issues between its tenthand eleventh sessions. The WIPO IGC then undertook an extensive review of the issues
and commissioned two factual extractions14 of the comments and viewpoints made onthese issues. The following table shows the range of responses received from accredited
observers to the WIPO IGC.

(B) Treaty bodies
UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992)
Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (UN, 1992) (CBD) requires
States Parties (as far as possible and as appropriate) to “respect, preserve and maintainknowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous and local communities embodying
traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of
the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable
sharing of the beneﬁts arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations andpractices”. Importantly for this paper, the CBD text makes explicit use of the term“communities” and the principle of participation with relation to them as well as to
the role played by the “knowledge, innovations and practices of local and Indigenous
communities embodying traditional lifestyles” in preserving biodiversity.

13 Note on Existing Mechanisms for Participation of Observers in the Work of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee onIntellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (2011). Source: http://www.wipo.int/
export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/note_igc_participation.pdf
14 The Protection of Traditional Cultural Expression/Expression of Folklore: Factual Extraction (January 31, 2008) and The
Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Factual Extraction (February 18, 2008)

PRESENTED PAPERS

On the national level, States Parties should establish mechanisms to ensure effective
participation by Indigenous and local communities in decision-making and policy
planning, including by: establishing local-specific systems for acquiring, sharing
and classifying knowledge based on customary law; full and equal participation andpartnership in planning and management; ensuring free prior informed consent foraccess to, acquisition and use of knowledge; establishing mutually agreed terms (MATS)
for this; establishing access and beneﬁt-sharing agreements (ABS); the right to review
research and authorise its dissemination; and community or joint ownership of copyrighton publications based on traditional knowledge research.15
On the international level, the CBD COP established an Ad Hoc Open-ended
Inter-Sessional Working Group (Working Group on Article 8(j)) to work on theimplementation of Article 8(j) and related provisions. Representatives of Indigenous
and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant to the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity participate in this “to the widest possible extent
in its deliberations in accordance with the rules of procedure”.16 Issues on biological/
genetic resources and associated Indigenous/traditional knowledge have expanded toinclude participation in discussions within the Working Group on Access and BeneﬁtSharing, the Working Group on Protected Areas and within various other thematic andcross-cutting issues.

UN Desertification Convention (UNCCD, 1994)
The 1994 Convention to Combat Desertification (UN, 1994) encourages Parties toensure that decisions on the design and implementation of programmes ‘are takenwith the participation of populations and local communities’ (Article 3(a)). Article 10
calls for ‘(f) … eﬀective participation at the local, national and regional levels of nongovernmental organizations and local populations … in policy planning, decisionmaking and implementation and review of national action programmes …’.

15 The Nagoya Protocol to the CBD at Art. 12(2) also requires community participation for the creation of mechanisms, which
are useful for the implementation of international instruments. It foresees that parties, with the eﬀective participation of the
Indigenous and local communities concerned, create mechanisms to inform the potential users of the traditional knowledge
associated with genetic resources about their obligations.
16 CBD COP Decision IV/9, paras.1 and 2.

129

130

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

In 2001, COP5 established the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of theConvention (CRIC)17 as a subsidiary body to the COP. It reviews and analyzes national
reports submitted to the COP describing the status of the Convention's implementation
by Parties and observers. The aim of the involvement of CRIC in this is to improvethe coherence, impact and eﬀectiveness of policies and programmes aimed at restoring
the agro-ecological balance in arid lands. The composition of CRIC is (a) all Parties
to the Convention and (b) any other body or agency, whether national or international,
governmental or non-governmental, which wishes to be represented at a session of theCommittee as an observer (unless one third of the Parties present at the session object).18
Hence, CRIC represents an interesting model of a mixed governmental and nongovernmental treaty body, which may well encourage better cooperation between thetwo sides, and even greater mutual respect. The activities of CRIC are wide-ranging,19
and include:
・Identify ways and means of promoting experience sharing and information exchange
among Parties and all other interested institutions and organizations
・Draw conclusions and propose concrete recommendations on further steps in theimplementation of the Convention
・Submit a comprehensive report to the Conference of the Parties in the light of its
programme of work, including conclusions and recommendations
・Review regularly the policies, operational modalities and activities of the Global
Mechanism
・ Review regularly reports prepared by the secretariat on the execution of its
functions20
・Elaborating draft decisions, where necessary, for consideration and, as appropriate,
adoption by the Conference of the Parties.
Further to this, the COP has requested that:
・The Secretariat facilitate active participation of CSOs in the process in preparation
17 Decision 1/COP5.
18 ICCD/COP(9)/18/Add.1 (9th Plenary Meeting, 2 October 2009).
19 ICCD/COP(5)/11/Add.1
20 As an example, the Report of the fifteenth session of the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of theConvention, held in Nairobi 18-20 2016 [ICCD/ CRIC(15)/7, 8 December 2016] addressed such as: future implementationof the Convention; consideration of best practices in the implementation of the Convention; and accessibility of information
on best practices through the Scientiﬁc Knowledge Brokering Portal (SKBP) and the Capacity Building Marketplace (CBM).

PRESENTED PAPERS

for the meetings of the COP and its subsidiary bodies, with the view of enhancing
the eﬀectiveness of inputs from the civil society21
・The Executive Secretary, in consultation with the Bureau of the COP, ensure thatthe programme of work of the COP includes open-dialogue sessions with the civilsociety in the ﬁrst week of the COP in order to ensure eﬀectiveness of its input inthe deliberations of the COP22
・The secretariat to review the provisions for regional meetings in preparation forthe meetings of the CRIC and seek ﬁnancial contributions to enable those regional
meetings to occur.23
It should be noted also that these documents from the COP make repeated requests todeveloped country Parties, relevant international organizations and ﬁnancial institutions
to provide ﬁnancial contributions to facilitate the presence of civil society organizationsin its meetings.

1972 World Heritage Convention
Although a large number of the recognized World Heritage sites are located in the
territories of Indigenous peoples, the existence and role of the Indigenous peoples
living in the respective sites is often not adequately reflected in the decisions of theWorld Heritage Committee. A proposal to establish a World Heritage Indigenous people
Council of Experts (WHIPCOE) was discussed at the 24th session of the World Heritage
Committee in Cairns (Australia, 2000).24 The WHC commissioned a feasibility study
which was presented at the 25th session of the Bureau of the WHC held in Paris (France)in June 2001. The proposal was ultimately not accepted by the WHC as it raised anumber of legal concerns and issues relating to the funding, legal status, role andrelationships with States Parties, Advisory Bodies, the World Heritage Committee andthe World Heritage Centre.
Since 2005, the Operational Guidelines have promoted a “partnership approach to
21 ICCD/COP(9)/18/Add.1 at para.4.
22 Ibid at para.5.
23 Ibid at para.6.
24 Lynn Meskell in “UNESCO and the fate of the World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE),” 2013
International Journal of Cultural Property, 20: 155-174.

131

132

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

nomination, management and monitoring”25 and, in 2007, the WHC adopted a fifth
strategic objective26 “to enhance the role of communities in the implementation of
the World Heritage Convention”. The involvement of Indigenous peoples and local
communities in decision-making, monitoring and evaluating the conservation status
of inscribed properties was encouraged by the World Heritage Committee in 2011. Asa follow-up to an International Expert Workshop on the World Heritage Convention
and Indigenous peoples (2012), the Operational Guidelines were amended in 2015
to include specific references to Indigenous peoples in paragraphs 40 and 123. The
Sustainable Development Policy adopted by the WHC in 2015 makes speciﬁc reference
to “respecting, consulting and involving Indigenous peoples and local communities” andemphasizes that recognizing the rights and the full involvement of Indigenous peoples
and local communities lies at the heart of sustainable development.

Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Expressions (UNESCO, 2005)
Given that the role of civil society (and partnerships with civil society) plays a central
role in this treaty, it is worth considering how the IGC for the 2005 Convention has
addressed their participation in and contribution to the work of the organs of theConvention. Under the terms of the Rules of Procedure for the IGC, “civil society is
encouraged to contribute to the work of the organs of the Convention according to
the modalities to be defined by these organs” (at paragraph 7). Notably, the Rules ofProcedure allow the Committee to invite them to attend a particular meeting of theCommittee, “regardless of whether the organization or group has been accredited toparticipate in the sessions of the Committee” (paragraph 8). In addition, civil society
organizations may also be authorised to participate as observers in both the Conferenceof Parties and the Intergovernmental Committee and the criteria for their admission27 are
relatively light and simple to fulﬁl. Their activities in this role may include:
25 Paragraph 40.
26 The WHC added a “ﬁfth C” for “Communities” to the existing Strategic Objectives enshrined in the Budapest Declaration
on World Heritage adopted by the WHC at its 26th session (Budapest, 2002) which should read:“To enhance the roleof communities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.” Decision 31 COM 13B on The “ﬁfth C” for“Communities”
27 As set out in Annex II to Decision 1.EXT.IGC 5, they should: “a. have interests and activities in one or more ﬁelds coveredby the Convention; b. have a legal status in compliance with the established rules of the jurisdiction in the country ofregistration; and c. are representative of their respective ﬁeld of activity, or of the respective social or professional groups
they represent”.

