Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSCONFIDENTIAL

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible
Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI)
Report to UNESCO (Final)
May 2015

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
0Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacificregion (IRCI)th29 May 2015

Client: UNESCO
Primary Author: Dr Susan McIntyre-Tamwoy
Secondary Author: Ben Christensen

Cover photo: View of Sakai City, home of the IRCI (Mozu-Furuichi Kofungun tumulus mid left field).

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
0Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSAUTHOR

Susan McIntyre-Tamwoy & Ben Christensen

CLIENT

UNESCOPROJECT NAME

Review of the International Research Centre for
Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia PacificRegion (IRCI)

DATE

1 June 2015

AHMS INTERNAL REVIEW/SIGN OFF
WRITTEN BY
Susan
McIntyreTamwoy&
Ben
Christensen
Susan
McIntyreTamwoy
Susan
McIntyreTamwoy

DATE

VERSION

REVIEWED

8/01/2105

Draft

Fenella Atkinson

12/03/2015

Final
Draft

Kris Gallen

15/032015

SMcT

20/05/2015

Final

Ben Christensen

29/5/2015

SMcT

DATE

APPROVED
SMcT
fordistribution toclientCopyright and Moral Rights
Historical sources and reference materials used in the preparation of this report are acknowledged and referenced infigure captions or in text citations. Reasonable effort has been made to identify, contact, acknowledge and obtain
permission to use material from the relevant copyright owners.
Unless otherwise specified in the contract terms for this project AHMS:


Vests copyright of all material produced by AHMS (but excluding pre-existing material and material in which
copyright is held by a third party) in the client for this project (and the client’s successors in title);



Retains the use of all material produced by AHMS for this project for AHMS ongoing business and for professionalpresentations, academic papers or publications.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
1Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSCONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ I
1

2

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1
1.1

Background ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2

The Brief for the Review .......................................................................................................... 1

1.3

Project Team and Acknowledgements ................................................................................... 3

1.4

Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 3

METHODOLOGY AND PROGRAMME .............................................................. 4
2.1

The Objectives and Functions of the Centre ........................................................................... 4

2.2

Methodology of the Review ..................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1

3

Desktop Review .............................................................................................................. 6

2.2.1.1

Information Provided by UNESCO .......................................................................... 6

2.2.1.2

Information provided by the IRCI ............................................................................ 6

2.2.2

The Field Mission ............................................................................................................ 7

2.2.3

The Electronic Survey ..................................................................................................... 9

2.2.4

Follow up Skype and Phone Interviews ........................................................................ 10

FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 10
3.1

Findings arising from the consultation with stakeholders ..................................................... 10

3.1.1
3.2

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 20

Response to the Questions outlined in the Review Brief ...................................................... 21

3.2.1

Effectiveness and conformity of IRCI activities. ............................................................ 21

3.2.1.1

Finding ................................................................................................................... 21

3.2.1.2

Discussion: The question of Conformity................................................................ 21

3.2.2

The Centre’s activities and UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives ..................... 23

3.2.2.1

Finding ................................................................................................................... 23

3.2.2.2

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 23

3.2.3

The effectiveness of the Centre and its programmes ................................................... 24

3.2.3.1

Finding ................................................................................................................... 24

3.2.3.2

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 25

3.2.4

Co-ordination and interaction with UNESCO ................................................................ 27

3.2.4.1

Finding ................................................................................................................... 27

3.2.4.2

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 27

3.2.5

Relations with IRCI Member States .............................................................................. 28

3.2.5.1

Finding ................................................................................................................... 28

3.2.5.2

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 28

3.2.6

Organisational arrangement and governance ............................................................... 29

3.2.6.1

Finding ................................................................................................................... 29

3.2.6.2

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 30

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
iConfidential report to UNESCO

3.2.7

Human and Financial resources ................................................................................... 32

3.2.7.1

Findings ................................................................................................................. 32

3.2.7.2

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 33

3.2.8

4

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSExtra-Budgetary Resources .......................................................................................... 35

3.2.8.1

Findings ................................................................................................................. 36

3.2.8.2

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 36

RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 37
4.1

Renewal of the IRCI's Status ................................................................................................ 37

4.2

Recommendations to the Centre for Improving its Operations ............................................. 38

4.3

Recommendations to UNESCO ............................................................................................ 39

4.4
Specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement, in the event it is tobe renewed. ...................................................................................................................................... 40

5

REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 41

FIGURES
Figure 1: The Field Mission Questions ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: The electronic survey questionnare. ........................................................................................ 9
Figure 3: Respondents by category ...................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Response to Q2: How would you describe your experience working with the IRCI Japan? . 11
Figure 5: Response to Q3: How effective do you think the IRCI has been in promoting the 2003
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and its implementationin the Asia-Pacific Region ? ................................................................................................ 12
Figure 6: Response to Q4: How effective has the IRCI Japan been in meeting its objective to enhancesafeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region, while developing
and mobilizing research as a tool for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage in thesense of Article 2.3 of the 2003 Convention? ..................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Response to Question 5 - How effective has the IRCI Japan been in achieving its third
agreed objective of fostering, coordinating and developing scientific, technical and artistic
studies, as well as research methodologies, in the sense of Article 13(c ........................... 14
Figure 8: Response to Q 7- Are you aware of any occasion where the centre has acted outside its
agreed mandate? ................................................................................................................ 16

ANNEXURES
Annexure 1: Scope of Works
Annexure 2: Mission Schedule
Annexure 3: Organisational Chart IRCI, Governing Board and Advisory Body
Annexure 4: Summary of IRCI Projects
Annexure 5: Approved FY2015-2016 projects
Annexure 6: Analysis of projects and outcomes against MLAs and strategic objectives
Annexure 7: Long term and mid-term Programme of the IRCI

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
iiConfidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSDefinition
ACC

Agency for Cultural Affairs (Japan)

Agreement

The Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Japan regarding theestablishment in Japan, of an International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia-Pacific Region under the auspices of UNESCO (Category 2).

CentreSee IRCI (both terms are used interchangeably in documents reviewed).

CRIHAPInternational Training Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region

ICH

Intangible cultural heritage

ICHCAPInternational Information and Networking Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the AsiaPacific Region

IRCIInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region

MEXT

Ministry of Education, Cultural, Sports Science and Technology (Japan)

MLA

Main Line of Action

NICH

National Institutes of Cultural Heritage (Japan)NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

RBM

Results based management

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
iii

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report details the findings and recommendations of an independent review into the performanceand effectiveness of the UNESCO Category 2 Centre known as the International Research Centre for
Intangible Cultural Heritage, Japan.
Each category 2 entity shall contribute to the achievement of UNESCO’s strategic programme
objectives and global priorities of the Organization, as well as sectoral or intersectoral programme
1priorities and themes, defined in the C/5 document .
Like all Category 2 Centres the IRCI, Japan is expected to contribute to the work of UNESCO and in
the case of the IRCI this contribution is defined by its mandate to instigate and develop research into
practices and methodologies of safeguarding endangered ICH in the region.
The report found that while there has been some progress on the part of the IRCI in achieving theagreed objectives and function as outlined in the Agreement between UNESCO and the governmentof Japan (signed on 30th August 2010), that this progress was less than one would expect in the lifeof such a Centre after 4 years of operation. This reduced progress is due to a number of factors
some of which were outside the control of the centre and the State Party i.e the Japanese earthquake
and Tsunami and the subsequent impacts of the economy and budgets. However, there are othermatters that are clearly within the control of the State Party and IRCI Management and which despite
concerns having been raised by UNESCO staff had not, at the time of the review, been resolved..
While the findings of the review identify some significant issues with the IRCI including matters ofleadership, resourcing and governance; this review finds that the IRCI is carrying out functions
generally consistent with the Agreement and that its work has benefited some of the Member States
within the Asia Pacific Region. In particular researchers and practitioners reported that the IRCI filled
an important niche- providing opportunities for researchers and practitioners to come together todiscuss past and current research and to build future collaborations. At the same time they also urged
the IRCI to expand this work and take immediate steps to establish the strong research network thatshould be a priority action for the centre.
The review therefore recommends the renewal of the IRCI's status as a category 2 centre subject tothe adoption of the following key recommendations:

Preferably contingent on the appointment of a full-time Director-General with abackground in ICH and/or substantial experience working in a research environment at asenior level. Key performance measures should include demonstrable improvements inthe visibility and credibility of the IRCI both domestically and in the region, theestablishment of a robust research network, and sourcing of additional
funding/partnership arrangements to promote ICH research projects through the AsiaPacific region;At the very least a part time Director- General with an increased weekly allocation of time,
is supported by the appointment of additional long term senior research staff withdemonstrable experience in ICH.

OR

AND

1

Paragraph B.2.1 'Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for Category 2 Centres under the Auspices of
UNESCO' 2013.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
iConfidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSThe Governing Board is improved to ensure it is effectively utilised and involved in therobust consideration of the centres program and resourcing by ensuring:

Board meetings are appropriately scheduled with time to discuss the agenda;

Meeting papers are circulated according to an agreed schedule that allows sufficient
time for their review before meetings;



A practice of calling for Governing Board Member to declare real and / or perceived,
conflicts of interest is adopted as standard practice at the commencement of each
Governing Board Meetings. Such conflicts to be recorded in the minutes along withthe decision on the appropriate action relating to that conflict (such as, for example,
agreement to exclude from discussion and or voting on a related agenda item).

Consideration is given to filling the remaining position on the Board using criteria thatlook at gender, regional coverage and ICH expertise.

The Advisory Body

is appropriately populated with a range of ICH experts from the Asia Pacific Region;and this is done in such a way as to establish gender, member state and discipline
diversity (essential to comprehensively understand and research ICH);is well briefed on their mandate at the time of appointment. Their role clearly definedas assisting Centre researchers by providing advice on specific technical ICH mattersrelating to projects rather than a role in managing the centre or commenting on
general governance or day to day management issues.

is utilised to provide technical ICH expertise to the IRCI and provide specialist advice
via the use of electronic meetings formally incorporated into the annual meeting
cycles of the IRCI and the Governing Board.

communicates with the Governing Board, should this is required, via the Board
member appointed from time to time as the Advisory Body liaison.



The NICH develops a comprehensive strategy and timeframe for implementation, toensure the appropriate facilities for housing the IRCI. Ideally this would involve moving
the IRCI to a location where it is hosted as an independent centre by a university or otherresearch institution.

Progress on the implementation of the recommendations in this report (including 4.1-4.3)
and the work of the IRCI is reviewed after 2 years

A number of recommendations are also made to the centre with a view to improving its operations
and to UNESCO see sections 4.2- 4.4. The recommendations take into account the strong support
from stakeholders and the recent achievements of the centre which includes the recent completion ofseveral projects and the publication of the results (see Reference List). However, the review noted anumber of areas of the IRCIs operation that require improvement and the recommendations target
these.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
iiConfidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This report summarises the findings of a review into the Category 2 International Research Centre for
Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI), based in Sakai City, Osaka Japan. The
establishment of the Centre was approved at the 35th session of the General Conference, in its 35
C/Resolution 52. The Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Japan was signed on
30th August 2010 and came into effect for a period of 5 years. The agreement may be renewed by
the Director-General, with the approval of the Executive Board, in the light of a review of the activitiesof the institute/centre and of its contribution to the strategic programme objectives of UNESCO andthe Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for category 2 institutes and centres.
AHMS Pty Ltd was commissioned in October 2014 by UNESCO, to carry out an independent reviewof the IRCI.
Category 2 institutes and centres are intended to contribute to the achievement of UNESCO’s
strategic programme objectives and sectoral or inter-sectoral programme priorities and themes and to
the attainment of programme results at the Main Lines of Action (MLA) level of the UNESCO
programme and budget (C/5), whether through individual action, joint action with other Category 2
institutes and centres or through joint implementation with the Secretariat. Category 2 institutes andcentres can also play a considerable role in helping UNESCO achieve programme objectives forwhich sectoral expertise or resources are not sufficient.
The Category 2 International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-PacificRegion (IRCI) is one of three such centres for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the region. Each of theCentres is differentiated by area of responsibility as follows:

The Centre which is the subject of this review is based in Japan and known as the"International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region(IRCI)". Its objectives and functions are outlined in section 2.1.. It is responsible for the
instigation and development of research into practices and methodologies ofsafeguarding endangered ICH in the region.

The Centre based in The People's Republic of China, known as the 'International Training
Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (CRIHAP)', is
responsible for the development and delivery of training on the safeguarding of ICH in the
Asia-Pacific Region.

The Centre based in the Republic of Korea, known as the 'International Information and
Networking Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (ICHCAP)',is broadly responsible for the identification and dissemination of information relating to
ICH within the Asia-Pacific Region.

Each of the Centres has a role in assisting other member states in the region in matters related totheir core functions and objectives.

1.2 The Brief for the Review
A copy of the complete terms of reference is provided as Annexure 1 “Scope of Works”. The main
objectives of this review are to assess the Centre’s performance with respect to its objectives andfunctions, as specified in the agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Japan, and its
contribution to UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or inter-sectoral programme

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
1Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

priorities and themes. The findings of this review will inform the Sector Review Committee’s
recommendation to the Director-General as to whether the Agreement should be renewed.
The results of this review will be shared with the Government of Japan and the Centre, and includedin the report to the Executive Board on the execution of the Programme, as specified in the Integrated
Comprehensive Strategy. They will also be made available on the website of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage Section, UNESCO.
In order to meet the purpose of the review, the brief specified consideration of the following
parameters:a) Whether the activities effectively pursued by the Centre are in conformity with its
functions as set out in the Agreement signed between UNESCO and the Government ofJapan;b) The relevance of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving UNESCO’s
strategic programme objectives and sectoral or inter-sectoral programme priorities andthemes, as defined in the Organization’s Medium-Term Strategy (C/4), and to attaining
programme results at the Main Lines of Action (MLA) level, as defined in the
Organization’s Approved Programme and Budget (C/5);c) The effectiveness of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving its statedobjectives, as defined in the Agreement;d) The quality of coordination and interaction with UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in
the field, with regard to planning and implementation of programmes, as well as withother thematically-related category 2 institutes/centres, with regard to planning andimplementation of programmes;e) The quality of relations with IRCI Member States, including its focal points, government
agencies and UNESCO National Commissions, and with public/private partners anddonors;f)

The nature and quality of organizational arrangements, including management,
governance and accountability mechanisms;g) The human and financial resource base and the quality of mechanisms and capacities, aswell as context-specific opportunities and risks for ensuring sustainable institutional
capacity and viability;h) The process of mobilizing extra-budgetary resources and to what extent such extrabudgetary funding is aligned to the strategic programme objectives of UNESCO.
In addition to the findings on each topic, the brief required four types of recommendations:
1. a general recommendation as to whether renewal of the Centre’s status as a category 2
centre is warranted and would conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy;
2. specific recommendations to the Centre for improving the effectiveness of its operations;
3. specific recommendations to UNESCO for improving the effectiveness of its coordination andinteraction with the Centre;
4. specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement, in the event it is to be
renewed.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
2

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

1.3 Project Team and Acknowledgements
The project team is outlined in Table 1.
In addition to the assistance and information provided directly by the client, the review team would liketo express our appreciation of the generosity and openness of the Centre staff including Mr Arata and
Ms Ohnuki as well as the courtesy of all the other Japanese representatives from the Governing
Board, Advisory Body and relevant government authorities that met with Dr McIntyre-Tamwoy. We
are cognizant of the extra work that such a review generates and hope that the findings as outlined inthis review will help build a stronger and more effective centre.
Mr Tim Curtis of the Bangkok office of UNESCO also generously took the time out of his busy
schedule to share his insights. We also appreciate those external stakeholders, partners andbeneficiaries that made the effort to complete the questionnaires and participate in follow up skype
discussions. Mr Frank Proschan’s comments on an earlier draft were appreciated.
We also acknowledge the individuals who included representatives of member states, research
participants and UNESCO field staff who assisted by providing their time to assist the review throughthe survey and follow-up interviews.
Table 1: Details of project responsibilities.
UNESCO

ClientContact Person: Mr Giovanni Scepi
Programme Implementation Unit, Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, Division for
Creativity, Culture Sector
Tel.: +33 (0) 1 45 68 41 13
E: g.scepi@unesco.org

Property Owner

IRCI Japan
Contact Person: Mr Akio Arata, Director General
Sakai City Museum, 2 Mozusekiun-cho, Sakai-ku, Sakai City, Osaka
Tel:+81(72) 2758050
E:akio.arata52@gf7.so-net.ne.jp

Heritage Assessors

AHMS
Contact Person: Dr Susan McIntyre-Tamwoy, Associate Director
Level 2, 729 Elizabeth St, Waterloo, 2017
T. +61 (0)2 9555 4000
E: smcintyre-tamwoy@ahms.com.au

1.4 Limitations
This report is based on:a brief but intense four-day field mission to Japan to meet with IRCI staff, governing board
members and relevant government authorities;

discussion with UNESCO staff;

a review of the documents referred to section 2.2.1;

a survey and interviews with stakeholders including representatives of member states,
UNESCO field officers and professionals who have been involved in the IRCI activities.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
3

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

During the mission some of the interviews and discussions relied on assistance from translators. In
general to minimise bias and to ensure confidentiality for the interviewees, translators independent of
the IRCI staff were used.
The electronic survey of stakeholders was limited to those people for whom contact emails could be
supplied by UNESCO and the IRCI.
The methodology employed for the review generated a large amount of information comprising abroad range of verbal, survey and interview inputs from individuals within UNESCO, within the IRCI,
the Advisory Body, and some members of the Governing Board, individual research partners and/or
participants and representatives of Member States. This was in addition to the more formal official
documents and reports, while every attempt has been made to appropriately include this information
while maintaining the anonymity of the participant we note that not every view point or comment canbe cross checked for accuracy. Nevertheless the high level of consistency in the range of views thatemerged suggests that this is valuable input.