PRESENTED PAPERS

・Maintaining a dialogue with Parties “in an interactive manner with regard to theirpositive contribution to the implementation of the Convention, preferably, as
appropriate, before the sessions of the organs”
・Participating in the meetings of these bodies
・Being given the ﬂoor by the Chairperson of the respective body・Submitting written contributions relevant to the work of the respective bodies whenauthorized by the Chairperson, to be circulated to all delegations and observers by
the Secretariat to the Convention as information documents.
A further point worth noting is that the participation of civil society in the International
Fund for Cultural Diversity (IFCD) is formalised within the treaty’s framework and theregulations for this are addressed within the framework of the Operational guidelines on
the use of the resources of the Fund.28 According to the IFCD’s Rules of Procedure, thebeneficiaries of the IFCD include “Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) comingfrom developing countries that are Parties to the 2005 Convention, which meet thedefinition of civil society29 and criteria regulating admission of its representatives atmeetings of organs of the Convention … and which present projects with impact at
the sub-regional, regional or inter-regional level. Projects submitted by INGO must be
implemented in two or more eligible countries.”

Community Participation within the 2003 Convention
Who are the “communities” of the 2003 Convention?
As has been discussed in more detail elsewhere,30 the terms “minority”, “group” and“community” are relatively interchangeable in international law and there is no single
agreed meaning for any of them. As a result, the way in which we understand and use
28 Doc. CE/08/1.EXT.IGC/Dec. Rev. 2 at p.14.
29 “civil society means non-governmental organizations, nonprofit organizations, professionals in the culture sector andassociated sectors, groups that support the work of artists and cultural communities” Source: http://en.unesco.org/creativity/
ifcd/apply/who-can-apply.
30 Janet Blake “UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage: the implications of community involvementin ‘safeguarding’ in Laurajane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa (eds.) Intangible Heritage — Key Issues in Cultural Heritage
Series (London and New York: Routledge, 2009) pp. 45-73; See also: Sabrina Urbinati “The Community Participationin International Law” in Nicolas Adell, Regina F. Bendix, Chiara Bortolotto, Markus Tauschek (eds.) Between Imagined
Communities and Communities of Practice (Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2015) pp.123-140 at pp.125-6 who notes anumber of alternative terms used, such as: “local communities” (CBD), “local populations” (UNCDC), “civil society”(UNESCO’s 2005 Convention), “the public” (1998 Aarhus Convention), “farmers” (FAO 2001 Convention on Farmers’
and Plant Breeders’ Rights”) and “cultural site managers”.

133

134

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participationthese terms is, to a large degree, context-dependent: In terms of the 2003 Convention,
the “communities, groups and ... individuals” (henceforth ‘communities’) are definedin relation to their ICH and, importantly, their self-identiﬁcation with that ICH. Article
2(1) of the Convention deﬁnes ICH for the purposes of the Convention as “the practices,
representations, expressions, knowledge, skills—as well as the instruments, objects,
artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith—that communities, groups and, insome cases, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible
cultural heritage provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting
respect for cultural diversity and human creativity...” (Emphasis added). From this,we can see that ICH (which comprises some associated tangible elements as well as
intangible ones) is deﬁned with direct reference to the cultural community and in terms
that recognise the human rights nature of an endeavour that aims to safeguard a heritage
so essential to the sense of identity and continuity of communities. However, it is clear
from the Executive Body’s report submitted to the IGC in 201631 that the notion of“communities” with regard to the 2003 Convention remains uncertain in the case ofmany countries.
If we wish to look at the range of actors involved in the work of safeguarding ICH, it is
helpful to draw upon the report on cultural heritage and human rights by the UN Special
Rapporteur on Cultural Rights.32 This proposes diﬀering degrees of access and enjoyment
to cultural heritage according to the relationship of diﬀerent groups with the heritage,
with diﬀering degrees of interest in heritage. With regard to ICH safeguarding, a list of
relevant actors and stakeholders (beginning with those most closely associated with theheritage), might include: (1) cultural communities/bearers; (2) practitioner associations;(3) local (non- bearer) communities and individuals; (4) NGOs; (5) academic/scientiﬁc
institutions (including museums); (6) national artistic academies; (7) local authorities; (8)central and regional governmental agencies; (9) the private sector.

31 “The [Evaluation] Body reiterates the need to clearly define and identify the communities, groups and, in some cases,
individuals concerned with a particular element, and apply this definition consistently within and across the different
criteria…Vague definitions (such as ‘all men in country X’) make the evaluation of a nomination file problematic.”[ITH/16/11.COM/10, Report of the Evaluation Body on its work in 2016, 31 October 2016 at para.40]
32 Human Rights Council, “Report of the independent expert in the ﬁeld of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed” Human Rights
Council Seventeenth session Agenda item 3, 21 March 2011 [UN Doc. A/HR/C/17/38].

PRESENTED PAPERS

How is participation in ICH safeguarding understood within the 2003 Convention?
Part III of the 2003 Convention that sets out the safeguarding measures to be taken on
the national level to ensure the continued viability of ICH begins with Article 11 on“The Role of States Parties”; paragraph (b) of this article places a requirement on Parties
to identify and define the elements of ICH on their territory “with the participationof communities, groups and relevant nongovernmental organizations”. Applying aparticipatory approach to the action of identification is of fundamental significancesince the question as to who decides what is to be accorded the designation of ‘national
ICH’ implies a democratic and human rights-based approach to the process. Beyond
this, Article 15 encourages Parties to take an eﬀective participatory approach towards“safeguarding” ICH as described in Article 2(3), namely its identiﬁcation, documentation
and research, preservation and protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission(particularly through formal and non-formal education) and revitalization, as well as its
management.
A participatory approach to cultural heritage protection, therefore, will require a shift in
the policy- and decision-making model from (in most cases) a strictly top-down one to
one that allows for the inclusion of a range of diﬀerent voices. According to the Periodic
Reports submitted thus far to the Intergovernmental Committee, most States Parties havemade eﬀorts to ensure community involvement in inventorying and, up to some point, insafeguarding ICH in general. However, the degrees of actual participation differ widely
and range from Flanders (in Belgium) where much of the policy development has been
driven by two NGOs to some States Parties where lip-service only is paid to the idea ofcommunity ‘involvement’ with one or two ‘consultations’ held with selected community
representatives. However, the significance of this shift towards a more participatory
approach towards heritage protection should not be underestimated since it has deep
implications for how government agencies relate to cultural communities: The key actors
in legitimising heritage are no longer scientiﬁc heritage experts acting through the central
authority, but the communities that identify themselves with particular cultural elements.
What is of specific importance for this paper is the question as to how far this shift
in the heritage paradigm can be translated to the intergovernmental level. Althoughparticipation of communities is now regarded as necessary for nominating their ICH
to the Convention’s lists (under the Operational Directives as adopted in 2010), it

135

136

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

remains moot (a) how far this is a real participation at the national level and (b) to what
degree it can be possible to involve them in the intergovernmental policy- and decisionmaking processes. In 2010 a series of Directives on awareness-raising detail how theparticipation of communities, groups (and, where applicable, individuals) as well as
experts, centres of expertise and research institutes in various safeguarding activities
should be realised (paragraphs 79-89)33 For example, on the national level, Parties should
strengthen community participation through such measures as establishing networks ofcommunities, experts, centres of expertise and research institutes (paragraphs 86-88),
undertake capacity- building activities for community members and create a consultative
body or similar coordinating mechanism to make participation in safeguarding activities
easier. The ODs touch brieﬂy on the participation of the aforementioned non-state actors
in the international dimensions of implementing the Convention. They encourage States
Parties to involve these actors in facilitating the removal of an ICH element from one(international) List or its transfer from one to the other (paragraph 80 at (e)).34 Other
chapters of the ODs, including those covering the use of the resources of the ICH Fundand on International Assistance (IA), also refer to the participation of NGOs and othernon-state actors.
One of the strong messages of this paper is that the degree to which any participation by
non-state actors on the intergovernmental level operates eﬀectively is, to a large degree,
dictated by their presence in ICH safeguarding on the national level. If the 2010 Directives
are taken seriously enough by the Parties, it will go a long way towards ensuring
meaningful community involvement at various stages of implementation. However, themechanisms for ensuring real and eﬀective community participation in the operation of
the Convention remain weak, despite the importance apparently given to this approach
when drafting the treaty35 and how far States Parties are prepared or able to respect them
33 For example, in ODs 79, 80, 84, 86 and 89.
34 Paragraph 80 reads, in full: “States Parties are encouraged to create a consultative body or a coordination mechanism
to facilitate the participation of communities, groups and, where applicable, individuals, as well as experts, centres ofexpertise and research institutes, in particular in: (a) the identiﬁcation and deﬁnition of the diﬀerent elements of intangible
cultural heritage present on their territories; (b) the drawing up of inventories; (c) the elaboration and implementation ofprogrammes, projects and activities; (d) the preparation of nomination ﬁles for inscription on the Lists, in conformity withthe relevant paragraphs of Chapter 1 of the present Operational Directives; (e) the removal of an element of intangible
cultural heritage from one List or its transfer to the other, as referred to in paragraphs 38-40 of the present Operational
Directives.

PRESENTED PAPERS

remains to be seen.
To take an example, an Evaluation Body (EB) was established in 2014 by the IGC toevaluate nominations to the Representative List (RL), Urgent Safeguarding List (USL)and Register of Good Practices in Safeguarding (RGSP) and for International Assistance(IA) requests over $25,000 (subsequently raised to $100,000).36 This is made up of six
individual experts and six representatives from accredited NGOs, and so it brings theConvention’s implementation at the international level closer to the spirit of Article
10bis of the Preliminary Expert Draft (2002). However, at its meeting in 2016, the IGC
ignored approximately 80% of the evaluations of nomination ﬁles presented to it by theEB,37 which suggests that its members are not yet ready to open up its discussions anddeterminations to non-state actors.38 Moreover, although the IGC may invite “public andprivate bodies, as well as private individuals” to attend its meetings in order “to consult
them on speciﬁc matters” under the terms of Article 8(4) and as further ﬂeshed out in
ODs 84 and 96(d), they have not up until now chosen to do so.

NGOs as the Representatives of Local and Indigenous Communities?
Many of the NGOs currently accredited to the IGC have membership predominantly
comprising heritage professionals and other experts (such as academics) and, so, it is
crucial that the roles of ICH bearers and heritage professionals be better understoodand that communities become more prominent in the work of accredited NGOs. For
example, experts from outside the cultural communities continue to play a prominentrole in drafting nomination files and this does beg the question as to how far it is

35 Lucas Lixinski “Selecting Heritage: The Interplay of Art, Politics and Identity,” European Journal of International Law, vol22, no 1 (2011): pp 81-100.
36 The Rules of Procedure for the IGC allow for the Committee to establish ad hoc consultation and subsidiary bodies.
However, as in the case of the change made in establishing the EB, they may feel it necessary to send such a proposal to theGeneral Assembly of States Parties that is more likely to veto such an idea.
37 ITH/16/11.COM/10.a (2016 ) and ITH/16/11.COM/10 (2016 ).
38 The NGO Forum expressed its concern at this action by the IGC in the following terms: “The ICH NGO Forum is worrying
about the fact that its recommendations were nearly systematically turned around. We consider the role of the Evaluation
Body as crucial in relation to respect the values and the spirit of the Convention. The Forum reiterates that the success of
the Convention should not be mainly be measured by the diplomatic gains related to inscriptions on the lists, but all themore by its real impact of its actions on numerous skills and practices transmitted from generation to generation, and inparticular those who are in danger.” ICH NGO Forum STATEMENT-11.COM, Addis Ababa, 2016

137

138

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

possible to have direct community involvement in this process in many countries.39 At
the same time, heritage professionals play an important role as cultural brokers in ICH
policy-making, including advising the IGC and even as governmental representatives.40
Here, it should be noted that the good governance paradigm sees academic experts asa bridge between government and public. However, they do have their own agendas
and we should not assume that their interests always coincide with those of culturalcommunity members. As Jacobs points out, this issue remains in a grey zone within
the implementation of the Convention since, as yet, the ODs have not elaborated
on brokerage and mediation between these two categories of actors.41 Indeed, many
countries, including France and Italy, regard “participation” as a process mediated byexperts; in addition, communities often use experts in this role as mediators.42 This isclearly a discussion that needs to be part of the broader question of community/NGO
participation in the intergovernmental process.
If we assume, however, that NGOs offer the best framework for ensuring better
community participation in the treaty bodies, it is appropriate to assess progress thus far.
By 2016, there were 164 NGOs accredited to the IGC which have expertise in the ﬁeldof ICH43 and their role is to provide “advisory services” to the IGC as set out in OD 96:
39 As Deacon and Smeets also note, the forms and the instructions for their completion contained in the Aide-memoiresthat are provided by the Secretariat are increasingly complex and, as a result, completing them requires either extensive
training or expert involvement in many cases. From the author’s personal experience, it can be seen that the capacitybuilding provided by UNESCO often reaches only to governmental and scientiﬁc experts and not to community members
themselves.
40 Marc Jacobs, Jan Nyrink and A. ven der Zajen, Brokers, Facilitators and Mediation: Critical Success (F)actors for the
Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (Kontich: Volkskund, 2014).
41 Marc Jacobs (2014): Development Brokerage, Anthropology and Public Action. Local Empowerment, International
Cooperation and Aid: Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Volkskunde. Tijdschrift over de cultuur van het
dagelijks leven, 115(3): 299-318.
42 Laurajane Smith, Anna Morgan, and Anita van der Meer, “Community-driven Research in Cultural Heritage Management:
The Waanyi Women’s History Project,” 2003 International Journal of Heritage Studies, 9(1): pp 65-80.
43 The criteria for selecting such NGOs are set out in OD 91: “Non-governmental organizations shall: (a) have provencompetence, expertise and experience in safeguarding... intangible cultural heritage belonging, inter alia, to one or more
speciﬁc domains; (b) have a local, national, regional or international nature, as appropriate; (c) have objectives that arein conformity with the spirit of the Convention and, preferably, statutes or bylaws that conform with those objectives; (d)cooperate in a spirit of mutual respect with communities, groups, and, where appropriate, individuals that create, practise
and transmit intangible cultural heritage; (e) possess operational capacities, including: a regular active membership, whichforms a community linked by the desire to pursue the objectives for which it was established; an established domicile and arecognized legal personality as compatible with domestic law; having existed and having carried out appropriate activities
for at least four years when being considered for accreditation.”

PRESENTED PAPERS

Accredited non-governmental organizations who, according to Article 9.1 of theConvention, shall have advisory functions to the Committee, may be invited by theCommittee to provide it, inter alia, with reports of evaluation as a reference for theCommittee to examine [RL and USL nomination files, programmes, projects andactivities mentioned in Article 18, requests for international assistance and the eﬀects
of safeguarding plans for USL inscribed elements].
However, the geographical spread of these remains heavily weighted towards GroupI (Europe and North America) and, here, it is important to note that there are many
countries from other electoral Groups where NGOs related to ICH are not wellestablished but where other forms of civil society/cultural associations represent
cultural communities.44 A further issue is that, in a number of countries, NGOs are
not independent of State control and so cannot really be regarded as representing thecommunities of the Convention in any real sense.45
Despite these potential misgivings, NGOs specialising in ICH-related issues are now
increasingly playing a more prominent role in ICH safeguarding and acting as advisors
to both Government and communities. In this way, they may be in a unique position toserve as a bridge between communities and state agencies. An interesting example ofthis in practice relates to the ‘Yaokwa, the Enawene people’s ritual for the maintenanceof social and cosmic order’ element which was inscribed by Brazil on the USL in 2011.
Given the extreme remoteness of the Indigenous community of the element which had
almost no contact with the outside world, an NGO called Operation Amazon Native(OPAN) acted on behalf of the local Indigenous community to work in partnership withthe government heritage agency (IPHAN) between 2006 and 2011 for the identiﬁcationand safeguarding of the element.46 In addition, NGOs often have specialised expertise
which situates them well to play a role in the implementation of the Convention,
particularly when governmental agencies may lack the expertise or personnel to do sothemselves.
44 According to the Periodic report submitted by Mali in 2012, there are few associations, professional groups or NGOs
involved in ICH safeguarding. This is mostly carried out by the regional oﬃces of the Ministry of Culture acting alongside
traditional chiefs.
45 As noted in the Report by the Secretariat on the periodic reporting cycle in 2012.
46 Brazil Report of the Status of an Element Inscribed on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent
Safeguarding (Report no.0347 of 2013).

139

140

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

If we look to the Statements made by the NGO Forum (of NGOs accredited to the IGC)
since 7.COM (2012), we see some of the diﬀerent contributions that NGOs can make tothe intergovernmental process and how they can beneﬁt from it:・As stakeholders and intermediaries, they can “activate, mediate and connect” and socontribute to a participatory approach and problem-resolving attitude47
・Accreditation has encouraged NGOs from developing countries, many of whichhave ICH community holders as members, and facilitates their “alignment toaccepted international standard working concepts and methods”48
・To provide advisory functions to the IGC
・To provide periodic reports of NGOs alongside the periodic reports of the State
Parties49
・To participate in debates of the IGC50
・To access the Fund in order to contribute to implementation of the 2003 Convention51
・Potential participation “in the mechanics of the Convention” by NGOs in non-Party
States and operating in an international capacity52
In order to operate more eﬀectively at the intergovernmental level, the NGO Forum has,since 2015, worked towards developing its organizational structure through establishinga Steering Committee that can provide a collective voice for the Forum’s members
and, so, more eﬀectively lobby States Parties and work with the UNESCO Secretariat.
At present, the Steering Committee has members representing all six electoral groups,
although not all are actually based in the countries /regions they represent. 53 The
Forum has also begun to develop a capacity-building programme (in cooperation with

47 NGO STATEMENT ICH-7.COM, Paris, 6th December 2012 (ﬁnal version) at para.5.2.
48 Ibid at 5.3.
49 Ibid at 6.3. This is done in the Human Rights Council, for example.
50 NGO STATEMENT ICH-8.COM, Baku, 7th December 2013 at para.10, referring to Decision 8.COM 5c.
51 Ibid at para. 12. At the 11.COM meeting, the Forum sincerely request[ed] the State Parties “to support our need for funding
to carry out the concrete plans for capacity building and networking projects by which the NGOs strive to contributeprogressively to the implementation of the Convention. We are happy to share that as part of our efforts to streamline
organizational governance, the Forum will now also open a bank account for transparent management of funds.” NGO
STATEMENT ICH-11.COM, Addis Ababa, 2016.
52 NGO STATEMENT ICH-9.COM, Paris, 27nd November 2014.
53 For example, the members for the Latin America and Eastern Europe regions are represented by nationals form countries of
those regions but working for international NGOs based elsewhere. Elections will be held at 12.COM in 2017. ICH NGO
Forum Statement for the 10.COM IGC for the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural heritage, 2015.