2 METHODOLOGY AND PROGRAMMEThe methodology was designed as a rapid response review which employed several strands ofenquiry simultaneously to gather insights into the function of the Centre and its effectiveness inachieving its agreed objectives and functions. In the sections below we outline the functions andobjectives of the Centre and the methodology employed in this review.

2.1 The Objectives and Functions of the Centre
The objectives of the Centre are:a) to promote the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage andits implementation in the Asia-Pacific Region;b) to enhance safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region, whiledeveloping and mobilizing research as a tool for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage
in the sense of Article 2.3 of the 2003 Convention; andc) to foster, coordinate and develop scientific, technical and artistic studies, as well as researchmethodologies, in the sense of Article 13(c) of the 2003 Convention, in the Asia-PacificRegion.
The agreed functions of the Centre are:a) to instigate and coordinate research into practices and methodologies of safeguarding
endangered intangible cultural heritage elements present in the Asia-Pacific Region, while
cooperating with universities, research institutions, community representatives and othergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in Japan and elsewhere in the Region;b) to assist, in terms of research, countries in the Asia-Pacific Region in implementing suchmeasures as referred to in Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the 2003 Convention, while paying
special attention to developing countries;c) to organize workshops and seminars focusing on the role of research as a useful component
for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage and related practices and methodologies,
involving experts, community representatives and administrators from the Asia-PacificRegion;

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
4

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSd) to encourage and assist young researchers in the Asia-Pacific Region engaging in research
activities related to safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage;e) to cooperate with other category 2 centres and institutions active in the domain of
safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage, in the Asia-Pacific Region and beyond; andf)to initiate cooperation among all other interested institutions active in the domain of
safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage, while furthering technical assistance vis-à-vis
developing countries, in the Asia-Pacific Region.

We note that an additional domestic function of the IRCI is acknowledged by them in the Long–termand Mid- term Programme of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia Pacific Region (IRCI). The medium term programme FY2013-2015 (see Annexure 7) includes
reference to activities relating to Sakai city as follows:
Main Line of Action II (3) (ii):‘Within the framework of the Centre’s mandate, contribute to the following projects carried out in Sakai
by Sakai City mainly aimed at its citizens;(a)Project led by Sakai City Museum to promote intangible cultural heritage elements inscribedin UNESCO’s lists for its citizen(b)

Local-citizen-led international cultural exchange project(c)

Project to promote international cultural understanding among the youth for its citizens’

Main Line of Action III (3):‘Within the framework of the Centre’s mandate, contribute to the following projects carried out by
Sakai City for its citizens.
(1)
Project for dissemination of information concerning intangible cultural heritage carried out incooperation with relevant research institutes and universities
Project to promote intangible cultural heritage elements inscribed in UNESCO’s lists

(2)

(3)
Model project carried out at schools or other educational setting to enhance understanding on
intangible cultural heritage’(see Annexure 8).

2.2 Methodology of the Review
The review of the Centre included:An inception meeting with the staff of the Programme Implementation Unit, Intangible
Cultural Heritage Section, UNESCO, Paris

A desktop study of relevant documents provided by the Centre and UNESCO;A pre- field mission skype meeting with Tim Curtis, UNESCO.



A field mission, consisting of a visit to the Centre, and including interviews with theCentre’s management, staff and relevant government representatives (Mission Schedule
Annexure 2);

An online survey of stakeholders, collaborators, and beneficiaries;

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
5Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSFollow-up interviews (via skype and telephone) with the Centre’s stakeholders,collaborators, and beneficiaries as well as UNESCO staff concerned;

Preparation of the review report.

2.2.1 Desktop Review
The desktop review component took place over the life of the project as information was madeavailable. While most of the documentation was provided prior to the mission several of the project
reports were not available till after the field mission.

2.2.1.1 Information Provided by UNESCO
UNESCO made the following key documents available and additional publicly available documents
were accessed:


The Executive Board and General Conference documents concerning the establishmentof the Centre;The existing Agreement between the Government of Japan and UNESCO concerning theestablishment of the Centre, together with its amendment;



The Medium-term Strategy 2008-2013 (34 C/4), Medium-term Strategy 2014-2021 (37C/4), Approved programme and budget 2010-2011 (35 C/5), Approved programme andbudget 2012-2013 (36 C/5) and Approved programme and budget 2014-2015 (37 C/5);



UNESCO 2013b. ‘37 C Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for Category 2 Institutes andCentres under the auspices of UNESCO’- http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/37C-Resolution_93_EN.pdf 37 C/Resolution 93 (November 2013)



UNESCO 2013c ‘37 c/18 Revision of the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for
Category 2 Institutes and Centres under the auspices of UNESCO’ Item 5.4 of theprovisional agenda General Conference 37th Session.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002217/221715e.pdf

Relevant correspondence concerning the cooperation between UNESCO and the CentreContact details for Members States Permanent Delegations, National Missions for
UNESCO and relevant UNESCO field officers.

2.2.1.2 Information provided by the IRCIThe IRCI provided the following document and other publicly available documents were also
accessed in the course of the review:

Annual progress reports;



Recent financial reports;



IRCI 2013 Long and Medium Term Programme 2013-2021



List of staff and organisational chart;

List of key publications and a hard copy and/or electronic copy of each of them;

List of project partners;



Minutes, decisions and working documents of the Governing Board and Executive
Committee meetings;

Report of support provided to or received from Member States;

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
6

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Available audit and evaluation reports;



Account of networking achievements linked with other thematically related category 2
institutes/centres and UNESCO’s programmes;

Project publications and reports.

2.2.2 The Field Mission
Prior to embarking on the mission, and following a review of all available documentary material (asdetailed above), some broad questions were identified around which to structure the interviews during
the field mission. These include a range of both open and closed questions shown in Figure 1 below.
These questions were intended to be indicative only. As the roles and accountability of the individuals
interviewed varied, the questions were adapted as needed.
These questions were investigated via direct meetings with Centre staff, Governing Board members
and some members of the Advisory Body during a mission to the IRCI in December 2014. The
mission interview schedule is attached as Annexure 2.

2.2.3 Review of Draft Report
The IRCI, the relevant Japanese authorities and UNESCO each had an opportunity to comment on a
draft version of this report and their comments have been considered and where appropriate
incorporated into this final report.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
7

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Category

Question

GeneralCan you provide background as to your involvement in, or responsibility for, the IRCI?
Are there any obstacles to achieving the objectives and functions of the IRCI that you canspeak about?
Can you supply me with more detailed accounts of the projects undertaken and theiroutcomes?

Scope of Research

How much of the work of the Centre would you categorise as research?
Who does the research?
What are the research outputs? And how useful are they?
How are the research outcomes disseminated?

The role of the
IRCI?

In your experience / to your knowledge has the IRCI ever stepped outside their agreed
upon role? If so how? …Why?
Does the IRCI have a commitment to specialist ICH research? What is the IRCI's
understanding of "research"?

Funding andGovernance

Does funding come tied to government interests? Is this a conflict of interest, seeing as the
IRCI is mandated to be independent and concerned with assisting the region?
All of your board members (with the exception of the representatives from UNESCO andthe Category 2 Centres in the Republic of Korea and China) are from Japan. How are theinterests of external stakeholders and member states represented in the board or in theCentre's structure?
Is there a consultation committee?
Is the Advisory Body functional? Does it meet or if not how is it used?
We have noted that some of the communication between the IRCI management and
UNESCO has been strained. Can you shed some light on why this is so?
In your opinion do you think the structure of the Centre could be changed to better deliver
UNESCO objectives? Please expand on your answer.

Neutrality

How do countries become part of the network and how are these connections maintained?
How can developing countries in the region seek assistance to participate in research?
Are there any barriers that prevent poorer regional countries from being involved?
How do you intend to increase the impact of the Centre's research in the region, especiallyin regards to developing nations in the region?

Relationships with
UNESCO, member
states and cooperative parties

What exactly do the Co-operative Institutes and Researchers do? How do each of thesecontributing to the goals of the IRCI?

In your experience does the IRCI enjoy open and close communication with UNESCO?
Please expand on your answer.
Barriers toachieving functions
and objectives

What, in your opinion, are the barriers to the IRCI achieving the mandated functions andobjectives? Domestically and more broadly in the region. What do you think the solutions
are?
Are there any competing objectives or functions that drive the IRCI's performance, thatcompete with the UNESCO objectives for the Centre?
Is the lack of expert ICH researchers (with research track record) within the IRCI an issue,
as has been suggested? How does the IRCI look to mitigate this issue in the near future?
How is the IRCI progressing toward reaching the 2014 project benchmarks?
Is there anything you would like to add?

Figure 1: The Field Mission Questions

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
8Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

2.2.4 The Electronic Survey
An electronic survey was prepared and circulated (using Survey Monkey) to stakeholders, participantsin IRCI projects and researchers from member states. The raw results of the survey have not been
included to maintain the anonymity of the respondents. The survey was initially conducted from
November to December via email to stakeholders whose contact details had been provided by
UNESCO and the IRCI. Twenty surveys were distributed during this initial phase and 10 responses
were received. UNESCO subsequently asked for the survey to be more broadly distributed. At thistime the survey was distributed to a further 191 people via email with a link to the electronic survey.
The distribution included contacts for all the National Commissions for UNESCO for all the member
states in the region, contacts for the permanent delegations for each member state, and the relevant
UNESCO regional officers. Mr Arata also provided a further 10 contacts for Member States. Six ofthese had been included in previous mail outs and so only 4 new invitations to participate were
distributed. In total 215 invitations to participate were distributed. The survey stayed open till the 13th
March 2015. Despite the wide distribution and reminders that were sent only 10 additional survey
responses were received via Survey Monkey. Two respondents provided direct email responses
focussing on their opinions and involvement with the centre. These could not be included in thegraphical analysis as this is generated through the programme but have been incorporated into thefollowing discussion where appropriate as Respondent #21 and #22). Other email responses werereceived that essentially recorded the respondent's acknowledgement of the correspondence but
declining to complete the survey. A range of reasons were provided including a lack of interest in or
responsibility for ICH and /or changed employment circumstances that meant they were no longer a
relevant contact for the issue. A number of email addresses bounced or returned a ‘mailbox full’message.
1. Please describe your involvement with the IRCI Japan.
2. How would you describe your experience working with the IRCI Japan?
3. How effective do you think the IRCI has been in promoting the 2003 Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and its implementation in the Asia-Pacific Region?
4. How effective has the IRCI Japan been in meeting its objective to enhance safeguarding of theintangible cultural heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region, while developing and mobilizing research as atool for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage in the sense of Article 2.3 of the 2003
Convention?
5. How effective has the IRCI Japan been in achieving its third agreed objective of fostering,
coordinating and developing scientific, technical and artistic studies, as well as researchmethodologies, in the sense of Article 13(c) of the 2003 Convention, in the Asia-Pacific Region ?
6. How do you think the IRCI Japan could improve its interaction with stakeholders from Member
States?
7. Are you aware of any occasion where the centre has acted outside its agreed mandate?
8. If you answer to question 7 was yes then please provide details?
9. Do you have any criticisms of the IRCI and its interaction with you? If yes please provide details.
10. Are you available for a further short phone or skype interview? If so please provide skype nameand contact details.

Figure 2: The electronic survey questionnare.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
9Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

2.2.5 Follow up Skype and Phone Interviews
The final step in data gathering prior to writing the report involved follow up phone calls and /or skype
interviews with a range of stakeholders including: representatives of member states in the region that
had worked with the IRCI on various projects, UNESCO field staff and representatives of National
Commissions that had indicated during the survey that they were prepared to be interviewed.
Fourteen respondents indicated a willingness to be interviewed. Of these, eleven were interviewed
and three were unavailable.
Category of respondent
UNESCO field officers
Permanent Delegation

Surveysdistributed
29
49

National Commission

108

Researcher/ participant
beneficiary
Totals

29
215

Email
2
bounces

13

Responses
received
4 (+2 via email)
None
that
so
identified
5 (+3 via email
3comment)
10 (+1 via emailcomment)
25

Respondents
interviewed
3
Nil
2
6
11

Figure 3: Respondents by category

3 FINDINGS
3.1 Findings arising from the consultation with stakeholders
Despite only 12% of survey invitations being taken up, the process of surveys and interviews yieldeda large amount of information and a revealed a variety of opinions and experiences. It was clear fromthe responses that those people that had replied were people who felt strongly about the activities of
the Centre. Overall there was a high degree of support and approval of the IRCI from thosepractitioners, researchers and member states that interacted with the IRCI as reported through boththe survey and follow up interviews (see Questions 2 and 3). During one interview a researcher
emphasised the important role that the Centre performed in bringing together researchers andpractitioners working in the field of ICH in the region:"The researcher's forums in particular provided both an opportunity for researchers to come together
to discuss their work and generated new ideas. This creative space for researchers and practitioners
to come together to discuss research directions priorities and needs relating to ICH did not exist
elsewhere and this is an important niche filled by the IRCI." (Respondent #10)
It was pointed out that to be effective, researchers needed freedom to speak without censorship and avenue or opportunity to meet and collaborate. The support of UNESCO in allowing this creative
scholarly space was noted and referred to as “essential to the success of the Centre in generating
and promoting research”.
However while most respondents found the "IRCI excellent to work with and the outcomes ofcollaboration valuable"; almost half of these also commented that they had not had regular contact2This included out of office replies, email accounts full and emails that no longer functioned.
The National Commission of both Australia and New Zealand responded that as those countries
were not signatories to the convention the survey was not relevant to them.
3

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
10Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

with the Centre since the initial original collaboration indicating that establishment of a robust networkof engaged researchers and beneficiaries remains a challenge to be addressed by the Centre.
While the response to specific questions about the Centre’s role in promoting the 2003 Convention
and in pursuing its objectives was generally very positive; some of the comments made by individual
respondents indicated that they were not familiar with the details of the Centre's mandate and its
focus on research. If the mandate is to remain unchanged then the Centre will need to clarify andaddress the public understanding of its role in order to effectively manage expectations ofstakeholders including member states.
One of the things that emerged from consultation with stakeholders, member states and UNESCO
staff is the current strained relationship between the Centre and UNESCO. The IRCI has had a slow
start and is only now gathering some momentum. It is evident that it still has a long way to go andwhile some aspects of concern to UNESCO have been addressed, others are still causing frustration.
The relationship between the IRCI and UNESCO needs to be addressed by both parties as a priority
if the IRCI is to succeed.
In the sections below, the results of the survey are discussed briefly.

Figure 4: Response to Q2: How would you describe your experience working with the IRCI Japan?

Overall responses to Question 2 indicated that generally the respondents felt their experience with the
IRCI was a positive one. This pattern was again reflected in the responses to Question 3 where
respondents were asked about the perceived "effectiveness' of the Centre in the broad aim ofpromoting the Convention and its implementation in the Asia Pacific Region. The majority of
respondents felt the Centre was 'somewhat effective' indicating that the Centre could improve its roleas an effective voice for ICH in the region.
The one response that the IRCI was not effective at all was received from a respondent/ Member
State in the Pacific. In total three responses were received from the Pacific, the other two respondingthat the Centre had been "somewhat effective". This may indicate that the IRCI has not yet

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
11

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

sufficiently focussed on the Pacific Member States and needs to build stronger links. Certainly thisview was again presented in responses to Question 6 which focussed on areas for improvement. Thisis consistent with discussions held during the review mission with Centre staff who acknowledged thatthey have not yet focussed attention on the Pacific; however they have recently appointed a
representative from the Pacific to the Advisory Body as a first step towards addressing this. Similarly,
participants indicated that while there was an interest amongst Central Asian member states in
Intangible cultural heritage research there had been no engagement with them by the IRCI.

Figure 5: Response to Q3: How effective do you think the IRCI has been in promoting the 2003
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and its
implementation in the Asia-Pacific Region ?

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
12Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Figure 6: Response to Q4: How effective has the IRCI Japan been in meeting its objective to enhancesafeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region, whiledeveloping and mobilizing research as a tool for safeguarding the intangible cultural
heritage in the sense of Article 2.3 of the 2003 Convention?

In a similar vein Question 4 focussed on the effectiveness of the Centre in developing and mobilizing
research as tool for safeguarding ICH. The majority of respondents answered that the Centre waseither “effective” or “somewhat effective” while only 2 respondents said “not effective at all” and one
respondent did not answer this question indicating they either did not know and /or did not have an
opinion.
A key issue in how respondents viewed performance in this area relates to their understanding ofwhat constitutes "research as a tool for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage". Most
interviewed indicated that they adopted a broad definition of 'research' in this context including appliedresearch into methods and practices relating to ICH as well as more theoretical discussions.
Of the two that responded that the Centre was not at all effective: one had not seen or been involvedin any of the Centres projects and suggested that newsletters and other media should be used todisseminate or publicise the availability of research outcomes. The other respondent expressedstrongly their opinion that much of the work of the Centre did not qualify as "research" and /orresearch into safeguarding". The interview process was used as an attempt to tease out opinions
about the research activities of the Centre. When interviewed most respondents felt that a range ofboth practical and theoretical research was required. Member States tended to want practicaloutcomes and research that focused on the documentation of practice and which also included

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
13

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

opportunities for skills transfer and capacity building of staff and local people to empower them carryout such applied research themselves. The skills transfer (or training) aspect, may contribute toconcerns on the part of UNESCO about the Centre's mandate as revealed in Question 7.