PRESENTED PAPERS

UNESCO) that will be rolled out to NGOs in all regions and will be launching anddeveloping the regional NGO-networks in 2017.
It is also worth considering in more detail what ﬁnancial support can be made available
for the greater involvement of community members and NGOs in the intergovernmental
processes of the 2003 Convention. In a great number of cases, the motivation to take partand the expertise may be present, but ﬁnancial constraints prevent this. The ODs relating
to the ICH Fund do provide for use of the Fund’s resources (at paragraph 67) for “(e) forthe costs of participation of public or private bodies, as well as private persons, notably
members of communities and groups, that have been invited by the Committee to its
meetings to be consulted on speciﬁc matters”. This last provides a signiﬁcant opportunity
to develop community participation in the work of the IGC if it is truly committed todoing so; this is particularly interesting given the lack of take-up of the Fund for its otheruses by States Parties. Moreover, the Fund can also be used for covering “(d) the costs ofadvisory services to be provided, at the request of the Committee, by non-governmental
and non-proﬁt-making organizations, public or private bodies and private persons”.
The opportunity already exists for the IGC to make more use of its accredited NGOs andother expert bodies and individuals to contribute in a more direct and concrete manner
to its work: There is clearly the capacity and willingness in the members of the NGO
Forum of accredited organizations and so, again, the ball is really in the court of the IGC
on this. In many ways, then, this is also an issue of raising the awareness of all parties as
to the possibilities available and the mutual beneﬁts to be had from availing themselvesof these, and a degree of suspicion of States Parties towards non-state actors needs to bebroken down.
The experience from other intergovernmental frameworks set out above would strongly
suggest that, however ﬂawed this may be, a mechanism built around the existing NGO
involvement in the operation of the Convention is the most appropriate one if we wish
to actually achieve better community involvement in the evaluation and monitoringprocesses of the Convention, as well as in the decision-making of its organs. The
existing status of the NGO Forum, although it has gained greater traction in recent years,
is not yet sufficiently influential within the IGC process to answer to this ambition.
However, in view of the evidence set out above that “communities” per se lack any

141

142

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

specific legal status either internationally or (in most cases) nationally, they cannot
easily be brought into the implementation of the Convention at the international level. In
contrast, NGOs not only have legal personality in most (but not all countries) but they
have achieved some degree of status with regard to the IGC, and this therefore, oﬀers asuitable platform upon which the deeper involvement of communities (acting throughNGOs) can be developed.
In order to secure the support of the States Parties in the IGC and General Assembly forestablishing a more eﬀective mechanism for communities to have greater involvement in
the international operation of the 2003 Convention, this should be built around a modelthat they have agreed to in other fora. In part, the challenge will be too persuade States
Parties to accept a degree of participation in the intergovernmental process for types ofcommunities not yet seen in any other forum (though the UNCDC and UNESCO’s 2005
Convention oﬀer some hope in this respect). It can be argued on the basis of the central
role accorded to “communities, groups and ... individuals” in the 2003 Convention thatdeveloping such a mechanism would simply reﬂect the Parties’ pre-existing obligations
under Article 15 of the ICESCR to which almost all are Parties.
The discussion above would suggest that the answer may not actually be found in trying
to adopt ever more complex layers of institutional structures to achieve this, but rather toconcentrate on the following approaches:a) Working to increase the numbers of accredited NGOs that truly represent
community (rather than expert) interestsb) Building the capacity among these bodies to be able to interact more eﬀectively at
the international levelc) Improving the level of ﬂow of information and dialogue between States Parties andnon-state actorsd) Raising awareness of the capacities available in the NGO Forum members to
support the Committee’s worke) Tapping into the ﬁnancial support available in the Fund to (i) facilitate the direct
participation of more NGOs from around the world in the IGC and General
Assembly meetings and (ii) use their expertise in concrete ways to support the IGC
in its work.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Some Elements Needed for Eﬀective Participation by NGO/CSO observers
1. Providing support to (including the creation/development of) NGOs related to ICH
and its communities at the national level: This should be seen as a fundamental stepin ensuring their stronger participation at the IG level. This includes:
・the establishment of an effective mechanism at national level for consultation
with/involvement of civil society entities in ICH safeguarding (at all stages)
・capacity-building aimed at (i) strengthening civil society entities active in thefield of ICH at national level and (ii) developing their capacity to intervene atintergovernmental level
2. Developing a set of criteria for accreditation that allow for the inclusion of a
relatively wide range of types of NGOs and other civil society organizations/associations54
3. Formal representation of accredited organizations at IGC meetings, including
plaques with their names placed in the meeting room
4. Build a culture within meetings of the IGC whereby NGO/CSO observers areinvited to speak on matters concerning their expertise
5. Establish a formal agenda item at the start of each IGC meeting for NGO/CSO
observers (and, possibly, selected cultural communities) to give presentations (as per
WIPO IGC)
6. Make it possible for NGO/CSO observers to submit written reports to be circulatedby the Secretariat in advance of meetings (as per the 2005 Convention)
7. Encourage the IGC members to invite NGO/CSO observers and others as experts
under the terms of Article 8(4) to provide advice on speciﬁc issues
8. Ensuring suﬃcient ﬁnancial and administrative support for community-based NGOs
to attend and be involved in the work of the IGC55 and increase use of/access to the

54 Criteria for civil society organizations to be accredited to the organs of the 2005 Convention are: “a. have interests andactivities in one or more fields covered by the Convention; b. have a legal status in compliance with the establishedrules of the jurisdiction in the country of registration; and c. are representative of their respective field of activity, orof the respective social or professional groups they represent” [Annex II to Decision 1.EXT.IGC 5]. The criteria for
accreditation of NGO observers to the WIPO IGC, for example are: a. The organization should essentially be concernedwith intellectual property matters within the competence of WIPO; b. The organization should be able to demonstrate an
existing relationship between its activities and the issues under discussion within the IGC; c. The aims and objectives ofthe organization shall be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of WIPO and the United Nations; and d. The
organization shall have authority to speak for its members through its authorized representatives and in accordance with therules governing observer status.

143

144

Examining Possible Mechanisms for the Community Representation and Participation

Fund for this purpose
9. Ensure good access to information in order to ensure that community-based NGOs
are able to participate in decision-making in an informed manner; this should be
provided in culturally-appropriate ways and not, for example, rely too heavily on
access to ICTs56
10. Conduct consultations with NGO/CSO observers on key issues that can bepresented in summary reports (aka the ‘factual extractions’ of WIPO IGC)
11. Establish an Ad-hoc Inter-sessional Working Group on issues pertaining tocommunity participation in the operation of the 2003 Convention, with formal
participation of NGO/CSO observers
12. Establish a joint governmental/non-governmental review body (equivalent
to CRIC under the UNCDC) with the task of reviewing implementation of theConvention more generally and addressing a number of issues relevant to this thatprovides reports annually to the IGC.

55 A necessary precondition for “the full and direct participation of indigenous peoples in all international processes onmatters that particularly concern them” is “consistent financial and administrative support is needed to ensure thatindigenous peoples maintain appropriate participation in international bodies”. Human Rights Council Study on indigenous
peoples and the right to participate in decision-making Item 3 of the provisional agenda at its Third session 12 16 July
2010, Doc. A/HRC/EMRIP/2010/2 (2010) at paragraph 96. For example, the WIPO Voluntary Fund was established in
October 2005 to facilitate the participation of representatives of already accredited organizations representing indigenous
and local communities within the IGC.
56 Ibid at paragraph 98.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Table 1: Responses received from accredited observers to the WIPO IGC
ObserverTraditional
CulturalExpressions

Eurasian Patent Oﬃce
Federación Iberolatinoamericana deArtistas Intérpretes y Ejecutantes (FILAIE)
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA)

Traditional
Knowledge

Traditional
CulturalExpressions andTraditional

PDF 2
PDF 1
PDF 3
PDF 4

International Publishers Association (IPA)Intellectual Property Owners Association
(IPO)

PDF 6
PDF 5

Ogiek Community

PDF 7

PDF 1 (http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/ﬁliae_tce_es.pdf)
PDF 2 (http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/eurasian_patent_office_tk.pdf)
PDF 3 (www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/icc_tk.pdf)
PDF 4 (http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/ifpma_tk.pdf)
PDF 5 (http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/ipo_tk.pdf)
PDF 6 (www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/ipa_tk-tce.pdf)
PDF 7 (www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/ogiek_tk-tce.pdf)

145

146

Community Participation in Folk Festivals for Protecting Intangible
Cultural Heritage and the Role of NGOs as Facilitators of Feedback
V. JAYARAJAN
Folkland, International Centre for Folklore and Culture

Objectives of the Study
Main objectives of this study are as follows1. To analyze folk festivals and to understand their role in protecting intangible
cultural heritage.
2. To identify how folk festivals promote the tourism industry.
3. To study the role of folk festivals in the economic growth of the state and its people.
4. To identify the role of NGOs as facilitators of feedback in order to protect the ICH.