Figure 7: Response to Question 5 - How effective has the IRCI Japan been in achieving its third agreed
objective of fostering, coordinating and developing scientific, technical and artistic
studies, as well as research methodologies, in the sense of Article 13(cQuestion 5 focussed on the third agreed objective of the Centre i.e to foster, coordinate and developscientific, technical and artistic studies, as well as research methodologies, in the sense of Article
13(c) of the 2003 Convention, in the Asia-Pacific Region. The results were very similar to thosereceived in Question 4 with the same two respondents assessing the Centre as “not at all effective”,
and one respondent down grading their assessment from “very effective” in the preceding question to“somewhat effective” here.
The impression that the Centre is working with good intent but not necessarily as effectively as
possible was also expressed by various interviewees, some of whom related this to the urgent needfor the Centre to develop a strong research network in the region.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
14

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSQuestion 6 sought specific advice from the respondents as to how the IRCI Japan could improve its
interaction with member states. Eighteen of the respondents provided suggestions. These included
some initiatives that do not fit within the current mandate of the Centre but the range of suggestions
made serve to illustrate the diversity of expectations that the Centre has to manage. Some of theservices that respondents thought the Centre should be doing which clearly do not fall within theirmandate included:
Promotion of ICH through finding places to sell [traditional] productsTraining workshops



Sending experts [to Asia Pacific countries] to help safeguard ICHTake over as organizer of the ICH project exhibition -distribute invitations to member
states

These responses demonstrate the need for the IRCI to continue to find ways to articulate theirmandate and nature of the collaborations and assistance that they can provide so as to manage
expectations of member states.
However, most of the suggestions proffered were constructive and relevant to the Centre's mandate
and many of them are consistent with the reviews findings. The responses are grouped below into
structural/resourcing suggestions and activities. Two respondents expressed the opinion that, while inan ideal world additional projects and initiatives could be undertaken, the IRCI was working at full
capacity given its mandate and its budgetary constraints.
Operating as a research hub/ network connecting researchers and promoting the role ofresearchRemaining open to contacts and dialogue with researchers and experts from all aroundthe world;

Adopt a pro-active approach in identifying research institutes and researchers within
Member States;Do more networking activities with researchers in member states including:o

Hosting regional workshops located in Member StatesoCo-ordinate sessions at regional conferences;

Communication with researchers at National and regional Universities in the Pacific;More consultation and interaction to build a better network of researchers and relevant
institutions;More research opportunities for Pacific researchers;

Actively involve UNESCO Field Offices in initiating new programmes.

Better dissemination of information and communication with member states

Clear work programme agreed and transparent;Use social media for short pictorial updates;

Broaden contact with member States through use of Newsletters and other media;

Improve communication with Pacific Member states through better co-ordination with
UNESCO office in Apia;

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
15

Confidential report to UNESCOARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSReach out to Member States and UNESCO Asia Pacific field officers by promoting theCentre's publications and ICH related information.

Internal organisation, structural improvements and governancePreparation of mid- term Strategy and goals [for Pacific interaction];Less control by UNESCO;

More focus on work with field officers outside the Bangkok office who are keen to help;

Need to engage expert [expertise in ICH] staff in the Centre including knowledgeable [inICH] director/management;Once hired- focus on retaining staff- current high turnover makes regular and sustained
communication and planning difficult;More appropriate, less [academically and politically] isolated location for the Centre in
Osaka or Tokyo;Clear and transparent programme;Adequate funding.

Figure 8: Response to Q 7- Are you aware of any occasion where the centre has acted outside its
agreed mandate?

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
16

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSQuestions 7 and 8 related to issue of the IRCI's mandate to instigate and develop research into
practices and methodologies of safeguarding endangered ICH in the Asia Pacific region.
Question 7 asked respondents if were aware of any occasions where the Centre acted outside its
agreed mandate. If the answer to question 7 was affirmative question 8 requested details.
Only 1 respondent indicated that they believed the Centre to have overstepped its mandate, one
respondent did not answer this question and another seven indicated they were not sure although
three of the latter elaborated on the issue during interviews (see below). The responses to thequestionnaire and as illuminated in the follow up interviews indicated that outside UNESCO there
appears to be very little understanding of the different mandates of the three Category 2 Centres.
Further where there is some understanding in some quarters such as the researcher
participants/stakeholders the definition about what constitutes "research into practices andmethodologies of safeguarding endangered ICH" is much broader than that understood by UNESCO.
Amongst those who did understand the distinction in the mandate between the three Centres in theregion, most (respondents #15, #9, #21) commented when interviewed that the mandate was too
restrictive, and unworkable/unrealistic.
The examples of activities that were outside the mandate of the centre provided by respondent 14
included the following:
Example 1: The Centre held events with a global agenda outside the region (in Paris), without aregional focus and not on research of ICH for safeguarding;
Example 2: The Centre funded activities to do with training such as the field school Alumni
Seminar in Lamphun, Thailand.
These two examples were examined in the course of the review. The first of these examples is areference to "The First ICH Researchers Forum: on the Implementation of UNESCO's 2003
Convention" (IRCI 2012). This forum was held in June 2012 in Paris and organised in collaboration
with the Maison des Cultures du Monde, France. This example had also been raised by UNESCO
prior to the review mission to Japan and was then discussed at some length with both UNESCO andthe IRCI management. While UNESCO was involved in this forum, and provided the first speaker,
they were not supportive of the idea decision in the published proceedings that this forum would
become a regular event of the Centre to be held in Paris once every two years, timed to coincide with
the General Assembly of State Parties to the Convention. They were also concerned that its focus,
as reflected by the Foreword in the published proceedings, presented the IRCI as a body that adopted
a critical approach to the programme of the General Assembly and took a judgemental evaluation roleof the implementation of the convention on a global basis that far exceed the role of a Category 2
Centre with a mandate to focus on research relating to the safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia Pacific. Representatives of the Centre, UNESCO and some participants in theevent were questioned about this example in the course of the review. During this it became clear thatwhile some researchers understood the mandate and the rationale behind it; others had a limited
knowledge and did not understand the limited role of the Category 2 Centre in the broader context of
the Convention and its operational network. Interviewees pointed out that robust debate and scholarly
critique was an important mechanism in generating new knowledge and historically it had contributed
to refining the operation and application of UNESCO conventions. While UNESCO agrees that this isimportant, their representatives point out that there are more appropriate forums within which thatdebate can occur and which would include more effective inputs from people actively engaged with
the Convention and its application. They point out that the Centre’s mandate is geographicallyfocussed on the Asia Pacific Region and therefore an annual forum to be held in Europe was ill
conceived and the Centre’s focus should be its mandate i.e. research into practices andmethodologies of safeguarding endangered ICH.
The review supports UNESCO’s opinion that this activity falls outside the mandate of the centre.
However we note that the Centre appears or have taken action in response to UNESCO’s concerns.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
17

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Since that event the IRCI has changed the composition, location and focus of future forums. Thereremains a strong call amongst researchers for a regular forum and these have since been, and willcontinue to be, hosted within the Asia Pacific Region and will have an Asia Pacific focus. This
example provided by Respondent #14 accurately represents an occasion where the Centre
overstepped its mandate almost 3 years ago and which has been appropriately been addressed by
the Centre.
The second example provided by Respondent #14 is the case of the '2012 International Field School
Alumni Seminar on Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific (IRCI & Princess
Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre 2013). On reviewing the available documentation it
seems that reference to this event as a ‘training exercise’ (and therefore outside the mandate of the
IRCI) seems to be an oversimplification of the role and nature of the seminar. Rather the information
as documented in the report referred to above, suggests that it was a post- graduate opportunity tolearn, share research and documentation, and research methodologies. The description in Annex 1of the project report states that "Through a field practicum with four communities in Lamphunprovince, participants gained hands-on experience in applying anthropological tools and frameworks
to research intangible culture." (IRCI & Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre
2013:321). The papers are presented as notes and or power points and appear in the main to consistof a range of case studies featuring research and documentation issues and approaches to them.
The review notes that this sort of "training" in applied research and research issues is a good exampleof the overlap inherent in the mandates of the three centres. While it is ‘training’, it is training related
to ‘research’ and it could be argued that the effective application of anthropological tools andframeworks contributes to our understanding of methods for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage.
Furthermore, it is understood that this type of training is not currently within the purview of theChinese Category 2 Centre (CRIHAP). However, it is also noted that the activity was not included in
the approved work programme of the IRCI and was arranged without prior notice to UNESCO.
The question of whether or not this activity was “effective” in pursuing the agreed objectives of theCentre is another matter. This is difficult to assess as there is no useful data on the success of the‘practicum’. Participants do not appear have been asked to provide feedback on the quality or
usefulness of the “training” and the only document available to the review was the published report ofthe event. That document does not meet general standards for a scholarly work and at best could beviewed as a ‘study notes’ or ‘proceedings’ perhaps useful to the participants in reminding them of thelectures and discussions. However, because of the abbreviated form of the contributions i.e. notes
and power points the document is of limited usefulness to anyone who was not a participant.
On the whole the review finds that, while this project did not involve high level research and nor did it
produce scholarly academic papers, on the basis of the information available to the review, it could beargued that it is an example of applied research for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. Such
activities would benefit from the development of clear objectives and an appropriate performancemeasures (e.g. participant feedback surveys linked to objectives that relate directly to the Centres
mandate) to evaluate their effectiveness in addressing the mandate. Publication of the material in the
hardcover book form reviewed is an unnecessary use of funds as the ‘book’ of notes and power
points is of minimal use to anyone who did not attend. Such material would be more appropriately
disseminated via the Centre’s website. As a separate but related matter the development of theCentre’s approved work programme provides an opportunity for the IRCI, the Governing Board and
UNESCO to discuss the scope and suitability of projects. Should it seem necessary / valuable toundertake a project not included on the approved work programme this opportunity for discussion stillneeds to be provided. UNESCO has advised that the problem of activities organised outside theapproved work program and without proper notice to the relevant UNESCO offices has not reoccurredsince the appointment of the current IRCI Director General

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
18

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Prior to the review mission a number of issues had been raised concerning member states andreported instances where they had not been involved or responded following overtures to the centre.
No first hand evidence was available, therefore in order to assess the value of these claims Question
9 aimed to identify firsthand specific examples of such issues. In response to the question "Do you
have any criticism of the IRCI and its interaction with you? If Yes please provide details." Ten
respondents replied 'no criticism" (also note that many did have suggestions for improvement -see
response to Q6 above).
Respondent #4 commented that "My main criticism is elsewhere: the authorities did not give theCentre a fair chance- see my response to Q6”. This respondent’s answer to Question 6 clearly
indicates that the Japanese government is being referred to rather than UNESCO as the comment
relates to resourcing, location, funding and skills- all matters which are the responsibility of the hostgovernment.
Respondent #5 notes that "I found that there was little willingness and /or capacity for follow up or
sustained discussion about how to broaden and strengthen the impact of our collaborations".
Respondent #6 included a specific issue about resourcing to participate in the field school in Thailand
in 2012 which does not appear to have any bearing on the performance of the IRCI.
Respondent #12 commented that " In the beginning communication during it's [the IRCI]
establishment period was not very fast but there is excellent communication with the Director and his
team now"
Respondent #13 notes that "the IRCI has become operational recently and perhaps it may need moretime to demonstrate its delivery."Respondent #14 commented that "In the past the IRCI tried to avoid informing [UNESCO] when they
were initiating activities under the office mandate. However that has stopped since the new Director
is in place. Concerning the Governing Board two main interrelated problems persist…being thedelivery of Governing Board documents at the last minute and lack of any real time to discuss
activities during the board meetings".
Respondent #15: provides the following: "[This is] not a criticism of the IRCI as such but the fact that
the IRCI comes under the Japanese administration system with its annual financial mechanism is notconducive to long-term planning of a project."
Respondent #18 There have been no direct activities in the countries of Central Asia.
Respondent #19 comments that "Unfortunately there has been no contact with us since the IRCI's
foundation. Due to lack of Information, it is difficult for us to evaluate the IRCI's activities.
Respondent #20 posed a question "What is your [presumably the IRCI's] relationship with CRIHAP
and ICHCAP? More communication from IRCI is needed."
One respondent believed that there was room improve to the way in which UNESCO and the Centre
interacted and that this was equally the responsibility of UNESCO.
Respondent #21 "Why haven't you [reviewer] posed a question re criticisms of UNESCO as
performance is dependent to some extent on the quality of the relationship between the Cat 2 Centres
and the responsible UNESCO officers".
While the issue of the relationship between the Centre and UNESCO was mentioned in the survey
responses, it emerged strongly in interviews particularly in connections with the issue of the Centre’s
mandate. Strong views were expressed about the efforts invested, and stresses that arose, aroundmonitoring and addressing compliance with what some respondents saw as an unworkable andReview of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
19

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

restrictive mandate. Several considered that this had a negative impact on the productivity andcreativity of the Centre. Respondents #15, #21, and #9 were particularly forthcoming on this issue.
One respondent noting that
"The requirement to strictly adhere to the mandate was unworkable and ignores the reality of theregional political landscape which means that some Member States are unwilling or unable tocollaborate with one or other of the 3 countries hosting the Category 2 Centres". (Respondent #21)
Some suggestions went beyond the brief for the current review suggesting that:"…rather than policing.[the mandate], UNESCO …may wish to review the basic definition of themandate of each institution on a more realistic assessment of the on-ground situation." (Respondent#15)

3.1.1 Summary
The combination of survey responses and follow-up interviews yielded a large amount of information.
That data often included personal views some of which were very informed by a detailed
understanding of the Centre, UNESO and the mandate while some revealed there interest in
participating with the centre but a lack of fine-grained knowledge of its history or purpose. Overall the
feedback on the centre and its relationships with stakeholders provided by the survey and skype
interviews was positive. However, we note that the lack of response from some parties may indicatethat the regional influence of the Centre is limited. It is likely that many member states in the region
have little knowledge of the centres existence let alone the outcome of its projects. This is a reflection
on the effectiveness of the Centre in promulgating its role and building its research network that need
to be addressed.
While generally positive some comments raised by respondents need to be addressed by the Centre
including:








The perceived lack of progress in building a strong and comprehensive network of
researchers,
The perceived inability to function independently given current staffing, resources andqualifications.
The lack of demonstrable senior experience amongst the centre Research staff.
The need/ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of the activities of the centre in progressing
the Centre’s objectives.
The need for better communication with stakeholders, researchers and member states.
Including dissemination of information arising from projects, information relating to thefunction, purpose and work plan of the Centre.
The need to engage more broadly with member states in the region including Central Asiaand the Pacific.

Many constructive suggestions were made by respondents in response to Question 6 and these areworth further consideration by the Centre. Some of the criticisms raised by respondents weredirected at a higher level than the IRCI personnel and questioned the Government of Japan'scommitment to the Centre based on issues around funding, location/facilities, and leadership.
Similarly, some concerns emerged about UNESCOs relationship with the Centre. This was largely
around the usefulness of the mandate and the investment required/expended to ensure compliancewith it.
A number of recommendations are made below to address some of these issues.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
20

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

3.2 Response to the Questions outlined in the Review Brief
The project scope called for an assessment based on a broad, albeit rapid, investigation involving areview of available documents, discussions with IRCI staff and key government officials, Governing
Board members, advisory body members and a survey of stakeholders including member states,
UNESCO field officers and participant researchers. The findings in the following section take into
account to the extent possible all the information from the desktop review, the field mission andinterview with staff and the State party host; as well as discussion with UNESCO ICH Section staff
and with stakeholders through the survey and follow up interviews.

3.2.1 Effectiveness and conformity of IRCI activities
Whether the activities effectively pursued by the Centre are in conformity with its functions as set out
in the Agreement signed between UNESCO and the Government of Japan;

3.2.1.1 Finding
The review finds that the activities pursued by the centre generally conform to the objectives andfunctions as outlined in the agreement (UNESCO and Government of Japan 2010a) but that the'effectiveness' of the activities in achieving the agreed objectives has been limited in some cases (thisis discussed later in section 3.3.1). Notwithstanding this general conformity of the Centre’s activities
there are several projects that appear to sit outside the agreed functions. One of these which
occurred 3 years ago has since been addressed. The other two relate to commitments made by theCentre to undertake some ICH related activities within their host City (see Annexure 4 and Annexure7). In regard to these latter two projects we note that, while they do not conform to the list of agreed
functions of the centre, they are not inconsistent with the objectives of the Centre as outlined in theagreement between Japan and UNESCO and they were included in the work programme of theCentre approved by the board. It was not possible to determine how much time of IRCI staff had been
expended on these projects as compared to the other projects carried out by the Centre.
It is likely that intervention on the part of UNESCO prevented at least one and possibly two otherprojects (see discussion below) from developing in ways that did not conform to the agreed functionsof the Centre. Close attention to defining the projects and their parameters in the agreed work plan of
the Centre may assist in appropriate scoping of projects in the future.