The Area of the Study
Kerala - a tiny and one of the most scenic states of India, lies in the south western tip, iscovered with lush green coconut palms and beautiful back waters. Blessed by the south
west and north east monsoons, the state has a high level of development standard andenjoys nearly 100% literacy. This land is enclosed by the Arabian Sea on the west, theIndian Ocean on the South and the hill range known as the Western Ghats on the east.
Total population is 34.8 million (2012). People of Kerala celebrate several festivals that
include ritual and social.
Folk festivals are considered to be special occasions of feasting or celebrations. It is
described as an exposition of intangible cultural heritage as it usually promotes music,
dance, crafts, different kinds of culinary items, folk architecture etc. It also helps toencourage the traditions and recognize the tradition bearers as well. The method of
conducting a folk festival in Kerala is very unique as it embraces diﬀerent sections ofpeople. All genres of folklore are also involved in a festival which passes down from one
generation to the other orally.

General Classiﬁcation
Festivals of Kerala can be generally classified as (A) Seasonal as conducted inPRESENTED PAPERS

accordance with the lunar and solar calendar. (B) Religious festivals based on
mythology of a religion are conducted by different religions. (C) Social festivals arecommon to the society. (D) Political festivals are the festivals connected with theimportant events of Nation or State. Some festivals are international in character,while the others are national. There are regional festivals too and have only regional
importance. Community based festivals have its relevance only among the participating
community.

Folk Festival and ICH
It is a fact that a folk festival is considered to be an opportunity for cultural exchange as
it is an exposition of diﬀerent cultures. In a folk festival as it hosts diﬀerent genres ofcultural expressions, the tradition bearers can participate and exhibit their original skill
by way of performing the music, dance, making or preparing the handicrafts, costumes
etc. Therefore a folk festival is a space of performance where the performers feel free toexpose themselves “Within a museum without walls. “
Folk festival is an open invitation to the people to learn, sing, dance, eat and entertain
as it provides platform for diﬀerent folk performances and craft traditions. It also gives
an opportunity for interaction between the participating artistes/artisans and viewers/
observers.
Another feature of a folk festival is that it protects and promotes cultural diversity, as
it embraces different cultural traditions. An international festival is a combination ofcultures of diﬀerent nations. A national festival on the other hand is an amalgamation of
diﬀerent ethnic groups of a particular country. A festival of a particular community also
hosts diﬀerent folk genres of that community.

Participation of Community Members
A folk festival encourages active participation of all community members. It is afestival of all the people belonging to that particular group. An organizing committee
is elected by the members of the community or an organization that hosts the festival.
Either internal democracy or a traditional system followed by precedent is maintained inselecting the oﬃce bearers of the organization and decision making. It also gives ample
opportunity to all ethnic groups to participate.

147

148

Community Participation in Folk Festivals for Protecting Intangible Cultural Heritage

Another remarkable merit of a folk festival is that it legitimizes the tradition and respects
the tradition bearers. Authentic representation of artists is ensured in folk festivals.
In Kerala, ritual performances are caste based performances. Crafts related to temple
festivals are restricted to certain artisan communities.
Another feature of a folk festival is that it safe guards fair and equitable access tocultural resources of the respective communities of a region. Festival also brings
together both the genders without any bias. In the case of ritual performances in temple
festivals, there are some restrictions to feminine genders. But on the other hand female
folk are also involved in making the crafts, selling the products along with their role inperforming as an artist in the festival. A folk festival gives access to diﬀerently abled
persons, and children.
A festival has several functions in the society. It is social as it brings together thediﬀerent ethnic groups of the society; its religious function is satisﬁed when a festival
involving religion is conducted.Another important function is economic as it involves
huge amount depending the structure and size of the festival. Large revenue can beaccumulated through the donation, ticket sales, sponsorships, leasing out the commercial
plots etc. Laborers, vendors, business such as hospitality and transport, artists andartisans are also beneﬁted economically in a festival. Another function of a folk festival
is that it has to follow ritual duties when the festival is related to religion, temple or
mythology etc. Political festival is a festival related to the nation or state. Independence
Day, republic day, state reorganization day, commemoration of national, regional leadersetc. are also to be included in this.

Nongovernmental Organizations as Facilitators of Protecting ICH in a Folk
Festival
NGOs have an important role in conducting a folk festival for protecting the intangible
cultural heritage traditions. They act as facilitators in some festivals but mostly the
execution of a festival whether it is regional or national lies in the hands of NGOs. The
important Festivals of Kerala State such as Onam (Harvest festival) Vishu (New year
festival) Thiruvathira(Mythological festival of Women folk) are conducted by various
NGOs regionally with varieties of programs in order to protect the intangible cultural
heritage. Extending the feed back in the conduct and protection of ICH in appropriate

PRESENTED PAPERS

manner is another role carried out by NGOs. Local clubs, cultural organizations , resident
associations, temple organizations, youth, women wings of religious organizations andpolitical parties also work towards the conduct of a folk festival as felicitators.

149

150

Preservation of Ha Kites Techniques by the Government
Yiqi HA
The fourth generation successor of Beijing Hashi-style Kite

Boasting a history of over 170 years, the Ha Kites was originated in the Late Qing
Dynasty in Beijing China. And now, it has been inherited to the ﬁfth generation.
The Ha Family was originally a minority tribe in Xinjiang in the western part of China.
The tribe believed in the Islamism. The members were nomadic people serving in thearmy. According to Professor Ha Jingxiong, former President of Minzu Universityof China, “the Ha Family was originated in the Western Regions. And the earliest
ancestors, Hala Buding and his brother Hala Buda, moved to the Central Plains on lunar
February 22 in the 3rd year under the reign of Emperor Jingtai of the Ming Dynasty(1452). The members mainly settled in areas such as Nanjing and Hejian in the Mingand Qing Dynasties. The Ha Family had been separated and relocated for several times
in the history. And the family members then lived and multiplied all across the country.
Now the Family has a history of 568 years.”
The Ha Kites Family was the later generation of Ha Tingliang, the Number One Martial
Art Scholar from the 9th generation of the Ha Family. Ha Tingliang (1714-1789) wasfrom Xian County of Hebei Province.
The Number One Martial Art Scholar was the candidate ranked 1st in the Imperial
Examinations in the 17th year under the reign of Emperor Qianlong (1752). He wasdemoted as a civilian later on for some incidents. To earn a living, he began to makeand sell kites. When it came to the generation of my grandfather, Ha Kites Styles were
finally established. At the 1915 Panama Pacific Interactional Exposition held in San
Francisco in the United States, the four kites themed by “butterﬂy”, “dragonﬂy”, “redcrowned crane” and “phoenix” made by Ha Changying of the second generation wereawarded Silver Prize at the event.
I began to learn oil painting and Chinese painting. And in 1977, I formally began tolearn from my father Ha Kuiming on the patrimonial kite techniques. And now it has

PRESENTED PAPERS

been about 40 years. In 1986, the book Chinese Artistic Kites (The culture and art ofChina series) co-compiled by my father and it was published by the Commercial Pressin Hong Kong. Later on, the English and Japanese versions of the book was publishedrespectively in the United States and Japan. The book was awarded prizes in San
Francisco (the United States) and Hague (Netherlands) respectively in 1983 and 1998.
Since the China’s signing of the treaty on protection and preservation of international
intangible cultural heritages in October 2003, the Ha Kites techniques have been
supported on all aspects vigorously by the national government.

I. Social Position
In May 2005, Ha Yiqi, the 4th generation inheritor of the Ha Kites in China wasrecruited as researcher on folk art creation by the Chinese National Academy of Arts;
In September 2009, the Oral History of Chinese Artistic Kites by Ha Family, waspublished by the Ministry of Culture of the People’s Republic of China, together withthe oral histories of 9 other types of major folk arts;
In December 2008, craftsmanship of Ha Kites was listed into the national intangible
cultural heritage program;
In December 2012, Ha Yiqi was elected as inheritor for national intangible cultural
heritage.

II. Financial Supports
1. A ﬁxed ﬁnancial subsidiary of RMB 50,000 is granted by the state on a yearly basis;
2. Intangible cultural heritage inheritance and protection funds may be applied every
year or every other year. A supporting fund of RMB 100,000 to 200,000 would be
granted on average (as the case may be for each speciﬁc program).

III. Inheritance of Intangible Cultural Heritage
1. I have painted over 150 copies of picture copybook for Chinese artistic kites in myspare time for the past about ten years, of which 100 were donated to the National
Gallery of Art in December 2015.
2. In 2014, I wrote and published the book Ha Kites(published in Chinese)
3. I have attended over 100 exhibitions of various types at home and abroad.

151

152

Preservation of Ha Kites Techniques by the Government

With learning and making kites for long years, I have comprehensively inherited theartistic features and craftsmanship of the Ha Kites and further stabilized the techniquestyles of the Ha Kites. I have made in-depth understandings on the artistic achievementsof the ancestors and further promoted them. By carefully researching the excellent worksof the Ha Kites of previous generations, I have meticulously reproduced the charmsof such works while maintaining the original features of the structures and colors as
possible. Furthermore, I have summarized ﬁve types of inheritance.
1. Written Records:
I have taken a great number of notes and published three books on the Ha Kites, witha total wordage of hundreds of thousands.
2. Works and Patterns:
I have taken 10 years to record the pictures of the kites inherited by four generations
by means of picture copybook item by item in my spare time in hope of preserving
artistic patterns of the Ha Kites for our later generations.
3. Mentorship:
Mentorship is an important form for dynamic inheritance. The next generation is
instructed to learn and master the techniques of the Ha Kites by oral teaching thatinspires true understanding within.
4. Publicity and Generalization:
Participate in various types of exhibition activities at home and abroad and givelectures in colleges, universities as well as primary and middle schools so as to makemore people to understand the techniques and cultures of the Ha Kites.
5. Innovation:
Take innovative initiatives to design kites with new structures, patterns and colors
based on the inheritance of the techniques of the ancestors so as to extend the artistic
categories of the Ha Kites.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Session 5. New initiative to encourage IRCI’s ICH researchers’ network

155

New Initiative to Encourage IRCI’s ICH Researchers’ Network
Shigeaki KODAMAInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region

The International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region(IRCI) was established in October 2011 under the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage,
Japan as a Category 2 Centre of UNESCO. IRCI’s objectives are to promote the UNESCO
Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and its implementation,and to enhance the safeguarding of ICH through instigating, facilitating, and coordinating
research in the Asia-Pacific region. The IRCI has run the Mapping Project since 2013 topromote research on ICH safeguarding through analysing current trends and challenges by
three activities, specifically; 1) holding international experts meetings and conferences, 2)
literature survey on ICH safeguarding research in the Asia-Pacific region, 3) research datacollection on ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Paciﬁc region and optimisation of its use.

1. Session BackgroundAs stipulated in its midterm programme (2016-2020), IRCI contributes to the enhancementof the safeguarding of ICH and the research for safeguarding through promoting research
activities on the following domains in consistent with the 2003 Convention:
A. (i) Current status of researches on the safeguarding of ICH;(ii) Policies and various methodologies for the safeguarding of ICH;(iii) Good practices of the safeguarding of ICH.
During the course of implementing what mentioned above, IRCI instigate following
activities:
B. (i) Participation of young researchers who are engaged in the research on thesafeguarding of ICH into the activities of IRCI;(ii) Collaboration with researchers and research institutions;(iii) Organising international experts meetings and research workshops to discussvarious methodologies and practices of the safeguarding of ICH.
According to this main line of action, IRCI promotes research for the safeguardingof ICH, through conducting the following activities regarding the practices and156

New Initiative to Encourage IRCI’s ICH Researchers’ Network

methodologies of safeguarding, in cooperation with research institutions and researchers
working in the Asia-Paciﬁc region:
C. (i) Instigate research activities and develop the researchers’ community throughinternational conferences, experts meetings, and publications;(ii) Examine and develop strategies for optimizing the use of research data, whilecollecting research information.
IRCI has been conducting its ‘Mapping Project’ from 2013 to achieve the objectives
mentioned above. Through this project, IRCI tries to share research information and topromote researchers’ community through international conferences and meetings andalso research information collection (literature survey). IRCI had held 5 international
expert meetings during the four years with the participation of 60 experts in the Asiapacific region including young researchers. 28 researchers in the Asia-Pacific region
participated in the literature survey in 2015 and 2016. In the year 2017, IRCI holdan international symposium in collaboration with Center for Glocal Studies, Seijo
University and conduct literature survey in 10 countries. The Literature survey will
cover 38 countries in total by the end of 2017.
In this session, IRCI presents the outline of activities within the Mapping project and its
results from 2013 to 2016 and asks comments from the researchers to reﬂect upon the
future orientations of the project.

2. Outline and Outcomes of the activities in the Mapping project
The outline and outcomes are as follows:
FY

Activities and Results

Activity: Preparatory Experts Meeting in Bangkok on 19-20 February 2014 (13experts)
Some recommendations to IRCI:
1. Conduct a survey on the research for the ICH safeguarding in the Asia2013
Paciﬁc region.
2. Hold an experts meeting to map the research and identify key issues on the
research.
3. Construct a database within the IRCI’s own operation, not within the
Mapping project.

PRESENTED PAPERS

Activity: International Experts Meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 26-27 January 2015 (10 experts)
Some recommendations to IRCI:
1. Conduct a survey on literature and research studies relating to the ICH safeguarding
in the Asia-Paciﬁc region in cooperation with the experts in the region.
2. Hold an experts meeting to analyse the result of the survey and to identify
2014
which areas of research need to be fostered in order to enhance research forsafeguarding ICH in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region.
Activity: Research Database on ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region
476 items were collected by IRCI and added to the database.
Activity: Literature survey in 17 countries
702 items were collected and added to the database. The number of entries
reached 1,178.
Activity: International Experts Meeting in Bishkek on 8-9 December 2015 (182015 experts)
Some issues on the research for ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Paciﬁc region werediscussed. New survey foci were recommended: 1. Community participationin designing, implementing and evaluation/monitoring of the safeguarding
measures; 2. Impact of the safeguarding measures implemented on the ICH
elements.
Activity: Literature survey in 11 countries
833 items were collected and added to the database. The number of entries
reaches 2,011.
Activity: International Experts Meeting in Sakai on 18-19 November 2016 (19experts)
The future orientation of the survey and mapping project and the result of survey
in 2015-2016 were discussed. Some recommendations were proposed after
discussion.
2016
1. IRCI’s literature survey will include research activities before the Convention
because research activities on ICH in general can be traced back to the preconvention periods.
2. As a research institute for ICH that covers the Asia-Paciﬁc region, IRCI will
not overlook both contemporary, post-Convention safeguarding activities andtraditional ones.
3. IRCI will enlarge the scope of targeted literature including ethnographic
reports on ICH, digital archiving, and the conventional documentation ofvarious ICH.
2017

Activity: Literature survey in 10 countries
Activity: ‘Glocal Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage’ on 7-9 July 2017

157

158

New Initiative to Encourage IRCI’s ICH Researchers’ Network

3. Future Orientation of the Mapping Project
As shown in section 2, IRCI has been strengthening research network to instigate
research activities for ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region. Considering theoutcomes of the research activities, its midterm programme and the draft UNESCO
Programme and Budget (UNESCO 39 C/5) under discussion, to instigate research
activities (C (i)) through the established researcher networks IRCI drafts the futureorientation of the Mapping project as following:
1. At the 2016 expert meeting, it is suggested that literature survey will include research
activities before the Convention. The results of such kind of activities are thought tobe stored in libraries or archives in and outside the target countries. It is also suggested
at the meeting, that IRCI will not overlook both contemporary, post-Convention
safeguarding activities and traditional ones and that IRCI will enlarge the scope oftargeted literature other than printed matters.
Considering these suggestions, what IRCI can do to conduct more thorough andeffective survey? For example, IRCI asks not only experts, but also nationalarchives or libraries to conduct the survey where many research resources before theConvention, digital archiving and so on are expected to be stored. In that case, IRCI
may develop new survey methodology suitable for such institutions. It may also
strengthen the collaborative ICH-research network in the Asia-Paciﬁc region.
2. As a follow-up activities to the current symposium, case studies on how communities,
researchers and local and central governments collaborate for the safeguarding of ICH
in his/her country will be investigated by research institutions/ researchers.
3. As UNESCO makes efforts to contribute to the realization of the objectives of
SDGs approved two years ago, our survey or collaborative research can envisage thethemes such as “inclusive social development”, “inclusive economic development”,“environmental sustainability” and “ICH and peace ” described in the Operational
Directives revised in 2016, placing a particular emphasis on the participation of theyoung researchers (B (i)) and to the extent that the activities would not overlap withthe other IRCI’s projects.

PRESENTED PAPERS

4. The importance of research for the ICH safeguarding is increasingly recognized. Thus,
IRCI is collecting information of researchers and research institutions in the AsiaPaciﬁc region now. To enhance researchers’ network, would IRCI also try to collectinformation of researchers and institutions outside the Asia-Paciﬁc region? In addition,
IRCI’s challenge is how to promote research activities of each country’s institutions
while fostering young researchers (B (i)).
5. As described in the section 2, more than 60 researchers in total has been involved in
the Mapping project and researchers’ network was built within the activities of the
project. How will IRCI utilize the existing researchers’ network to enhance it and tocreate a shared academic platform in future?