3.2.1.2 Discussion: The question of Conformity
Since the establishment of the centre the question of conformity to their mandate has been raised
from time to time as a matter of concern by UNESCO, particularly in relation to the intention to provide
a distinct area of focus for each of the three Category 2 Centres for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural
Heritage located in the Asia Pacific region. For example:
1. In 2012 (emails February 24-March 19) UNESCO raised concerns that IRCI had stepped
outside of their objectives by pursuing inventory projects in Myanmar, labelled as research
projects.
2. UNESCO voiced concern in relation to the Mekong Region project (December 19, 2013 email
interactions between UNESCO and the IRCI Director), that the project went beyond a
research mandate and involved "developing bylaws in Lao".
3. On February 13, 2013 an email from UNESCO to the IRCI raised concerns that the IRCI's
forum on the evaluation of inscription criteria falls outside the agreed objectives of the IRCI.
The difficulty of operating within the mandate is exemplified in the IRCI’s response to example two
above. The IRCI believes this concern to be misdirected and claim that they were “fully aware of thelimit of our mandate and at no moment had intention to involve itself in drafting of bylaws”. Further

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
21

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

they maintain that they contacted UNESCO with a view to trying to find a way out of the difficulty thatIRCI was facing regarding strong expectations from the member States about the focus and directionof the project. If this was the IRCIs intention, it was not clear from the correspondence provided forthis review and UNESCO’s concerned response to the email from the IRCI was reasonable. However,
the review notes that the end result of the dialogue between UNESCO and the Centre appears tohave settled the matter as the project now appears to conform to the mandate.
This issue of whether or not the Centre was operating within its mandate was also matter exploredthrough the survey and follow up interviews. Question 7 specifically asked if the respondent wasaware of instances of the IRCI operating outside its mandate and this matter was discussed byseveral respondents in the follow up issues (see Section 3.1). The only strong opinions on thequestion of the mandate were expressed by UNESCO officers. It was clear from those discussions
that of those people who participated in the survey, most outside of UNESCO do not know about the
mandate and/or do not understand how it is applied and the few who do know about it consider it
problematic. Consideration of the reasonableness or usefulness of the mandate was outside thescope of this review however the views expressed by various individuals raise the following points
relevant to the matter of conformity with the mandate:It is clear that most researchers, project beneficiaries and member states generally do notknow about or understand the mandate and its implications for IRCI projects.
Therefore, unless the mandate of the Centre is better promoted, it is likely that the Centre willcontinue to receive requests for assistance in activities that are outside their mandate;This is likely to lead to future difficulty in meeting the varied expectations for assistance frommember states while at the same time conforming to their mandate.

The review looked at all the projects carried out by the Centre, and on the basis of the documentation
provided to the review three stand out as not conforming to the functions as originally agreed between
the Japanese Government and UNESCO:The Researcher’s Forum in Paris (the Centre has addressed the conformity issue see
previous discussion in section 3.1),
The ICH panel exhibition, ICH project report vol. 1, 2012 (by Sakai City) and
The Spot exhibition on Southeast Asian Puppet Theatre Exhibition at Sakai City museum.
ICH project report vol. 1, 2012 (by Sakai City)

Little documentation about the latter two projects was available to the review. They appear to relate toadded functions which were not specified in the agreement between Japan and UNESCO that theCentre has adopted regarding activities undertaken in Sakai City (see Annexure 5). However thereview notes that while these activities do not particularly address UNESCO priorities they are not inrdconflict with the 3 objective of the Centre to “foster, coordinate and develop scientific, technical andartistic studies, as well as research methodologies, in the sense of Article 13(c) of the 2003
Convention, in the Asia-Pacific Region.” That objective can be interpreted much more broadly toinclude events that are not research focussed.
In response to questions relating to these activities the IRCI has responded that “cooperation on thecultural activities of Sakai City by is clearly stated in IRCI’s Mid-term plan II (3) (ii), which was adopted
at the 2nd Governing Board Meeting of 21 October 2013” (correspondence dated 24/4/2015).
Therefore, while these activities do not contribute to the primary functions of the centre which relate toresearch on the safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage it would seem reasonable that the Centre
contributes to the community within which it has its operational base as long as the actions areincluded in the workplan approved by the Governing Board. This assumes that the Governing Board
gives the work plan of the IRCI due consideration and discussion and that the papers provided to theBoard members are detailed enough to enable the Board to make informed decisions with a view to

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
22

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

both compliance with the mandate and resource investment and other matters that they see as
relevant (see Section 3.2.6).

3.2.2

The Centre’s activities and UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives

The relevance of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving UNESCO’s strategic
programme objectives and sectoral or inter-sectoral programme priorities and themes, as defined in
the Organization’s Medium-Term Strategy (C/4), and to attaining programme results at the Main Linesof Action (MLA) level, as defined in the Organization’s Approved Programme and Budget (C/5);

3.2.2.1 Finding
The projects that the centre is currently undertaking fall into 3 main areas:Applied case study research into the documentation of ICH as a way of safeguarding it;Information sharing, promotion of researcher collaboration and networking

Research into policies legislation and guidelines as tools to assist in safeguarding ICH.

While all contribute to MLA2 in some way, only 2 are designed so as to potentially make a substantial
contribution to the bench marks established for MLA 2 (see Annexure 6 for a summary of all projects
and how they relate to MLA 2). The two projects that have the potential to make a direct andsubstantial contribution are:

Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia-Pacific RegionStudy of Legal Systems Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Greater Mekong
RegionTighter alignment with MLA 2 could be achieved if new projects had a clearly defined ‘Research
Question’ and ‘Objectives’ that were related directly to the 'expected result's as articulated in
UNESCOs Approved Programme and Budget 37 C/5 2014-2017. UNESCO supports a Results-BasedManagement approach and it would be prudent to adopt this approach directly linking proposed
projects to UNESCO’s key policy documents (the C/4 and C/5).

3.2.2.2 Discussion
The UNESCO Cultural Heritage Programme 2014-2017 [37 C/5 IV Culture] has two main objectives:


Strategic objective 7: Protecting, promoting and transmitting heritage

Strategic objective 8: Fostering creativity and the diversity of cultural expressions.

In assessing the progress in meeting these objectives the Director General reports periodically to thegoverning bodies, on the achievement of expected results in terms of Main Lines of Action:
Main line of action 1: Protecting, conserving, promoting and transmitting culture, heritage and history
for dialogue and development(1) Tangible heritage identified, protected, monitored and sustainably managed by Member States, in particular through theeffective implementation of the 1972 Convention;(2) Policy dialogue promoted to combat illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property through enhanced,
strengthened and more efficient international cooperation, including the implementation of the 1970 Convention and enhanced
capacities of museums;(3) Global, strategic and forward-looking directions developed and applied through the effective implementation of the 1954
Convention and its two Protocols and multiplier effect achieved;(4) Global, strategic and forward-looking directions developed and applied through the effective implementation of the 2001
Convention and multiplier effect achieved;(5) Access to knowledge enhanced through the promotion of shared history and memory for reconciliation and dialogue;

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
23

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Main line of action 2: Supporting and promoting the diversity of cultural expressions, the safeguardingof the intangible cultural heritage, and the development of cultural and creative industries(6) National capacities strengthened and utilized to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage, including indigenous andendangered languages, through the effective implementation of the 2003 Convention;(7) National capacities strengthened and utilized for the development of policies and measures to promote the diversity ofcultural expressions, through the effective implementation of the 2005 Convention;

While it is acknowledge that all documentation and research projects make some contribution albeit
minor to MLA1 and especially to (5) Access to knowledge enhanced through the promotion of sharedhistory and memory for reconciliation and dialogue: this MLA relates to tangible heritage and the 2001
World Heritage Convention. The work of the IRCI should align with and contribute primarily to MLA2
which is largely concerned with Intangible cultural heritage (the 2003 Convention) and culturalexpression (the 2005 Convention). While most of the Centre’s projects do contribute in some way to
MLA 2, there are only two projects that stand out as having the potential, to make major contributions
to meeting the benchmarks.
Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia-Pacific Region
Potentially this project can make a significant contribution to achieving the performance indicator for
expected results 6 "National capacities strengthened and utilised to safeguard ICH…" Especially the
Benchmark: Knowledge produced by all stakeholders involved in the implementation of theconvention available through knowledge management systems
Study of Legal Systems Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Greater Mekong Region
This project is consistent with the MLA2 - Safeguarding of ICH and has the most direct link to
UNESCO benchmarks for this MLA of any project undertaken by the centre. Potentially this project
could make a major contribution to expected result 6 "National capacities strengthened and utilised tosafeguard ICH…” Benchmark: National policies and human and institutional resources for intangible
cultural heritage developed and/or strengthened.
The matter of the alignment of the Centre’s projects to the Main Lines of Action should be consideredat the project development and design stage to better contribute to the prioritised work areas of
UNESCOs mission. As has been previously noted centres might be doing interesting and even
effective projects, but it they are not ‘reportable’ within UNESCO’s results framework, they disappear
from the view of UNESCO’s governing bodies and thus cannot help to demonstrate the centres’
4
contributions to the Organization

3.2.3 The effectiveness of the Centre and its programmes
The effectiveness of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving its stated objectives, as
defined in the Agreement.

3.2.3.1 Finding
The review finds that, while all the projects may be relevant to its stated objectives, they are notnecessarily as effective as they could be. Further even if they were effective the IRCI would havedifficulty demonstrating this as they do not appear to have a systematic process of project evaluation.
Regular project evaluations should be implemented, incorporating Member State and Stakeholder

4

Report of the First annual meeting of category 2 centre active in the field of intangible cultural
heritage. Sozopol Bulgaria 24-26 July 2013.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
24

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

satisfaction, as well as the collation of project outputs. Ways of measuring the IRCI's influence in theregion should also be identified and adopted.

3.2.3.2 Discussion
The Projects and Budget for FY2015 is attached as Annexure 5. A number of observations are madebelow regarding the effectiveness of the activities and the potential to develop them further.
Annual Researchers and Practitioners ForumOne of the key activities that the IRCI has implemented has been the annual Researchers andPractitioners Forum. The participants that reported to the review online survey all spoke positively ofthese forums. One of the three objectives of the Centre is to c) foster, co-ordinate and develop,
scientific, technical and artistic studies as well as research methodologies…in the Asia Pacific.
While the organisation of the forum clearly targets this objective, the IRCI has struggled to articulate
the effectiveness of these activities and as a result the full value of these forums in "fostering"
research is understated. At these forums researchers get the opportunity to meet and form
collaborations, and they return to their homes and work places with new ideas that they potentiallydevelop into publications and studies. It is difficult to put a value on the opportunity provided or tomeasure its success in fostering research. One way of capturing the role of the Centre in fosteringresearch in the region is to develop a cohort of researchers. Key research-active specialists, who
would form the core of the Researchers Forum invitees, could be asked to affiliate themselves with
the Centre as Adjunct Researchers. As a condition of this privilege they would be required to formallyacknowledge this affiliation on all publications relating to ICH.
Most active researchers publish at least three peer reviewed papers per year. Assuming a minimumof 20 adjunct affiliates that means that around 60 papers a year would be produced that can be added
to the Centre's website as indirect outcomes of their work to 'foster' research. Over time this willrapidly build the research credibility of the IRCI. Fundamental to the success of this is protecting theacademic freedom of researchers. It is very important that the academic freedom to robustly critique,explore and discuss the Convention, methods and future directions is acknowledged as essential to
the sustainability of the Convention as a tool for safeguarding ICH. It is recognised that from time totime some publications that emerge might be critical of current or past practices and this is often afirst step in building and developing new methodologies and frameworks. The Centre (and/or
UNESCO) does not necessarily have to align themselves with the opinions of Adjunct researchers nor
would they be obliged to adopt the outcomes of their research. The Centre could consider theestablishment and use of an editorial board to assist with the review of publications.
Building a Research Community
The IRCI is a small organisation with limited personnel. To realise the goal of becoming a focal point
for ICH researchers the Centre will have to find ways to leverage its influence and maximise theeffectiveness of its investments. This could include initiatives like:•

Combine expert workshops with an annual conference (mix of subsidised and fee paying).

•

Maximise outputs i.e. use conference to feed a journal.

•

More effective use of the Advisory Body expertise to help build the ICH network.

•

Greater collaboration at the project officer level with Centres in China and the Republic ofKorea.

For example a significant sum is spent each year on the Researcher Forum and the only
measureable output currently is the proceedings report. The process of appointing adjuncts as

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
25

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

suggested above would increase the measurable output. The Forum could also continue but be
attached to a regional conference on ICH research. A fee paying conference would provide a small
income stream and increased visibility for the Centre. Funds could be used to assist emerging / early
career researchers in the region. The Centre has indicated that there may be statutory restrictions on
their ability to charge conference registrations and if this is the case alternatives such as mutual
contributions on the part of the Centre and researchers and/or partnering with other organisations
such as universities and NGOs should be considered.
The IRCI has recently agreed to consider the feasibility of a journal. Holding an annual conference inconjunction with the Researchers Forum would assist in feeding papers to the journal. There areseveral factors to consider in starting a journal however and to be both respected and useful in themodern context it should be an electronic journal, to maximise dissemination, and must be peer
reviewed to have any value to scholars.
An electronic newsletter is a good way of building a community of researchers and practitioners. As
an example of this, the Australia ICOMOS e-news was provided to Centre staff, however there aremany other formats that could be considered. It should be simple to produce and distribute and beable to be compiled by one person in a morning and distributed weekly or fortnightly. This would
make it ideal for a small team such as the IRCI. Graphics should be avoided so that it is easier forrecipients to download and skim read.
Measuring Success
Project success appears to be measured primarily by the publication of a report and /or the holding ofan event regardless of their effectiveness. While these "outputs" can be counted and are therefore
one aspect that can and should be measured they do not provide a clear understanding of the"outcomes" or effectiveness of the projects themselves. For example, the publication of a report of a
project is accepted as an indicator that the project has been completed. But how effective was the
project a) for participants and b) in terms of the wider community. The former can be measured
through participant evaluation feedback. One way of measuring the latter could be measuring thedissemination of the research report. If the reports are available electronically from the IRCI websitethe number of downloads and the spread of countries accessing the report will provide one measureof the effective reach of the project outcomes.
Concerns about Progress
The relatively slow progress on the 'mapping project' is also of concern. The comment of one
stakeholder from a member State illustrates this when they note that while they found the work of the
IRCI useful, most of the Asia Pacific did not know it existed. After four years of operation one should
expect to find the IRCI at the centre of an extensive network of researchers.
The review noted strong concerns about the “effectiveness” of activities overall and the effectivenessof the Centre in performing specific functions, For example there appears to be little co-operation andcollaboration with universities and research institutions as envisaged in function (a) and little evidenceof real cooperation with other category 2 centres in the region as envisaged in function (e).
There has been dialogue between UNESCO personnel and the Centre staff about how “effectively”
activities have been pursued. The Japanese government officials and senior staff of the Centre
acknowledge that the Centre has had a slower than desirable start. During the review this was
attributed, with varying emphasis, to a range of factors including:The earthquake that occurred immediately prior to the Centre’s opening which resulted indelays to the establishment and fit out of the Centre’s office as well as an understandable
shift in prioritization of non-essential work by the State party.



The filling of the lead position in the agency on a part-time basis.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
26

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

A lack of expertise in ICH amongst staff.

High turn-over of staff.



The circumstance of the Centre’s establishment as a research centre independent of apre-existing research facility or track record.



The geographic location of the IRCI isolated from related institutions in Tokyo.

At the time of the review, of the factors within its control the State Party has only taken steps toaddress the matter of the leadership of the IRCI and has appointed a new Director-General who has
focussed on improving communication with UNESCO.
However, some of the concerns expressed by UNESCO have not been addressed including the needfor a leadership team incorporating staff with high level, demonstrable experience in ICH, a research
track record, and familiarity with the research fraternity/and or research networks.

3.2.4 Co-ordination and interaction with UNESCO
The quality of coordination and interaction with UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in the field, withregard to planning and implementation of programmes, as well as with other thematically-related
category 2 institutes/centres, with regard to planning and implementation of programmes.

3.2.4.1 Finding
While past issues around the need for increased communication have been addressed, the quality of
the relationship with UNESCO the review concludes that the relationship could be improved.
UNESCO staff working with the Centre have expressed frustration that the IRCI still requires so muchassistance and they feel that by now, four years after inception, the Centre should be able to operatewith a higher degree of independence and effectiveness.
In relation to the matter of relationships with the other Category 2 Centres there is no evidence that
the Centre has a functional collaborative working relationship with other category 2 Centres (a findingthat by default also reflects on the other Category 2 Centres who are also required to collaborate withit).
UNESCO is committed to a Results Based Management (RBM) framework and it would assist theplanning and implementation of projects and potentially improve the relationship between the IRCIand UNESCO if the IRCI also adopted RBM. This would also help to align the Centre’s medium-term
strategies and work-plans with those of UNESCO and make monitoring and reporting easier.

3.2.4.2 Discussion
On the part of the IRCI and Japanese officials the response to questions in this area were guardedly
positive stating that while there had issues with communication between the Centre and UNESCO in
the past, they believed this issue had been resolved. However while the responsible officers at
UNESCO acknowledge that some progress has been made they remain frustrated by the slow
progress both in the execution and delivery of projects and in the development of sound governanceprocesses.
Consultation with UNESCO, combined with the results of the survey and follow up interviews, confirm
the strain which is also evident in the emails amongst documents provided to the review team.
Frustration at the level of resources (in terms of UNESCO staff time) that has been required over theyears since the establishment of the Centre to assist it to carry out its functions, has affected thefunctionality of the relationship. If the Centre continues one assumes that steps will be taken toaddress some of the issues that have been causing concern.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
27

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSThe efficient functioning of the IRCI requires co-operation between them and UNESCO field offices in
the Asia-Pacific region. At the same time the Centre needs to independently sustain its projects andday to day work programmes.

3.2.5 Relations with IRCI Member States
The quality of relations with IRCI Member States, including its focal points, government agencies and
UNESCO National Commissions, and with public/private partners and donors

3.2.5.1 Finding
The review found that the quality of the Centre’s relationships with these parties is variable. The IRCI
has been slow to adopt a systematic approach to its communications with Member States and
UNESCO National Commissions. In the beginning it operated by targeting several Member States
where staff already had contacts and it now needs to develop mechanisms and processes that enable
it to respond to all new requests for involvement in a timely manner. UNESCO field officers haveindicated that they are willing to assist with facilitating contacts and this seems to have worked well incommunications between for example the New Delhi office of UNESCO and the Centre in relation toprojects in Sri Lanka; however other field offices such as the Apia office have indicated that they have
yet to be actively engaged by the Centre even though they have Member States that are keen to be
involved.
The review found that in countries where the IRCI has carried out projects they have built good
relationships. This was obvious in the feedback provided by the survey and interviews. However,
without a robust communication strategy there is a risk that this benefit is lost as stakeholders fall outof the communication loop and begin to feel neglected or disenfranchised and this was also reflectedin the survey responses to some extent.

3.2.5.2 Discussion
The opportunity was provided to all Member States to provide an account of their experience of the
IRCI through the questionnaire and/ or through follow up emails and phone interviews. Responses
about collaborations with Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Timor Leste and Fiji were positive;
however the Cook Islands and Afghanistan and one respondent from Central Asia (specific country
not identified) reported that they were disappointed that had not had any contact. The case of Bhutan
was raised by UNESCO as an example of a Member State that registered their interest in
participating in activities of the Centre and whose request had not been actioned. However this issue
appears to be based on a misunderstanding as that was clarified with the New Delhi office of
UNESCO. They advised that they had requested (after consultation with Member State) that the
IRCI postpone involvement with Bhutan as they did not want to cause confusion with a projectcurrently underway on legislative mechanisms that is being funded separately by UNESCO.
The review team attempted to contact representatives from China, Brunei Darussalam, thePhilippines, Lao, Myanmar and Papua New Guinea, as requested by UNESCO. However, no
response from these member states was received despite reminders being sent.
Clearly the IRCI needs to consider how it will respond to and manage requests for involvement from
Member States. It also needs to establish a way to keep member states informed of activities,
achievements and opportunities. Several member states suggested a regular newsletter and or social
5
media , as a way of doing this. In several countries where government infrastructure may be under-

5

For example, while it will not be an appropriate tool for all countries- Facebook is an excellent meansof communication in Myanmar and Papua New Guinea where email networks are not always reliable.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
28

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

resourced, social media has proved more useful than emails so this suggestion from a Pacificmember may be worth considering.
Several of the responses to questions in the survey and follow up interviews indicated that there was
not a shared understanding of the Centres mandate between the Member states and research
participants. This leads to increased pressure on IRCI staff to undertake projects of marginal impact
in relation to the Centre’s key objectives. The Centre will need to clarify and address the public
understanding of its role in order to effectively manage expectations of stakeholders including
member states.
Other than Sakai City, the IRCI does not appear to have established any public/private sector donors.
Funds secured from Sakai City while they align with approved activities relating to interactions with
Sakai City in the Programme of IRCI (FY2013-2015) do not contribute directly to meeting the agreed
functions of the Centre.

3.2.6 Organisational arrangement and governance
The nature and quality of organizational arrangements, including management, governance andaccountability mechanisms

3.2.6.1 Finding
There is room for improvement in establishing sound governance processes to improve theaccountability and transparency of the Centre’s decision making processes. In particular:













The influence, experience and support of the Governing Board should be harnessed throughmeaningful engagement with the centres activities through improved communication.
In relation to the development of the agenda and the distribution and consideration of theworking documents a forward calendar for Board meetings should be developed which
includes key dates such as: a deadline for acceptance of agenda items 3 weeks prior to themeeting, and deadline for distribution of papers 2 weeks before the meeting following brief
consultation with the Director General's (UNESCO) representative on the Board with regard
to the agenda.
The papers for each meeting should note if the matter is for noting or decision and provide
enough information to enable informed discussion and decision making on matter ofcompliance with the mandate, strategic significance and relative investment of resources.
Adequate time should be allocated on the agenda to enable board members to makeinformed decisions.
A formal process should be adopted by the Governing Board at its meetings of calling formembers to declare any conflicts of interest (real or perceived) relating to matters on the
Agenda. This should be followed by a consideration of the appropriate actions to be taken in
relation to the matter such as for example the member might be asked to real withdraw fromdiscussions on the item and/or be excluded from voting on an agenda item or alternatively the
Board may determine that there is no conflict. The decision of the board on this matter should
be recorded in the minutes.
Consideration should be given to expertise, gender and regional representation when fillingthe vacant position on the board.
Consideration should be given by the IRCI to the adoption of a RBM management framework.
The leadership of the IRCI needs to be strengthened and supported through seniorappointments with demonstrable track record in ICH and research to support and shape theresearch activities and so that the Governing Board is confident in the capacity of the IRCI to
execute their work programme.
The Advisory Body should be reactivated to fulfil its intended role of providing the IRCI project
staff with technical ICH advice and expertise. At appointment members should be provided

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
29

Confidential report to UNESCO







ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

with a clear brief as to their role as technical advisors at the project level. Their role should beclearly differentiated from that of the Governing Board and the IRCI management. It should bemade clear that they are not involved in the management of the Centre and are notauthorised to speak for the Centre.
The Governing Board has recently nominated a board member to act as the liaison with theAdvisory Body in matters where their technical advice may be useful this practice should
continue assuming that the Advisory Body is reactivated.
UNESCO should note that communication concerning the centre should be directed throughthe Governing Board and /or the IRCI management rather than through members of theAdvisory Body.
Increased opportunities for interaction and co-operation of staff across the three Category 2
Centres for ICH in the Asia Pacific Region should be identified in order to increase cooperation and avoid duplication and waste of resources and to enhance the meaningful
6
implementation of the MOU on co-operation between the 3 state parties,

3.2.6.2 Discussion
There are a number of matters which affect the transparent and efficient governance of the Centre.
These are briefly discussed below.
The Governing Board
The Governing Board is an important component of the management structure of the IRCI. Frequent
and regular communication between the centre’s director and the board members is important to
involve them more fully in the work of the centre. The more comprehensive their knowledge about theCentre and its activities and the challenges it faces then the more equipped they will be to exercise
their governance functions during Board Meetings and the more likely they will be to be supportiveand constructive. At present the Governing Board does not appear to be effectively involved in theoversight and direction of the Centre.
There are currently nine (9) governing board members (see Annexure 3). The membershipcredentials of the Governing Board are primarily politico-administrative. From the interviews
conducted with the government representatives during the mission I noted a strong belief that thishigh level representation was the appropriate structure to ensure status and commitment to such acentre in the Japanese context. They pointed out the important governance and political benefits of
having representatives from China and the Republic of Korea, home to the other two Category 2
Centres for ICH in the region. A third position is filled by the representative of the Director General of
UNESCO. The other six positions are all filled by senior Japanese men, only one of whom is an active
senior researcher with a track record in the field of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
There is only one active research professional with expertise in ICH on the Board and consideration
should be given to enhancing the expertise of the board as opportunities present. There is currently
one unfilled position on the Board (see UNESCO and the Government of Japan 2010b Article 5). This
provides the opportunity to expand the Board so as to achieve a useful balance of expertise, genderand regional representation. This vacant position could be used to appoint a senior, female
professional (consistent with UNESCO priority A II (5): 2008:8) with demonstrable experience in the
ICH field from the broader region.
Capacity to Exercise Sound GovernanceNotwithstanding the composition of the board it is important that it operates effectively providing due
oversight of the Centre's operation. On several occasions UNESCO has objected to the late6

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001808/180878e.pdf (181 EX/17 Part V) Annex 1

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
30

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

circulation of papers and the lack of appropriate time to discuss and reflect on substantive agenda
items. The IRCI management must work with its governing board to support effective decisionmaking and agenda-setting so that it is able to fulfil its mandate in a fair and transparent manner asagreed between UNESCO and the host governments.
It is not appropriate to provide the working documents for the board meetings to the board memberson the morning of the meeting or even a few days beforehand.
Meeting papers should be distributed a fortnight before meetings to allow for proper analysis andconsideration by the board members and it would be useful for the IRCI to develop a management
calendar that identifies in advance, all deadlines for the acceptance of new agenda items and thenthe date for the distribution of all working documents. Working back from the meeting date andsubject to Centre work- loads and capacity to prepare the papers, the Calendar would include a
deadline 3 weeks prior to the meeting for acceptance of agenda item and deadline 2 weeks before themeeting for distribution of papers. It is advisable to add an additional step to this calendar consultation with the Director General's (UNESCO) representative on the Board regarding the draft
agenda before finalisation. This will allow any correction and /or adjustments necessary to align withthe agreement between the Centre and UNESCO to be completed before general distribution.
While the senior people on the Board will all have busy schedules it is important that they are
cognizant of the importance of their role on the Governing Board. The meetings should be scheduled
so as to allow an adequate time for substantive matters to be discussed. Concerns have also beenraised during the review about the potential for conflicts of interest for example, where a Board
Member might also have a role in managing one of the Centre's research projects. Despite common
perception there is nothing inherently wrong with having multiple interests as long as they are
declared and considered. It would be advisable for the Board to adopt a routine process at the startof every meeting of calling for any members with a conflict or potential conflict of interest in any of thematters for discussion to declare the nature of the conflict. The board can then decide if it isappropriate for the individual to participate in the discussion on that agenda item or not.
Supporting and strengthening the leadership of the Centre
The leadership of the centre needs to be strengthened and supported through senior appointmentswith demonstrable track record in ICH and research to support and shape the research activities. As
noted in 3.2.4.1 the adoption of a RBM management framework would assist the IRCI. It would also
strengthen the management and leadership of the Centre by reducing uncertainty and debate on
issue around programmes and projects.
Functional Autonomy
It is almost impossible for the Centre to achieve ‘functional autonomy’ from the Japanese government,
which is articulated by UNESCO as a fundamental principle of the integrated comprehensive strategy
for category 2 institutes and centres, given that the Centre’s accommodation is provided by the goodwill of the Mayor of Sakai City. One of the key staff members of the Centre is actually an employee ofanother government department. As a first step towards achieving functional autonomy appropriate
permanent accommodation for the Centre should be provided and the existing seconded staff
converted to full time permanent employees of the Centre with appropriate transfer of salary to therecurrent budget of the Centre.
The Advisory Body
The Advisory Body is currently completely non-functional and has no opportunity to meet as a 'body'.
It appears to have been non-functional since inception and exists on paper only. Most members
indicated dissatisfaction with how it functioned with all, except one, commenting that they were rarely
consulted and had no opportunity for effective input. It is noted that the Advisory Body was intended

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
31

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

to provide essential expert input into the work programme of the Centre by contributing to thedevelopment of technical projects through the provision of ICH expertise.
Only one member is in regular contact with the Centre and there are clear governance issues
associated with this singular voice appearing to represent the whole Advisory Body. All othermembers of the Advisory Body reported that either they had never been consulted, had only
episodically been consulted or had not been consulted for several years. There is no mechanism forinteraction between the members of the Advisory Body. The Governing Board has recently nominateda board member to act as the liaison with the Advisory Body this practice should continue assumingthat the Advisory Body is reactivated.
Increased co-operation between Category 2 Centres
Despite a senior official from each of China and the Republic of Korea being appointed to theGoverning Board, there appears to be little real interaction and co-operation of staff across the three
centres and this is clearly a matter that should be addressed to avoid duplication and waste ofresources. Planning and communication at the project level should be encouraged across the three
centres and may produce a better result for the Member States and stakeholders. For example NGOs
and project partners may welcome research if it is packaged with capacity building/training.
Increased opportunities for co-operation between the centres are likely to reduce confusion andconcerns over the matter of the mandate of the individual centres and promote consistency with the
MOU between the member States and UNESCO on this matter (181 EX/17 Part V Annex 1).

3.2.7 Human and Financial resources
The human and financial resource base and the quality of mechanisms and capacities, as well as
context-specific opportunities and risks for ensuring sustainable institutional capacity and viability

3.2.7.1 Findings
While cognizant of the current financial situation in Japan and the expressed view of the Japanese
government officials consulted during the field mission that no further funding will be provided, thereview notes that the sustainability of the Centre requires a commitment to a reliable recurrent budgetthat is guaranteed beyond the annual allocation. That part of the Centre’s funding that is supplied
from a competitive grant process (the MEXT) component should be converted to recurrent budget andadded to the existing budgetary amounts. As a minimum, the current total budget of the Centre(including the salaries of seconded staff) should be guaranteed (indexed for inflation) for the life of
any future agreement.
Regardless of whether or not more funding becomes available the IRCI should leverage its domestic
partnerships to increase access to resources. For example, through partnerships with key
organisations such as the National Museum of Ethnology and Japanese universities, the Centre could
target early career researchers and interns who are traditionally motivated to produce scholarly
publications for their career development.
The position of Director-General of the IRCI remains a part-time position, one day per week. The
current incumbent has worked to improve communication with UNESCO and this has addressed oneof the concerns that had previously been a matter of concern to UNESCO. However this fractional
appointment is insufficient to provide the level of leadership that the centre requires at this stage of its
operation. In addition the IRCI lacks sufficient senior expertise in ICH, with a demonstrable trackrecord in research, which is needed to provide credibility and gravitas for the Centre and its work.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
32

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSThe IRCI does not have the funds (both in quantum and security of guaranteed recurrent budget) toattract high calibre established researchers in the field. In addition the position of the Centre remote
from, rather than associated with, the structure of a major academic institution makes it an unlikely
career choice for people working in this field.
The sustainable future of the IRCI also requires some strategic approach to its accommodation andphysical resources. The current agreement regarding accommodation is approaching its expiry date.
The current resources available to the centre are inadequate to support its current and futurefunctions.

3.2.7.2 Discussion
On the matter of human resources the IRCI team is comprised of a team of 10 people, of whom twoare employed full time at the IRCI in established posts funded by the recurrent budget, 3 associate
fellows are employed on a full-time basis funded by funds allocated each year by the Agency for
Cultural Affairs. While it was understood from interviews with staff at the centre that some were
employed on contract as short as 6months, the Centre’s response to the draft report has advised that
Associate Fellows of the IRCI are employed on 2-3 year contracts. The Director-General is formallyemployed to work at the Centre one day per week and commutes to Sakai City for this purpose. Bynecessity then, most of the day to day management of the centre is undertaken by the Deputy
Director General. The head of the General Affairs section, while noted as a fulltime employee on theorganizational chart (see Annexure 3), has a substantive position in another Government department.
During the review process a range of concerns were expressed by individuals about the compositionof the IRCI staff and the ICH research expertise or lack thereof. These concerns can be summarised
as follows:

The individuals employed in the 'research section' (see Organization chart Annexure 3)
do not have a background in ICH; and related to this

The individuals employed in the 'research section' do not have a research track record on
ICH research;

The team lacks direction;



There is a problem with timely decision-making;

The Centre is too reliant on assistance from UNESCO, and related to thisCompeting claims that the IRCI does not consult enough / over consults with UNESCO.

Each of these issues and their implications are discussed below, however it should be noted thatthese opinions/comments were not universally shared by all persons interviewed as part of thisreview.
There are still relatively few professionals with a substantial background which covers the emerging
field of ICH broadly. Individuals trained in a variety of disciplines and sub-disciplines can legitimately
claim a 'background' in ICH, although a demonstrable track record in safeguarding ICH is much rarer.
Adopting this broader lens the staff of the research section all have social science disciplines (several
with degrees in anthropology and cultural studies) that can be applied to focus on ICH assuming that
there was clear direction and leadership guiding that focus. However without such ICH leadershipthen the lack of direct experience becomes an issue.
It is clear that the team does not have a strong track record in scholarly publications in the field. Thatsaid the team which has only been working together for about 1.5 years of the IRCI's current term hasa modest publication record as both Ms Ohnuki and Ms Nojima have published in the area. The otherpoint to consider is that it is not necessary to have an extensive publication record to facilitate andReview of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
33

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

project-manage research programs that engage other researchers although it does help to at least
understand the parameters and challenges involved in developing publications.
While it was originally envisaged that the IRCI would be located in Tokyo the decision to move it to
the City of Sakai was made before it had even commenced. It is hampered by limitations on facilities
and resources and these factors combine to create the impression that the Centre is not valued by theJapanese Government. However, Japan has a long history of engagement with ICH and theConvention and is home to a substantial number of academics with strong reputations in related fields
and there is no reason why the IRCI should not thrive if supported adequately. This perception, that
the Centre is not valued by the government, was strongly contested by the Director of the Traditional
Culture Division of the Agency for Cultural Affairs who commented that “Japan is fully aware of theimportance of contributing to enhancing the safeguarding of ICH in the Asia-Pacific Region, making
use of its vast knowledge and experiences in this field. The IRCI plays a main role to achieve this.
The fact that the Japanese Government has provided financial support to the amount of roughly 365
million yen since its establishment, in spite of the constraint of its national budget, clearly shows thehigh value the Government places on this matter” (correspondence received 24/4/2015).
Part of the problem regarding the timely decision making and progress on the work programme would
be solved if the leadership of the IRCI was confident to manage the competing viewpoints andpersonalities on the Board, Advisory Body and in UNESCO. The fractional appointment at one day
per week does not assist in this regard although it is acknowledge that leadership can be provided
through a team approach if the management team includes other employees with high level researchand ICH skills.
The bulk of the funding base for the IRCI comes directly from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Ministryof Culture. It has remained the same since inception with no CPI or other increases. A smaller
component of the budget is MEXT (Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
funding and subject to an internal grants process. This latter portion has diminished slightly over theyears as the money is shared across other organisations. The money is not a continuing recurrent
budget but is subject to approval and allocation each year. The senior government representatives
interviewed firmly indicated that there was no budgetary increase planned and they were confident
that the Centre was adequately funded.
7

The current 2014-15 combined budget totals 87,500,000 JPY (approx. $US875,000 at the time of thereview mission) and is a somewhat less than the annual budget of the International Training Centre
for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia and the Pacific Region, China (approximately $US912,000)
and significantly less than the International Information and Networking Centre for Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region, Republic of Korea ($US2.5mill).
There are only two permanent full-time positions. The Director-General position is not one of these.
The latter is a permanent part-time position (one day per week). The matter of permanent strong
leadership for the Centre has been raised previously with the Japanese government and appears tobe crucial to the success and sustainability of the IRCI. The opinion was expressed by one
Governing Board member that the Centre could function adequately because the Centre staff arecapable of following instructions and carrying out projects in the absence of a Director-General, but
this response goes directly to the concerns raised. Who is providing the technical component of the"instructions" in a structure where most staff do not have substantial experience in ICH, the Director
General does not have experience in ICH, most members of the Governing Board do not have abackground in ICH, and the Advisory Body which was intended to provide access to technicalexpertise exists in name only? It is unclear who is in a position to "instruct" the IRCI staff on ICH
issues and provide strategic direction.