159

160

Comments

Comments 1
Hanhee HAHM
Chonbuk National University

The mapping research for the safeguarding of ICH in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region is quite
useful in that diﬀerent backgrounds and current situations of safeguarding ICH in eachcountry become well understood. After reviewing of the eleven countries’ summary
reports, I have discovered that the concepts of ‘safeguarding, ‘ICH,’ and ‘community’ areused diﬀerently in the varied contexts of collecting and analyzing of literature relevant
to ICH. In particular, the terminology of safeguarding from an operational perspective
is to be discussed in order to arrive at a common ground with respect to its deﬁnition. I
also found out that there are plenty of good ethnographic studies on indigenous people.
More than many minority cultures were documented by researchers and specialists fromdeveloped countries. There are many good qualities of photos and ﬁlms included in the
documents recorded in early days.
I would like to try to answer each question that Mr. Kodama raised in his presentation.
Q1: Pre-convention materials: He mentioned about the pre-convention meterials. Muchof the literature reviewed in the Mapping project were completed before the Convention
and therefore the contents of these literature are not closely matched or related to theconcerns and issues brought by the Convention. However, there are plenty of good
ethnographic studies on indigenous people in some countries (e.g. Palau, Vanuatu,
and Nepal). Those are valuable research papers, books and reports documented byanthropologists, missionaries and journalists during the last hundred years throughmodernization, industrialization and urbanization. It would be good if the copies of
the collections could be first digitalized and shared among the source communities
and institutions. Not only the written materials, but also there are many good qualitiesof photos and films regarding indigenous people and their cultures. I recommend thecontacts with libraries and archives having such collections to be necessary.
Q 2: Case studies on how communities, researchers and local and central governments
collaborate for the safeguarding of ICH will be investigated by research institutions/researchers. ICH specialists should be involved in IRCI. I found out that some161

researchers are not specialists in the ﬁeld of ICH. Archeologists, artists, historians andeven administrators who are not familiar with ICH. As Prof. Hyoki showed us yesterday,
in Japan officials and curators working in local governments who know well aboutcommunities and their ICH are the specialists in the ﬁeld. Particular in the area of EastAsian countries, researchers hired by governments or working for the governments are
the backbones of ICH research ﬁelds.
Q 3: The promoting of SDGs in accordance with the safeguarding of ICH would
sometimes meet the conflict of interest. It is not easy to make balance between the
promoting of SDGs goal and the safeguarding of ICH. In the first place, some ICH
communities may welcome the idea of SDGs to get beneﬁts but in a long run they might
be damaged by an unprepared and thoughtless proposal and practices. To prevent this,we need to have a more thorough consideration of the safeguarding measures before theimplementing of the SDG programs.
Q 4 & 5: It is important to establish internet networks. Through the internet
communication researchers could expand their networkings. In addition it helps torecruit young scholars who are apt to the digital activity.

Comments 2
Alexandra DENES
Chiang Mai University

It is my pleasure to have this opportunity to comment for this session on initiatives toencourage IRCI’s ICH researchers’ network. I read with interest to Mr. Kodama’s paperon this topic, which succinctly summarizes IRCI’s eﬀorts over the past several years to
support the enhancement of safeguarding and research on safeguarding ICH in the Asia
Paciﬁc.
I had the opportunity to participate in the IRCI’s Mapping Initiative in 2015 (“Mapping
Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region”), as an author of the162

Comments

Survey Summary Report for Thailand and as the author of the Survey Summary Reportfor the Asia Pacific, which covered 12 countries in the region, including: Australia,
Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. I also
participated via Skype in the Bishkek meeting held on the 8-9th December 2015 topresent these findings and contribute to the discussion about IRCI’s future initiatives
for research on safeguarding. It is with interest, therefore, that I read Mr. Kodama’s
latest report on more recent initiatives, including the continuation of the survey of anadditional 11 countries and an the Experts Meeting in Sakai in November 2016. I am
also encouraged to see that the IRCI has broadened the scope of the research to include
safeguarding and ICH research prior to the Convention, as well as ethnographic reports,
digital archives, and other forms of documentation. IRCI is to be commended for its
continued eﬀorts and commitment to compiling the ICH safeguarding database for the
Asia Paciﬁc, and to supporting regional networking among researchers in this ﬁeld.
For the purpose of this session, I will limit my comments to two main points, the ﬁrst
pertaining to the research survey and database, and the second pertaining to the questionof researcher networks.
In his conclusions, Mr. Kodama asks what might be done to conduct a more thoroughand effective survey, pointing out the potential utility of collaborating with nationalarchives, libraries, digital archives and others. While I agree that such collaboration
would be an important way to gain access to additional existing research, I think it isimportant at this stage to ﬁrst take a step back and revisit the original objectives of thedatabase, and whether these aims have been realized in practice. From my perspective,the database offers a broad, and general picture of the kinds of ICH and research on
intangible culture that is being undertaken in the Asia Pacific. However, because of
the limitations of the database format, it does not provide access to the more detailed
content of the research, or information on where the research is located or how the actual
content might be accessed by researchers using the site. In response to Mr. Kodama’squestion about the eﬀectiveness of the survey, therefore, one important consideration is
how to make the actual ﬁndings more accessible to the researchers who are the target
users of the database. This is where it would be helpful to collaborate with nationalarchives, digital libraries, and others, to develop the IRCI database portal as a platform

163

for bringing together institutions in the region who have existing resources on ICH, andto provide links to content where possible, or further information about the location of
written or audiovisual research.
Turning now to the second point regarding researcher networks, I believe it would
be very important and valuable for IRCI to support the kinds of field-based research
initiatives that Mr. Kodama proposes in his conclusion, namely, case studies on how
communities, researchers and local and central governments collaborate for thesafeguarding of ICH in his/her country. Such a project could be comparative in its
approach, bringing together researchers in the Asia Paciﬁc to exchange lessons during
the research process and publish and share ﬁndings. This kind of ﬁeld-based research
could oﬀer nuanced insights into the kinds of safeguarding initiatives being implemented
at the grassroots level, including both the strengths and challenges faced by different
stakeholders. I also strongly support the suggestion that regional research could take athematic approach, looking at “social development”, “inclusive economic development”,“environmental sustainability” and ICH and peace, as again, these thematic, ﬁeld-based
projects would oﬀer insights on how the Convention is actually contributing to theseobjectives through implementation of projects by local and state actors.

Comments 3
Thi Hien NGUYEN
Vietnam National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies

The National Institute for Cultural Heritage established the International ResearchCentre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific region (IRCI) in October
2011. IRCI has operated its activities with its 6 missions including (1) to instigate andcoordinate research into practices and methodologies of safeguarding; (2) to assist
countries in the Asia-Paciﬁc region; (3) to organize workshops and seminars focusing
on the role of research; (4) To encourage and assist young researchers; (5) To cooperatewith other category 2 centers and institutions active in the domain of safeguarding ICH;
(6) To initiate cooperation among all other interested institutions active in the domain of164

Comments

safeguarding ICH in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region.
So far, IRCI has done quite a number of works including the mapping project, theorganizing symposiums on various topics (ICH policies and safeguarding) as follows:
1. Mapping project
One of the achievements that IRCI have done is the mapping project. As in its report,
since 2013, IRCI has developed the network of experts and researchers on the literature
reviews on ICH researchers. The project covers the literature survey in 38 countries intotal at the end of 2017. The quite numerous entries have been updated and accessed.
In the future IRCI will continue its the survey of the literature before the 2003
Convention in and even in the history if the past empires or dynasties in the Asia-Paciﬁccountries that carried out the safeguarding measure of ICH in policies and in practice.
Also, there are archives in the central institutions and local museums that have archived
the ICH’s collections and writings. Also, in localities, there are research works andcollections of ICH elements by local intellectuals who have done so far. A numberof their works have archived at the local libraries, or the works are still kept by thecollectors and their families. Thus, in the future, IRCI may have its strategy to havethe literature entries of these local literature by collaborating with the local community
members and local ICH cadres.
I expect that the literature reviews of the entries by the 38 countries are more thoroughand in details and they are available online that the other researchers (especially youngones) can access both the literature review and entries.
2. The other activities- The current symposium on the glocal perspectives on the ICH works (research,nomination, inventory, inscription) is interesting theme. The following up activities
will collaborate with the institutions in the Asian-Paciﬁc countries to organize sucha symposium or to investigate this topic more in depth by exploring the case studies
in the relevant countries.
- IRCI can do more works if they collaborate with the institutions in the Asia- Paciﬁccountries to organize more symposium on the large range of themes as mentioned
in its reports (ICH and sustainable development, ICN and inclusive social
development, ICH and peace

165

3. Sustainable network of experts and researchers- IRCI have developed the network of the researchers who have done the literature
survey. IRCI can foster the network by collaborating with them to have theadditional reviews that they have not covered yet and update the survey.
4. New initiatives- There are some emergent issues on ICH safeguarding in specific countries. IRCI
may have its initiatives to have symposiums on the themes that are very speciﬁc andemergent issues on the safeguarding of ICH in a speciﬁc country such as the politics
of ICH and inscription, the animal sacrifice, the involvement of the outsiders ad
government/authorities in the safeguarding, the top-down and bottom-up approaches
to the safeguarding.
- By exploring such speciﬁc emerging themes, it is interesting to see how the diversity
of ICH is and how the Asia-Pacific countries reflect the Convention and how the
management of ICH in the region faces.