7

However note that approximately $US704,707 as at May 2015 due to drop in exchange rate,

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
34

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

One of the key problems faced by this Centre is the general lack of access to or input from highcalibre researchers with demonstrable track records in research related to ICH whether on staff, themanagement team or the governing board. The centre lacks a critical mass of establishedresearchers with demonstrable track record in ICH research. Various reasons for the Centres failure
to attract experienced staff with a background in ICH have been suggested including the budget andissue of salaries for highly skilled and experienced staff and the short tenure of contracts. At the very
least contracts of 3 year tenure are needed to ensure sustainable institutional capacity. Staff
turnover/retention was mentioned by one stakeholder in their survey response as an issue inmaintaining communication with the IRCI.
In practice it appears that the leadership component for direction of ICH at present is provided by
inputs from Professor Kono (Governing Board Member) and Ms Aikawa (Advisory Body appointee)
who assist with filling this leadership void. Both individuals are highly respected professionals ofinternational renown amongst their peers and with a substantial track record in ICH in their own right.
While they add value to the Centre through their association with it, they are not resourced or
appointed to 'direct' the Centre and their advice is not always openly acknowledged, mediated ornegotiated. This is related to an ongoing structural governance issue (see section 3.6.2.2) and has
resulted in delays to projects which have been approved by the Governing Board as part of the IRCI
work programme, due to uncertainty on the part of the Director-General and staff about which advice
to preference.
The other resourcing issue is the location context and facilities provided to the Centre. The IRCI is
located at the rear of the local Sakai City Museum. They have one small open plan office area where
the eight full and part time staff work and one office subdivided off from the open plan section for the
Director-General. There is a storeroom labelled "library" and a meeting room. Not only is the Centre
hidden within the museum but the museum itself is somewhat hidden from the city and the IRCI is
physically disconnected from Japan's major research institutions. During the review field the Mayor of
Sakai City, was asked about opportunities for increased or improved facilities for the IRCI. Futureplans for the Centre are dependent on the city obtaining World Heritage status for its tumuli sites.
Should that future nomination be successful then there are plans for a new visitors centre (proposed
for around 2017) which would include premises for the IRCI. In correspondence received since theevaluation mission the Centre has advised that “Sakai City affirms that the construction of the[visitors] centre will be pursued as planned even if the inscription of the sites is delayed.”(Correspondence received 24/04/2015)
During the evaluation mission, when questioned on the issue of resources, the NICH and otherofficials provided no plans for resolving the accommodation issues of the IRCI. However, since thenthe IRCI has clarified this issue advising that as the 5 –year agreement between the NICH and Sakai
City will expire at the end of 2015; both parties have started to consider the strategy for the next 5
years including the accommodation issue before the expiration of the current agreement(correspondence 24/-4/2015). Nevertheless at this stage no public commitments have been made.
On a positive note there was a willingness to consider the funding of an audio visual conferencing
facility for the Centre's meeting room. If adequate equipment is provided, this could go a long way toaddressing isolation from academics, research partners and member states and could open the way
for virtual meetings of the Centre staff, the Advisory Body and project partners. It does not however
address the long term accommodation issue.

3.2.8 Extra-Budgetary Resources
The process of mobilizing extra-budgetary resources and to what extent such extra-budgetary fundingis aligned to the strategic programme objectives of UNESCO.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
35

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

3.2.8.1 Findings
The major source of extra – budgetary resources appears to come via the arrangement with Sakai
City and through collaborative research partners. The contributions from Sakai city (other than theaccommodation provided for the Centre) do not appear to be aligned to the strategic Programme
objectives of UNESCO but rather to an additional function of the Centre which is included in theMedium- term work programme (see Annexure 7):
Main Line of Action II (3) (ii):‘Within the framework of the Centre’s mandate, contribute to the following projects carried out in Sakai
by Sakai City mainly aimed at its citizens;(a) Project led by Sakai City Museum to promote intangible cultural heritage elements inscribedin UNESCO’s lists for its citizen(b) Local-citizen-led international cultural exchange project(c) Project to promote international cultural understanding among the youth for its citizens’

Main Line of Action III (3):‘Within the framework of the Centre’s mandate, contribute to the following projects carried out by
Sakai City for its citizens.
(1) Project for dissemination of information concerning intangible cultural heritage carried out incooperation with relevant research institutes and universities(2) Project to promote intangible cultural heritage elements inscribed in UNESCO’s lists(3) Model project carried out at schools or other educational setting to enhance understanding on
intangible cultural heritage’
Resourcing from project partners does generally align with the agreed functions of the centre although
it is often not targeted to the strategic objectives of UNESCO. Generally these projects are consideredby the Centre as contributing to Strategic Objective 7 ‘Protecting promoting and transmitting heritage’(see Annexure 6). However this is generally a loose association and the projects are not ‘reportablewithin UNESCOs results framework.

3.2.8.2 Discussion
In general, the Centre has made little progress in accessing extra budgetary sources but has been
primarily reliant on the government allocated budget. Those extra resources that it does receive tend
to come from two main sources: funding from the regional government to hold events within Sakai;and project subsidisation from research partners.
Many of the projects with partner organisation may be ‘good’ projects but unless they are aligned to
The Strategic Objectives more effectively they are not ‘reportable’ within UNESCO’s results
framework, and they cannot help to demonstrate the Centre’s contributions to the UNESCO. More
care needs to be taken in negotiating with research partners regarding outcomes and design of the
projects.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
36

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The project brief allows for broad recommendations to be made however it specifically asked thatrecommendations address as a priority the following areas:

whether renewal of the Centre’s status as a category 2 centre is warranted and would
conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy;

specific recommendations to the Centre for improving the effectiveness of its operations;

specific recommendations to UNESCO for improving the effectiveness of its coordinationand interaction with the Centre;

specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement, in the event it is tobe renewed.

4.1 Renewal of the IRCI's Status
This review recommends the renewal of the IRCI's status as a category 2 centre subject to theadoption of the following key recommendations:
1. Preferably contingent on the appointment of a full-time Director-General with a background in
ICH and/or substantial experience working in a research environment at a senior level andwhose key performance measures include demonstrable improvements in the visibility andcredibility of the IRCI both domestically and in the region, the establish of a robust research
network, and sourcing of additional funding/partnership arrangements to promote ICH
research projects through the Asia-Pacific region;Or
2. At the very least a part time Director- General is supported by the appointment of additional
long term senior research staff with demonstrable experience in ICH.
In this regard it is encouraging that the Japanese Government and NICH have advised since
preparation of the draft report of this review that “Taking the current conditions of the NICH into
consideration, the NICH will increase the workdays of the Director-General form the current 1 day per
week plus more days in a month to 3 days per week” and further that “After internal consultation andco-ordination within the NICH this may be implemented during the first half of the fiscal year.”In addition we note with great optimism that the IRCI has advised that following “A recent large-scale
private sector donation to NICH allowed IRCI to enjoy an additional associate fellow position for the
maximum funding for 5 years at senior grade from April 2015. The position is currently open. Once
filled by a qualified researcher with a sufficiently high-level track record and experience, this will
largely contribute to upgrading the capacity of the centre.” (Correspondence received 24/4/2015)

3. The Governing Board (see section 3.2.6) is
a. More effectively utilised and involved in the robust consideration of the centres
program and resourcing;b. Board meetings are appropriately scheduled with time to discuss the agenda;c.

Meeting papers are circulated according to an agreed schedule that allows sufficient
time for their review before meetings;

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
37

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

d. A practice of calling for, identifying real and or perceived conflicts of interest is
adopted as standard for all Governing Board Meetings.
e. Consideration is given to filling the remaining position on the Board using criteria thatlook at gender, regional coverage and ICH expertise.
4. The Advisory Body
a. Is appropriately populated with a range of ICH experts from the Asia Pacific Region;and this is done in such a way as to establish gender, member state and discipline
diversity (essential to comprehensively understand and research ICH);
b. Should include experts from the broader region with a track record in Intangible
Cultural Heritage Research and/or substantial practical experience in safeguarding
intangible cultural heritage;c.

Is utilised to provide expertise to the IRCI and provide specialist advice via the use ofelectronic meetings formally incorporated into the annual meeting cycles of the IRCIand the Governing Board;d. The new practice approved recently by the Governing Board of assigning to a Board
member the task of liaison between the Board and the Advisory Body should be
implemented immediately;e. Is available as a source of ICH expertise to IRCI staff to utilize in project development
and execution. IRCI researchers are to be encouraged to, communicate with theexperts who make up the Advisory Body on a project by project basis as needed.
Skype or other electronic meeting formats should be utilised for such appliedresearch meetings;
f.

provided with an operational brief that clearly outlines its function and excludes it fromCentre management functions.

5. Commitment is made to realigning the work programme more close to the UNESCO MLA and
Strategic Objectives and a Results Base Management Framework is adopted.
6. The NICH develops a comprehensive strategy and timeframe for implementation to ensure
the appropriate facilities for housing the IRCI. Ideally this would involve moving the IRCI to alocation where it is hosted as an independent centre by a university or other research
institution.
7. Progress on the implementation of the recommendations in this report (including 4.1-4.3) andthe work of the IRCI is reviewed after 2 years.

4.2 Recommendations to the Centre for Improving its
Operations
The following recommendations are made in the context of the discussions in sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.5:
8. Improve the Effectiveness of its works programme and project outputs by:a. Adopting a Results Based Management Framework and, at the project development
phase, design projects to be consistent with the Centre’s agreed functions so as toalign to the MLA’s and strategic objectives of UNESCO.
b. Establish and grow a cohort of researchers that are affiliated with the IRCI throughadjunct appointments;c. Capture and report on the publications that are generated by the Adjunct Research
Fellows (using this as one of the measures of 'fostering research');Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
38

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

d. Address the public understanding of its role in order to effectively manage
expectations of stakeholders including member states.
9. Build on the success of the Forums by holding them in conjunction with an open conference
which focusses on themes relevant to the objectives of the IRCI. The following
recommendations should be considered:a. The conference should be structured so as to be self-funding in the long term basedon income from sponsors and delegate fees;
b. Registration fees charged for general delegates can be used to offset costs fordelegates from developing nations and to encourage early career and emergent
9
researchers ;c. While the conference should rotate amongst member states as hosts, in order to build
the support of the Japanese people for the IRC, I consideration should be given to thefirst conference being held in Japan;
d. In order to secure funding for subsequent conferences a local conference organisingcommittee should be established for each conference which includes Centre staff andpeople identified by relevant member states;
10. Develop communication and engagement processes that:a. Enable member states and other stakeholders to stay connected to the centre andinformed as to its activities and outputs. These could include an electronic newsletterand or the use of social media in addition to the IRCI’s website.
b. Enable timely response to requests from member states for engagement in Centre
activities;
c. In light of the outcomes of the survey of stakeholders address as matter of priority theinterest from Pacific and central Asian member states.
11. Appropriate and sustainable accommodation is needed to ensure the future of the Centre(see Recommendation 4.4) however in the short term the IRCI should immediately beoutfitted with quality audio visual meeting facilities and should also be provided with freeaccess to major electronic journals in a manner equivalent to the major research institutions.
.

4.3 Recommendations to UNESCO
It is understood that UNESCO works within a complex geo-political landscape however, as bothparties acknowledge, the IRCI is not UNESCO and needs to negotiate its own position in the region. It
is also acknowledged that a 'research' centre requires a certain amount of freedom to explore
research agendas if it is to build a credible research hub. The Centre’s ability to maintain the required
independence within the parameters of the Agreement between the UNESCO and the Government ofJapan should be respected.
A structural governance problem was noted in the course of the review i.e. that UNESCO staff havedirect lines of contact with members of the Advisory Body that report on the functioning of the IRCI
despite the Advisory Body currently existing in name only. This is a governance issue that needs tobe resolved by the IRCI but should not be exacerbated inadvertently by UNESCO. Therefore it isrecommended that:

9

Advice received from NICH via the IRCI on the draft report identifies a current legal constraint “So
far as IRCI uses the government budget, either from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, MEXT, or any
other Government departments, IRCI is not allowed to charge fees to participants, unlike suchconferences organized in a self-funding manner by academic associations.” It is unclear to thereviewer if this means that the IRCI could run a self-funded conference as long as it does not allocate
government budget funds to it. This should be explored further by the IRCI along with othermechanisms to maximising funds.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
39

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

12. UNESCO should communicate with the IRCI through the official channels and refer otherparties back to those channels.
13. UNESCO should continue to provide the support agreed to, consistent with, the current
agreement but should reflect on the state of relationships between UNESCO and the IRCIand make their own, considered determination whether current arrangements are still
feasible;
14. Consideration be given to working intensively with the IRCI to assist it in developing a Results
Based Management Framework tailored to the work of the Centre.

4.4 Specific recommendations for possible amendments to theAgreement, in the event it is to be renewed.
The renewal of the Centre provides an opportunity to review the existing agreement between
UNESCO and the State Party and in view of this the following recommendations are made forconsideration of both parties:
15. In Article 5
a. Clause 3 a) is amended by adding the words “...taking note of their alignment with theMain Lines of Action and the strategic Objectives of UNESCO.”
b. Clause 3 b) is amended by adding the words “…taking note of the alignment with theCentre’s agreed functions.”
16. In Article 6:a. Clause 1 is amended to read: “The Centre shall consist of a Director and at least 2
senior research staff with demonstrable track record in research and ICH, in addition
to such staff as is required for the proper function of the Centre that may include
members of UNESCO’s staff who are temporarily seconded and made available to
the Centre.”
17. In Article 7:
a. Clause a) is amended to read: “prepare the long term and medium term programmesaligned to the MLA and Strategic objectives of UNESCO and consistent with theagreed functions of the Centre as well as the work plan and budget of the Centre to
be submitted to the Governing Board.”b. A new clause is added to include in the duties of the director: “Develop andimplement a Results Based Management Framework tailored to the operation of theCentre and within into which the Centres programme, budget and work plan are
integrated”.
18. In Article 9:a. A new clause is added to the effect that: “The minimum recurrent budget of the centre
will be guaranteed for the duration of this agreement and shall be an amount equal tothe amount provided by NICH + MEXT + the value of seconded staff as at 2014-15
FY”; this amount to be annually indexed to compensate for inflation.
b. A new clause is added to the effect that: “The State party will provide suitableaccommodation for the IRCI in Tokyo or Osaka as an independent institute aligned toa major university or similar research institution. Any cost associated with securing
this accommodation will be provided in addition to the minimum recurrent budget
above”.

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
40

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

5 REFERENCES
IRCI, 2011. ‘Work Plan and Budget Plan’ 2011 for the IRCIhttp://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/21176-EN.pdf Viewed 4 December 2014.
IRCI 2013 Long and Medium Term Programme 2013-2021
www.irci.jp/assets/files/2GB_Long_and_Medium-Term-Programme.pdf
IRCI, 2013. Kyoto, 21st October 2013 ‘International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia-Pacific Region under the auspices of UNESCO (IRCI) The Second session of theGoverning Board Meeting. Report on the Centre’s activities and the financial statements for FY 2011
and FY 2012’- http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/27728-EN.pdf IRCI/2013/ 2nd GBM/S2
IRCI 2011. ‘The Training Course Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage 2011. Final Report’http://www.irci.jp/assets/files/final-report.pdf
IRCI 2012a. ‘The First ICH- Researchers Forum. The Implementation of UNESCO’s 2003 Convention.
Final Report'. Published Report Japan: IRCI.
IRCI 2012b. 'International Field School Alumni Seminar on Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia Pacific’. Published Report Japan: IRCI.
IRCI 2012c. ‘The first intensive Researchers Meeting on communities and the 2003 Convention:
Documentation of Intangible cultural Heritage as a Tool for community’s Safeguarding Activities: Final
Report. Published Report Japan: IRCI.
IRCI 2013a. Toward Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage for the Promotion of Cultural
Identity and Community Resilience in Timor-Leste. Published Report Japan: IRCI.
IRCI 2013b. 2013. 'IRCI Meeting on ICH- Evaluating the Inscription Criteria for the Two Lists of
UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention: The 10th Anniversary for the 2003 Convention'.
Published Report Japan: IRCI.
IRCI 2013 International Field School Alumni Seminar on Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in
the Asia Pacific (Report). February 2013, 336p.
IRCI 2014. 'Summary of IRCI Projects'. Japan: IRCI.
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage (NICH) 2014. 'Outline of the National Institutes for Cultural
Heritage'. Japan: NICH.
UNESCO n.d.a ‘Working towards a Convention. Intangible Cultural Heritage’http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/01854-EN.pdf
UNESCO n.d.b ‘Identifying and Inventorying Intangible Cultural Heritage’
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/01856-EN.pdf
UNESCO 2008. ‘34 C/4: 2008-2013 UNESCO Medium Term Strategy’http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001499/149999e.pdf
UNESCO, 2009. ‘Item 35C/20: Establishment of Category 2 Centres under the auspices of UNESCO'.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183260e.pdf General Conference 35th Session Paris
UNESCO, 2009. Minutes of the Executive Board 181 EX/17 Part I, Item 17 of the provisional agenda.
"Report by the Director -General on Feasibility Studies for the establishment of Cat 2 Institutes andReview of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
41

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSCentres under the auspices of UNESCO".
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001808/180878e.pdf
UNESCO and the Government of Japan 2010a. Agreement between the United nations Educational,
scientific and cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the Government of Japan’http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/21169-EN.pdf (30th August 2010).
UNESCO & The IRCI, Japan, 2010b. 'Agreement (on use of logo) between the United Nations
Educational , Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Research Centre
for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia- pacific Region.’http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/21444-EN.pdf
UNESCO 2010c 35 C/5 UNESCO Approved Program and Budget 2010-2011’http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001870/187028e.pdf
UNESCO 2011a. ‘Kit of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00451
UNESCO 2011b. ‘Fact Sheet’ Cat 2 Centre Japan
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/BSP/pdf/Fact_sheet_ITH_Japan_120113.pdf
Viewed 4 December 2014
UNESCO 2011c '36 C/5 UNESCO Approved Program and Budget 2012-2013’http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002152/215286e.pdf
UNESCO 2013a ‘37 C/5 UNESCO Approved Program and Budget 2014-2017’http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002266/226695e.pdf
UNESCO 2013b. ‘37 C Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for Category 2 Institutes and Centres
under the auspices of UNESCO’- http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/37-CResolution_93_EN.pdf 37 C/Resolution 93 (November 2013)
UNESCO 2013c ‘37 c/18 Revision of the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for Category 2
Institutes and Centres under the auspices of UNESCO’ Item 5.4 of the provisional agenda General
Conference 37th Session. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002217/221715e.pdf
UNESCO, 2014 ‘37 C/5 UNESCO Medium Term Strategy 2014-2017’http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002266/226695e.pdf . Viewed 4th December 2014.
UNESCO 2013. ‘Meeting of category 2 centres in the field of intangible cultural heritage (2013)’http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&meeting_id=00357
UNESCO, 2014. ‘Meeting of category 2 centres in the field of intangible cultural heritage (PARIS
2014)’- http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&meeting_id=00436
UNESCO nd ‘Category 2 centres under the auspices of UNESCO’http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/Category2

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
42

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Annexure 1: Scope of Works

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
43

ANNEXURE 1

Call for expression of interest for the review of theInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)
Closing date: 10 September 2014

TERMS OF REFERENCE
Background
Category 2 institutes and centres under the auspices of UNESCO form an important part of
UNESCO’s network and as a general rule represent an effective partnership model for
UNESCO’s programme delivery, significantly contributing to priority areas in UNESCO’s fields ofcompetence. Category 2 institutes and centres are intended to contribute to the achievement of
UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities
and themes and to the attainment of programme results at the Main Lines of Action (MLA) levelof the UNESCO programme and budget (C/5), whether through individual action, joint action
with other category 2 institutes and centres or through joint implementation with the Secretariat.
Category 2 institutes and centres can also play a considerable role in helping the Organizationachieve programme objectives for which sectoral expertise or resources are not sufficient.
In order to enhance the operation and effectiveness of individual UNESCO category 2
institutes/centres, as well as the effectiveness of their network, a revised Integrated
Comprehensive Strategy for Institutes and Centres under the Auspices of UNESCO, as
contained in document 37 C/18 Part I and its annex, was approved by the 37th Session of theGeneral Conference (37 C/Resolution 93). This strategy, among other elements, provides
guidelines for renewal assessment procedures of category 2 institutes and centres.
Those guidelines provide that an agreement for the establishment of an institute or centre as acategory 2 institute is typically concluded for a definite time period, not exceeding six years. The
agreement may be renewed by the Director-General, with the approval of the Executive Board,in the light of a review of the activities of the institute/centre and of its contribution to the strategic
programme objectives of the Organization and the aforementioned Integrated Comprehensive
Strategy for category 2 institutes and centres.
The 35th session of the General Conference, in its 35 C/Resolution 52, approved theestablishment in Japan of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in
the Asia-Pacific Region (hereafter, ‘the Centre’). The objectives of the Centre are: (a) to promote
the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and its
implementation in the Asia-Pacific Region; (b) to enhance safeguarding of the intangible cultural
heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region, while developing and mobilizing research as a tool forPage 2

safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage in the sense of Article 2.3 of the 2003 Convention;and (c) to foster, coordinate and develop scientific, technical and artistic studies, as well as
research methodologies, in the sense of Article 13(c) of the 2003 Convention, in the Asia-PacificRegion.
In order to achieve those objectives, the functions of the Centre are: (a) to instigate andcoordinate research into practices and methodologies of safeguarding endangered intangible
cultural heritage elements present in the Asia-Pacific Region, while cooperating with universities,
research institutions, community representatives and other governmental and non-governmentalorganizations in Japan and elsewhere in the Region; (b) to assist, in terms of research, countries
in the Asia-Pacific Region in implementing such measures as referred to in Articles 11, 12, 13
and 14 of the 2003 Convention, while paying special attention to developing countries; (c) toorganize workshops and seminars focusing on the role of research as a useful component forsafeguarding the intangible cultural heritage and related practices and methodologies, involving
experts, community representatives and administrators from the Asia-Pacific Region; (d) to
encourage and assist young researchers in the Asia-Pacific Region engaging in research
activities related to safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage; (e) to cooperate with othercategory 2 centres and institutions active in the domain of safeguarding the intangible cultural
heritage, in the Asia-Pacific Region and beyond; and (f) to initiate cooperation among all otherinterested institutions active in the domain of safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage, whilefurthering technical assistance vis-à-vis developing countries, in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Subsequent to the approval of the General Conference, an Agreement concerning theestablishment of the Centre (hereafter, ‘the Agreement’) was signed between the Government ofJapan and UNESCO on 30 August 2010 and entered into force immediately (Article 13).
UNESCO’s assistance under the Agreement is fixed for a period of five years as from its entry
into force. Seven Member States of the Asia and Pacific region have informed the DirectorGeneral of their interest in participating in the activities of the Centre, in accordance with Article
2 of the Agreement: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Philippines, Sri Lanka andUzbekistan.
PurposeThe main objectives of this review are to assess the Centre’s performance with respect to its
objectives and functions, as specified in the agreement between UNESCO and the host
Government, and its contribution to UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and sectoral orintersectoral programme priorities and themes. The findings of the review will serve as the basis
for the sector Review Committee’s recommendation to the Director-General as to whether the
Agreement should be renewed. The Director-General will then provide the results of thesereviews, including the endorsement or rejection to renew a specific agreement, in his/her reportto the Executive Board on the execution of the programme (EX/4 and C/3 documents). The
approval of the Executive Board will be required before the Director-General can proceed withthe renewal of an agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Japan.
The results of this review will be shared with the Government of Japan and the Centre, andincluded in the report to the Executive Board on the execution of the Programme, as specified in
the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy. They will also be made available on the website of theSection for Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Call for expression of interest for the review of theInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

27 August 2014

Page 3Scope
In order to meet the purpose of the review described above, the following parameters shall beconsidered by the expert(s) responsible for conducting the review and writing a report that is
consistent with UNESCO’s reporting mechanisms:a) Whether the activities effectively pursued by the Centre are in conformity with its
functions as set out in the Agreement signed between UNESCO and the Government ofJapan;b) The relevance of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving UNESCO’s
strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities andthemes, as defined in the Organization’s Medium-Term Strategy (C/4), and to attaining
programme results at the Main Lines of Action (MLA) level, as defined in the
Organization’s Approved Programme and Budget (C/5);c) The effectiveness of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving its statedobjectives, as defined in the Agreement;d) The quality of coordination and interaction with UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in
the field, with regard to planning and implementation of programmes, as well as withother thematically-related category 2 institutes/centres, with regard to planning andimplementation of programmes;e) The quality of relations with IRCI Member States, including its focal points, government
agencies and UNESCO National Commissions, and with public/private partners anddonors;f)

The nature and quality of organizational arrangements, including management,
governance and accountability mechanisms;g) The human and financial resource base and the quality of mechanisms and capacities,
as well as context-specific opportunities and risks for ensuring sustainable institutional
capacity and viability;h) The process of mobilizing extrabudgetary resources and to what extent such
extrabudgetary funding is aligned to the strategic programme objectives of UNESCO.
In addition to the findings on each topic, the expert(s) shall offer four types of recommendations:
1) a general recommendation whether renewal of the Centre’s status as a category 2 centre is
warranted and would conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy; 2) specificrecommendations to the Centre for improving the effectiveness of its operations; 3) specificrecommendations to UNESCO for improving the effectiveness of its coordination and interaction
with the Centre; 4) specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement, in theevent it is to be renewed.
Methodology
The review of the Centre will include:
Call for expression of interest for the review of theInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

27 August 2014

Page 4

A desk study of relevant documents, provided by the Centre and UNESCO Secretariat;



A visit to the Centre, including interviews with the Centre’s management and staff;Interviews (telephone, online and/or via e-mail) with the Centre’s stakeholders,collaborators, and beneficiaries as well as UNESCO staff concerned;

Preparation of the review report.

Roles and responsibilities
The review will be conducted by a team comprising one or two independent experts. Local
travel, materials, secretarial support and office space will be provided by the Centre during thefield visit. The reviewer(s) will be responsible for telecommunications and printing of
documentation.
The Section for Intangible Cultural Heritage will facilitate and oversee the review process, to theextent possible, by providing any relevant information. The UNESCO Culture Sector will be
responsible for reviewing and approving the final report.
Background documents
UNESCO shall make the following documents available to the review team in electronic form:


The Executive Board and General Conference documents concerning the establishmentof the Centre;The existing Agreement between the Government of Japan and UNESCO concerning
the establishment of the Centre, together with its amendment;



The Medium-term Strategy 2008-2013 (34 C/4), Medium-term Strategy 2014-2021(37 C/4), Approved programme and budget 2010-2011 (35 C/5), Approved programme
and budget 2012-2013 (36 C/5) and Approved programme and budget 2014-2015(37 C/5);



Relevant correspondence concerning the cooperation between UNESCO and theCentre.

The Centre shall make the following documents available to the review team in English, inelectronic or paper form:Annual progress reports;

Financial reports;



List of staff;



List of key publications;

Call for expression of interest for the review of theInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

27 August 2014

Page 5



List of donors and project partners;



Minutes, decisions and working documents of the Governing Board and Executive
Committee meetings;

Report of support provided to or received from Member States;Available audit and evaluation reports;



Account of networking achievements linked with other thematically related category 2
institutes/centres and UNESCO’s programmes.

Draft review report
A draft report shall be submitted in English presenting findings, conclusions andrecommendations, with a draft executive summary. The UNESCO Culture Sector, theGovernment of Japan and the Centre itself will have the opportunity to comment and give
feedback to the review team.
Final review report
The final report (max. 20 pages, excluding annexes) should be structured as follows:•

Executive summary (maximum four pages);•

Introduction (background, purpose and scope)•

Methodology;•

Findings;•

Recommendations (as described above);•

Annexes (including interview list, data collection instruments, key documents consulted,
Terms of Reference).

The language of the report shall be English.
Review teamThe review team will consist of one or more independent experts/reviewers. A single
proposal/expression of interest must be submitted on behalf of the team, whether it is one orseveral persons, and a single contract will be executed.
Qualifications:•

At least 7 years of professional experience in research and/or capacity-building in thefield of cultural heritage, cultural policy or culture and development;

Call for expression of interest for the review of theInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

27 August 2014

Page 6•

At least 7 years of professional experience in policy and programme evaluation in thecontext of international development;•

Fluency in English (written and spoken);•

Knowledge of the role and mandate of UNESCO and its programmes.

Schedule
The review shall be completed no later than 31 January 2015.
The schedule for the review is as follows:•

A desk study of background documents (to be completed prior to the visit to the Centre);•

A mission to visit the Centre, if possible in conjunction with its Governing Board meetingon 1 October 2014;•

Writing and submission of the draft review report no later than 31 December 2014;•

Submission of the final review report.

The date of the mission to the Centre will be defined by UNESCO in coordination with the Centre
and taking into account the reviewers’ availability.
Submission of proposals/expression of interest
Interested candidates should submit their applications in English, consisting of:
1. Curriculum vitae of experts/reviewers and, if applicable, company profile;
2. Letter expressing interest and clearly identifying how the candidate/candidate teammeets the required skills and experience;
3. For enterprises/companies, a single overall cost; for individuals a total cost,
distinguishing the fees for services from the travel expenses.
Applications should be submitted no later than 10 September 2014, midnight (Paris time) to Mr
Giovanni Scepi (g.scepi@unesco.org). Please note that applications submitted through otherchannels will not be considered. Selection will be made on the basis of best value for money.

Call for expression of interest for the review of theInternational Research Centre for Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

27 August 2014

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Annexure 2: Mission Schedule

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
44

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Annexure 3: Organisational Chart IRCI, Governing Board and Advisory
Body

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
45

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Basic Information provided for
Review of International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Organizational Chart of IRCI

List of IRCI staff members (FY 2014)
Director-General
Deputy Director-General /Head of Research Section
Head of General Affairs Section
Chief Executive Clerk
Associate Fellow

Research Assistant
Assistant

Akio ARATA
Misako OHNUKI
Hiroyuki IKENO
Takao MISHIMA
Shigeaki KODAMA
Yoko NOJIMA
Ruben Pauwels (from November 2014)
Shuji TSUJI (until August 2014)
Minori LASSES
Sachie Furukawa

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Basic Information provided for
Review of International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

List of Governing Board Members

Name

Title

Johei SASAKI

President, National
Institutes for Cultural
Heritage
Commissioner, Agency for
Cultural Affairs

Chief Executive of
NICH(Chairperson)
Representative of theGovernment of Japan

1/Oct/201330/Sep/2015

Shigeharu KATO

Secretary-General,
Japanese National
commission for UNESCO

Representative of theJapanese National
Commission for
UNESCO

1/Oct/201330/Sep/2015

Ling ZHANG

Director, Division ofMultilateral Affairs, Bureau
for External Cultural
Relations, Ministry of
Culture P. R. China
Director, International
Cooperation Division,
Heritage Promotion
Bureau, Cultural Heritage
Administration of Korea
Professor, Kyushu
University

Representative of otherMember States of
UNESCO

1/Oct/201330/Sep/2015

Representative of otherMember States of
UNESCO

1/Oct/201330/Sep/2015

Representative ofJapanese universities
and research
institutions as well as
local authorities
Representative ofJapanese universities
and research
institutions as well as
local authorities
Representative ofJapanese universities
and research
institutions as well as
local authorities
Representative ofDirector-General of
UNESCO

1/Oct/201330/Sep/2015

Masanori AOYAGIHee-Ung PARK

Hiroyuki KONO

Koichiro MATSUURA

Visiting Professor,
Ritsumeikan University /Former Director-Generalof UNESCO

Osami TAKEYAMA

Mayor, Sakai CityTim CURTIS

Chief, Culture Unit,
UNESCO Bangkok

Term

1/Oct/201330/Sep/2015

1/Oct/201330/Sep/2015

1/Oct/201330/Sep/2015

1/Oct/201130/Sep/2015

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Basic Information provided for
Review of International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

List of Advisory Body Members

Name

Title

Term

NorikoAIKAWA-FAURE

Former Chief of Section, Intangible Cultural
Heritage Section

24/Jan/201431/Oct/2015

Shota FUKUOKA

Associate Professor, Research Center for Cultural
Resources, The National Museum of Ethnology

25/Feb/201431/Oct/2015

Chérif KHAZNADAR

President, Maison des Cultures du Monde

24/Jan/201431/Oct/2015

Ritu SETHI

Chairperson, Craft Revival Trust

24/Jan/2014-3
1/Oct/2015

Adi Meretui Tuvou
RATUNABUABUA

Pacific Heritage Hub Manager, University South
Pacific

24/Jan/2014-3
1/Oct/2015

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Basic Information provided for
Review of International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)Management and Evaluation

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Basic Information provided for
Review of International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

List of Publications

1.

2013 Study Tour Report: Toward Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage for the
Promotion of Cultural Identity and Community Resilience in Timor-Leste. March 2014,
116p.

2.

2013 IRCI Meeting on ICH ̶ Evaluating the Inscription Criteria for the Two Lists of
UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention: The 10th Anniversary of the2003 Convention (Final Report). March 2013, 169p.

3.

2012 International Field School Alumni Seminar on Safeguarding Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the Asia Pacific (Report). February 2013, 336p.

4.

The First ICH-Researchers Forum: The Implementation of UNESCO’s 2003
Convention (Final Report). September 2012, 111p.

5.