CLOSING REMARKS169

Closing Remarks
Wataru IWAMOTO
Director-General
International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region

As you know, the Preamble of the UNESCO’s Constitution declares that “Since wars
begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be
constructed.” In this regard, the Intangible Cultural Heritage is one of the most important
policy measures for the construction of peace.
In one sense mutual respect of ICH should prevail in interactions between States andbetween communities, groups and individuals, as Ethical Principles stipulates. In theother sense, for the safeguarding of the ICH, the cooperation among these stakeholders is
so important. As we have discussed yesterday and today, local communities, researchers,
states and UNESCO have different, but essential roles. I personally think this is agood example of multi-stakeholder approach. Different from the traditional citizens’
participation such as hearing or consultation, it implies the collaborative work of various
stakeholders in the framework of the international and national legal framework. This iswhat I have learned from the energetic discussions of two days.
I sincerely thank the chairpersons and speakers for their active engagement. I also
thank all the staff of Seijo University including young students for their support. I am
also grateful for my staﬀ of IRCI coming from Sakai for their assistance. My gratitude
also goes to the interpreters. An Italian proverb says “Traduttore, traditore” that means“Translate is betray”. However you have translated our discussions with fidelity andwithout betray. With your help, we could discuss on complex matters without diﬃculties.
Tomorrow we will enjoy the field trip to the Puppet Theatre arranged by Seijo
University, but I would also wish a safe return for the international participants.
We would like to continue to discuss with you. Thus, I declare the closure of the Symposium.
Thank you.

ANNEXES

ANNEXES

ANNEX I
Programme of the Symposium
Dates and Venue
Dates: 7-9 July 2017
Venue: Seijo University
Address: Daikaigishitu, Hōjin-tō 3F, Seijo Gakuen, 6-1-20 Seijo, Setagaya, Tokyo, JapanDay 1: 7 July (Friday): (Venue: 3rd ﬂoor, Hojinkan, Seijo University)
9:00-9:30
Registration
9:30-9:40

Welcome Remarks
Mr Junichi TOBE, President, Seijo University (Japan)

9:40-10:00

Opening Remarks
Mr Tomiyuki UESUGI, Symposium President, Director/Professor, CGS(Japan)Mr Wataru IWAMOTO, Symposium President, Director-General, IRCI
(Japan)Mr Tim CURTIS, Chief, Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, UNESCO
10:00-11:00 Keynote Speeches
Mr Koïchiro MATSUURA, Former Director-General, UNESCO
Ms Lourdes ARIZPE, Professor, National Autonomous University of
Mexico
11:00-11:15 Coﬀee Break
11:15-13:05 Session 1: Session Chair: Mr Tomiyuki UESUGI (Japan)
Session Theme: How local communities, local oﬃcials, researchers andgovernment oﬃcials collaborate for the implementation of the UNESCO’s
ICH convention by inventory making, safeguarding, nomination andinscription?
Session Participants:
Presenter1: Ms Hanhee HAHM (Republic of Korea)
Presenter2: Ms Thi Hien NGUYEN (Viet Nam)
Presenter3: Mr Minoru KOBAYASHI (Japan)
Presenter4: Mr Young Joon HA (Republic of Korea)
Comment from the Chair
13:05-13:55 Lunch
13:55-15:45 Session 2: Session Chair: Mr Michael D. FOSTER (USA)

173

174

ANNEXES

Session Theme: What has been the transformative impact of theConvention, notably how have communities accessed its impact?
Session Participants:
Presenter1: Ms Shubha CHAUDHURI (India)
Presenter2: Mr Deming AN (China)
Presenter3: Mr Tomo ISHIMURA (Japan)
Presenter4: Mr Hiroyuki SHIMIZU (Japan) (Mr Hisakatsu, MIZUNIWA(Japan))Comment from the Chair
15:45-16:00 Tea Break
16:00-17:50 Session 3: Session Chair: Ms Noriko AIKAWA-FAURE (Japan)
Session Theme: What is the role of researchers as “cultural brokers” inassessing the impact of the implementation of the Convention?
Session Participants:
Presenter1: Ms Alexandra DENES (USA)
Presenter2: Mr Satoru HYOKI (Japan)
Presenter3: Mr Seiichi NAKAJIMA (Japan)
Comment from the Chair
18:20-20:20 Reception Dinner (Venue: Basement 1st floor, Building No.7, Seijo
University)
Day 2: 8 July (Saturday): (Venue: 3rd ﬂoor, Hojinkan, Seijo University)
9:00-10:50 Session 4: Session Chair: Mr Tim CURTIS (UNESCO)
Session Theme: What is the possible feedback mechanisms for local
communities to communicate to UNESCO, the impact of the Convention
on them?
Session Participants:
Presenter1: Ms Janet Elizabeth BLAKE (Iran)
Presenter2: Mr Vayalkara JAYARAJAN (India)
Presenter3: Mr Yiqi HA (China)
Comment from the Chair
10:50-11:05 Coﬀee Break
11:05-12:55 Session 5: Session Chair: Mr Wataru IWAMOTO (Japan)
Session Theme: IRCI Session: New initiative to encourage IRCI’s ICH
researchers’ network
Session Participants:
Presenter1: Mr Shigeaki KODAMA (Japan)
Commentator1: Ms Alexandra DENES (USA)Commentator2: Ms Hanhee HAHM (Republic of Korea)
Commentator3: Ms Thi Hien NGUYEN (Viet Nam)
12:55-13:35 Lunch
13:35-14:05 On-campus Excursion:
Institute of Japanese Folklore, and the Yanagita Library (Seijo University).

ANNEXES

14:05-15:40 General Discussion and Wrap up Session
Session Chairs: Mr Tomiyuki UESUGI, and Ms Noriko AIKAWA-FAURE
15:40-16:10 Closing Remarks
Mr Wataru IWAMOTO
Day 3: 9 July (Sunday):
10:50-17:00 Post-Symposium Cultural Excursion: Sagami Ningyo Shibai (Sagami
Puppet Theater)
Venue: Atsugi Southern Community Hall and Community Civic Center(2-4-18 Asahicho, Atsugi-shi, Kanagawa 243-0014 Japan)

175

176

ANNEXESANNEX II
List of Participants

Keynote Speakers
Ms Lourdes ARIZPE
Professor, National Autonomous University of Mexico(Video message)
Mr Koïchiro MATSUURA Former Director-General, UNESCO
Session Chairs
Ms Noriko AIKAWA-FAURE Former Director/Chief, Intangible Cultural Heritage Section,
UNESCOMr Tim CURTIS
Chief, Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, UNESCO
Mr Michael FOSTER
Professor, Department of East Asian Languages andCultures, University of California, Davis, USA
Mr Wataru IWAMOTO
Director-General, IRCI, JapanMr Tomiyuki UESUGIDirector/Professor, Center for Glocal Studies, Seijo
University, Japan
Presenters
Mr Deming AN
Researcher, Institute of Literature, Chinese Academy ofSocial Sciences, China
Ms Janet Elizabeth BLAKE Associate Professor, Department of Islamic Law, Faculty ofLaw, Shahid Beheshti University, Iran
Ms Shubha CHAUDHURI Vice-President, International Association of Sound and(Video presentation)
Audio Visual Archives, India
Ms Alexandra DENES
Lecturer, Department of Media Arts and Design, Chiang Mai
University, Thailand
Mr Yiqi HA
The Fourth Generation Successor of Chinese Hashi-Style
Kite, China
Mr Young Joon HA
President, Yeongsang Tug-of-War Preservation Society,Republic of Korea
Ms Hanhee HAHM
Professor, Department of Archaeological and Cultural
Anthropology, Chonbuk National University, Republic of
Korea
Mr Satoru HYOKI
Associate Professor, Department of Cultural History, Seijo
University, JapanMr Tomo ISHIMURA
Head, Audio-Visual Documentation Section, Department
of Intangible Cultural Heritage, Tokyo National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties, Japan
Mr Vayalkara JAYARAJAN Chairman, Folkland, International Centre for Folklore andCulture, India

ANNEXESMr Minoru KOBAYASHI Chief Senior Specialist, Traditional Culture Division,
Cultural Properties Department, Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs,
Japan
Mr Shigeaki KODAMA Associate Fellow, IRCI, JapanMr Seiichi NAKAJIMA Lecturer, Seian University of Art and Design/Former
Director, Nagahama City Hikiyama Museum, Japan
Ms Thi Hien NGUYEN Vice Director, Center for Cultural Heritage, Vietnam
National Institute of Culture and Arts Studies, Viet Nam
Mr Hiroyuki SHIMIZU Lecturer, Ibaraki Christian University/ Former Curator of
Folklore, Hitachi City Museum, JapanMr Hisakatsu MIZUNIWA President, Association for the preservation of HitachiHometown Performing Arts, Japan
Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs
Ms Yasue HAMADA
Deputy Director, Office for International Cooperation on
Cultural Properties, Traditional Culture Division, Cultural
Properties Department, Agency for Cultural Aﬀairs, Japan
Organisers
Seijo University, JapanMr Junichi TOBE
President
Mr Tomiyuki UESUGIDirector/Professor, Center for Glocal Studies
Mr Masato OZAWA
Deputy Director/Professor, Center for Glocal Studies
Ms Mari SHIBA
Postdoctoral Fellow
International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-PacificRegion (IRCI), Japan
Mr Wataru IWAMOTO
Director-General
Ms Misako OHNUKI
Deputy Director-General
Mr Yohei HAYASHI
Chief Oﬃcer
Mr Shigeaki KODAMA Associate Fellow
Mr Goro HASEGAWA
Associate Fellow

177