Report: 2012 International Field School Alumni Seminar on Safeguarding Intangible
Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific, August 6-10, 2012, Lumphun, Thailand. SAC,
co-hosted by IRCI. 43p.

6.

The First Intensive Researchers Meeting on Communities and the 2003 Convention:“Documentation of Intangible Cultural Heritage as a Tool for Community’s
Safeguarding Activities” (Final Report). July 2012, 93p.

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Basic Information provided for
Review of International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

List of MoUs

1.

Memorandum of Understanding on the Project “Safeguarding Intangible Cultural
Heritage on the verge of extinction – Vietnamese ICH element Dong Ho wood-block
printings”, Between International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in
the Asia-Pacific Region, under the auspices of UNESCO (IRCI) and Vietnam Instituteof Culture and Arts Studies (VICAS) (from November 2013 to December 2014)

2.

Memorandum of Understanding on Research and Study on Endangered Traditional
Handicraft in Post-conflict States(with Craft Revival Trust, India, from December 2013 to February 2014)

3.

Memorandum of Understanding on the Research and Capacity Building of Experts on
Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, between the International ResearchCentre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in Asia Pacific Region, under the auspices of
UNESCO (IRCI) and the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre,
Thailand (from August 2012 to December 2013)

4.

The Memorandum of Understanding between The International Research Centre for
Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region and Individual Researcher(on the first phase of the research project on the legal framework forsafeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in the Greater Mekong region)
1) Steven Van Uytsel, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Kyushu University,
Japan (from April 2014 to October 2014)
2) Hazucha Blanislav, Associate Professor, School of Law, Hokkaido University,
Japan (from April 2014 to October 2014)
3) Yuriko Haga, Associate Professor, School of Law, Kanazawa University,
Japan (from April 2014 to October 2014)4) Kheng-Lian Koh, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, National University ofSingapore, Singapore (from April 2014 to October 2014)

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Basic Information provided for
Review of International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the
Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

Partner Organizations

1.

Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, Japan
Contact person: Toshiyuki Kono (Professor)
Projects/Activities:
1) “Study of Legal Systems Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Greater
Mekong Region” (FY 2013-2016)
2) “Current condition of safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage and its national
legal system in Bhutan” (FY 2012)2.

Craft Revival Trust, India
Contact person: Ritu Sethi (Chairperson)
Projects/Activities:
1) “Research for Endangered Traditional Handicrafts in Post-Conflict States (SriLanka)” (FY 2013-2015)2) Ms Sethi also serves as a member of Advisory Body

3.

Vietnamese Institute of Culture and Arts Studies (VICAS), Vietnam
Contact person: Nguyen Chi Ben (Director)
Projects/Activities:“Research for Endangered Traditional Handicrafts in Post-Conflict States (Sri Lanka)”(FY 2013-2015)

4.

Ministry of Tourism, Timor-Leste
Contact person: Cecilia Maria Belo de Assis (General-Director of Arts and Culture)
Projects/Activities:
Study tour for East Timorese ICH officers in Japan “Toward Safeguarding theIntangible Cultural Heritage for the Promotion of Cultural Identity and Community
Resilience in Timor-Leste”

5.

The Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre, Thailand
Contact person: Suvanna Kriengkraipetch (Director, until 2012)
Alexandra Denes (Researcher, until 2013)
Projects/Activities:“Intangible Field School Alumni Seminar on Safeguarding Cultural Heritage in the
Asia Pacific” (Co-hosted seminars in Thailand in 2012 and 2013)

6.

Maison des Cultures du Monde, France
Contact person: Chérif Khaznadar (President)
Projects/Activities:
1) Co-organized “The First ICH-Researchers Forum: The Implementation of
UNESCO’s 2003 Convention” in Paris, June 3, 2012
2) Mr Khaznadar also serves as a member of Advisory Body

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Annexure 4: Summary of IRCI Projects

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
46

Summary of IRCI Projects

Project title

Period(FY)

Relevance
to Agreement

BudgetSourceAmount (JPY)

Major Activities

Art.4(2)Outputs

Partners/relatedorganizations

Reference

Projects from FY 2013 (based on the revised version of long- and mid-term programmes)

A

B

Activity Focus: Mapping of researchers and research institutions that are engaged in research on current status and various methodologies of safeguarding ICH in the Asia-Pacific region(Medium-term III-1)▪ Preliminary meeting,
Mapping Research for2013
Agency3,206,032a▪ Research Database on ICH ▪ Islamic Arts Museum ▪ Draft plan approved atb“Mapping Research for thethe Safeguarding of ICH
for
Safeguarding in the
Malaysia
the meeting with
Safeguarding of ICH in thein the Asia-Pacific
Culturale
Asia-Pacific Region▪ UNESCO Bangkok
UNESCO Bangkok on
RegionAffairsf
Asia- Pacific Region”(http://ichdb-irci.org/▪ N. Aikawa-Faure
June 4, 2013
(February 19-20, 2014;
released on September 25,(Former Chief of▪ 2013 2nd GBM approval
UNESCO Bangkok)
2014)
UNESCO ICH(Programmes for FY▪ (Expert meeting to be held in
Section)2013 and FY 2014)
Kuala Lumpur, on January▪ IRCI Biannual Report for2014
5,759,890
26-27, 2015)
the 2nd half of FY 2013
▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 1st half of FY 2014

Activity Focus: Research on current status and safeguarding measures of the endangered ICH in the Asia-Pacific region due to factors such as conflict, climate change and natural
disasters (Medium-term III-2)
Research for
2013
MEXT
a
▪ Feasibility study (workshops) ▪ (Draft of the first report▪ Craft Revival Trust▪ Draft plan approved at
3,063,551
Endangered Traditionalein 10 provinces in northern
under revision)▪ Ministry of Culture
the meeting with
Handicrafts infand eastern Sri Lanka
and Arts (Sri Lanka)
UNESCO Bangkok on
Post-Conflict States (Sri(February-March 2014).
▪ National Crafts
June 4, 2013
Lanka)▪ Research and meetings in
Council (Sri Lanka)▪ 2013 2nd GBM approval
Colombo (September 17-19,▪ UNESCO country(Programmes for FY
2014)
focal
point
2013 and FY 2014)
2014
1,493,000▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 2nd half of FY 2013
▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 1st half of FY 2014
2015

TBD

Summary of IRCI Projects
Project title
Research for
Safeguarding Intangible
Cultural Heritage on the
Verge of Extinction:
C Vietnamese ICH
Element Dong Ho
Woodblock Printing

D

E

Study of Legal Systems
Related to Intangible
Cultural Heritage in the
Greater Mekong Region

Toward Safeguarding
the Intangible Cultural
Heritage for the
Promotion of Cultural
Identity and Community
Resilience inTimor-Leste(Study tour for East
Timorese ICH officers inJapan)

Period(FY)
2013

Relevance
to Agreement

BudgetSourceAmount (JPY)MEXT

2,956,905

2014

3,393,000

2015

TBD

2013

MEXT

3,554,584

2014

2,498,000

2015

TBD

2016

TBD

2013

UNESCO

4,648,093

Partners/relatedorganizations

Major Activities

Outputsabf▪ A bearer and a representativeof Bac Ninh province
participated in the workshop
organized by IRCI (February
4-6, 2014)▪ Encouraged by the project,
the Vietnamese government
decide to build a community
centre in Dong Ho forsustainable safeguarding of
ICH.

▪ VICAS▪ Draft plan approved at
the meeting with
UNESCO Bangkok on
July 11, 2013
▪ 2013 2nd GBM approval(Programmes for FY
2013 and FY 2014)▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 2nd half of FY 2013
▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 1st half of FY 2014"abf▪ Meeting "Legal Systems for
Safeguarding of ICH in the
Mekong Region" (February
27-28, 2014; Kyushu
University)▪ Meeting to be held on
December 19-20, 2014.

▪ Interim report (FY 2013)▪ Faculty of Law,
Kyushu University,
Japan▪ Ministry of Culture
and Fine Arts,
Cambodia▪ Draft plan approved at
the meeting with
UNESCO Bangkok on
June 4, 2013
▪ 2013 2nd GBM approval(Programmes for FY
2013 and FY 2014)▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 2nd half of FY 2013
▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 1st half of FY 2014abf

▪ Study tour on October 22-26,
2013 in Tokyo and 3 local
communities in Japan.

Publication:▪ 2013 Study Tour Report:
Toward Safeguarding theIntangible Cultural Heritage
for the Promotion of Cultural
Identity and Community
Resilience in Timor-Leste.
March 2014, 116p

▪ UNESCO Jakarta(co-organizer)▪ Agency for Cultural
Affairs, Japan▪ National ResearchInstitute for Cultural
Properties Tokyo▪ Ministry of Tourism(Timor-Leste)▪ 2013 2nd GBM approval(Programmes for FY
2013 and FY 2014)▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 2nd half of FY 2013
▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 1st half of FY 2014

Art.4(2)ReferenceSummary of IRCI Projects
Project title

F

Documentation of ICH
as a Tool for
Community-led
Safeguarding Activities

Period(FY)

BudgetSourceAmount (JPY)2013

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

5,521,748

2014

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

4,958,420

Relevance
to Agreement

Major Activities

Outputs

Art.4(2)abcd▪ Workshop at the Tokyo
National Museum (February
4-6, 2014)

Publication:▪ Final publication under
editing

Partners/relatedorganizations▪ M. Postma (Leiden
University)▪ H. Deacon (TheArchival Platform
South Africa)

Reference▪ 2013 2nd GBM approval(Programmes for FY
2013 and FY 2014)▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 2nd half of FY 2013
▪ IRCI Biannual Report forthe 1st half of FY 2014

Activity Focus: Within the framework of the Centre's mandate, contribute to the projects carried out by Sakai City for its citizens (Mid-term III-3)

GInternational
Symposium inCelebration of the 10th
Anniversary of theConvention for the
Safeguarding ofIntangible Cultural
Heritage

2013

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

8,075,521(3,432,782)cef▪ "Celebration for the 10th
Anniversary of theConvention for the
Safeguarding of Intangible
Cultural Heritage" (August 3,
2014)▪ Video recordings of public
performance are available
on IRCI website.
▪ Intangible Cultural Heritage
Project Report vol.2, 2013,(by Sakai City)▪ Sakai City
▪ Agency for Cultural
Affairs▪ 2011 1st GBM approval(Agenda 2: Draft Work
Plan and Budget, II(3)& III)

Summary of IRCI Projects
Project title

Period(FY)

Relevance
Budgetsourceamount (JPY)

to Agreement
Art.4(2)Major Activities

Outputs

Partners/relatedorganizations

Reference

Projects in 2011-2012 (based on the old version of long- and medium-term programmes)
Activity Focus: Facilitating research and studies on ICH in the Asia- Pacific region (Long-term III-1)
a. Current status of ICH, in particular, research and studies on ICH in urgent need of safeguarding

H

I

J

Current status ofintangible cultural
heritage and its
protection in Thailand

2011

MEXT

1,927,730ab▪ Field researches on
traditional craftsmanship(feasibility study)(December
14-18, 2011; January 10-15,
2012; January 25-29, 2012

▪ IRCI established aconnection with the
Princess Maha Chakri
Silindhorn Anthropoogy
Centre (SAC).

Current status ofintangible cultural
heritage and its
protection in India

2011

MEXT

4,530,649ab▪ Field researches on
traditional craftsmanship(feasibility study)(November
19-28, 2012)▪ IRCI established aconnection with Craft
Revival Trust in India, which
subsequently led to theimplementation of the Sri
Lanka project.

ab▪ Field researches on social
practices, rituals and festive
events, and traditional
craftsmanship (feasibility
study)(February 14-24, 2012;
December 15-30, 2012;
January 6-15, 2013)▪ Internal report inJapanese.

ab▪ Field researches on oral
traditions and expressions(feasibility study)(September
10-30, 2012)▪ Internal report inJapanese.

2012

Intangible Cultural
Heritages in Myanmar
toward Inventorymaking

2011

1,434,447

MEXT

2012

K

Current status ofintangible cultural
heritage and its
protection in Papua New
Guinea2012

1,606,482

1,032,644

MEXT

1,267,329▪ In accordance with
IRCI's Long-term andMid-term Programmes
approved at the 1st GBM
in 2011▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)▪ In accordance with
IRCI's Long-term andMid-term Programmes
approved at the 1st GBM
in 2011▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)▪ In accordance with
IRCI's Long-term andMid-term Programmes
approved at the 1st GBM
in 2011▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)▪ In accordance with
IRCI's Long-term andMid-term Programmes
approved at the 1st GBM
in 2011▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)

Summary of IRCI Projects

LInternational Field
School Alumni Seminaron Safeguarding
Cultural Heritage in the
Asia PacificDatabase for ICH
research

2012

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

1,860,851

2013

357,500

2011(Personnel
cost only)

2012(Personnel
cost only)cdf▪ Seminar held in Lamphun,
Thailand, August 6-10, 2012
▪ “Intangible Cultural Heritageand Museums: Field School
2013” Surin, Thailand, August
6-18, 2013 (co-organised by
IRCI and SAC)

Publication:▪ Report: 2012 InternationalField School Alumni
Seminar on Safeguarding
Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia Pacific, August
6-10, 2012, Lumphun,
Thailand. SAC and IRCI,
43p.
▪ 2012 International Field
School Alumni Seminar on
Safeguarding Intangible
Cultural Heritage in the Asia
Pacific (Report). February
2013, 336p.

ef▪Continuous data collection of
ICH researchers andinstitutions.

▪ The importance of thisresearch led to thedevelopment of “Mapping
Research for the
Safeguarding of ICH in the
Asia-Pacific Region (FY
2013-2014)” as one of thecore activities of IRCI.

A▪ The Princess Maha
Chakri Sirindhorn
Anthropology Centre(SAC) (co-organizer)▪ In accordance with
IRCI's Long-term andMid-term Programmes
approved at the 1st GBM
in 2011▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)▪ 2011 1st GBM approval(Draft Work Plan andBudget, I)▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)

b. Promotion and impact of the Convention for the safeguarding of ICH

M

N

The First
ICH-Researchers
Forum: The
Implementation of
UNESCO's 2003
Convention

2012

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

4,508,903af▪ Forum “The Implementationof UNESCO’s 2003
Convention” (Paris, June 3,
2012)

Publication:▪ The First ICH-Researchers
Forum: The Implementationof UNESCO’s 2003
Convention (Final Report).
September 2012, 111p.

▪ Maison des Culturesdu Monde(MCM)(co-organizer)▪ 2011 1st GBM approval(Draft Work Plan andBudget, II(2))▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)

2013 IRCI Meeting on
ICH - Evaluating theInscription Criteria for
the Two Lists of
UNESCO's Intangible
Cultural Heritage
Convention

2012

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

9,426,217af▪ Meeting “Evaluating theInscription Criteria for the Two
List of UNESCO’s Intangible
Cultural Heritage Convention”(Tokyo, January 10-11, 2013)

Publication:▪ 2013 IRCI Meeting on ICH ̶
Evaluating the Inscription
Criteria for the Two Lists of
UNESCO’s Intangible
Cultural Heritage
Convention: The 10th
Anniversary of the 2003
Convention (Final Report).
March 2013, 169p.

▪ C. Kaznadar (MCM)▪ T. Kono (Kyushu
University)▪ 2011 1st GBM approval(Draft Work Plan andBudget, II(2))▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)

Summary of IRCI Projects
c. Various records of ICH and their utilization

O

P

Documentation of
Intangible Cultural
Heritage as a Tool for
Community's
Safeguarding Activities

2011

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

5,025,475ac▪ The First Intensive
Researchers Meeting on
Communities and the 2003
Convention "Documentationof Intangible Cultural Heritage
as a Tool for Community’s
Safeguarding Activities”(Tokyo, March 3-4, 2012)

Intangible Cultural
Heritage Documentation
as a Tool for
Community's
Safeguarding Activities

2012

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

9,363,664acd▪ Workshop held in Tsuruoka,
Japan, February 22-25, 2013

Publication:▪ The First Intensive
Researchers Meeting on
Communities and the 2003
Convention:“Documentation of
Intangible Cultural Heritage
as a Tool for Community’s
Safeguarding Activities”(Final Report). July 2012,
93p▪ Participants drafted a planof the filming of their own
ICH elements.
▪ The project contributed todesigning further activities
for “Documentation” projectin 2013-2014.

▪ M. Postma (Leiden
University)▪ H. Deacon (TheArchival Platform
South Africa)▪ 2011 1st GBM approval(Draft Work Plan andBudget, II(2))▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)▪ M. Postma (Leiden
University)▪ H. Deacon (TheArchival Platform
South Africa)▪ 2011 1st GBM approval(Draft Work Plan andBudget, II(2))▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)

d. Good practices in safeguarding of ICH
2011

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

706,230aQ

Case study on thetransmission of afolk-art performanceand its safeguarding inNorth Eastern Japan▪ Field researches on
safeguarding measures in
Tsuruoka, Japan (November
8-11, 2011; January 29February 3, 2012; February
24- March 1, 2012)▪ Cordial relationship with
community members andthe municipal government
established through thestudy allowed IRCI to host aworkshop on
documentation.

2012

MEXT

1,131,291abR

Current condition ofsafeguarding ofintangible cultural
heritage and its national
legal system in Bhutan▪ Field researches on
safeguarding measures(September 29- October 7,
2012; January 28- February
2, 2013)▪ The project is succeeded by
Kyushu University as an
ODA project▪ This project also
encouraged IRCI to develop
the Mekong project in2013-2016.

▪ Faculty of Law,
Kyushu University,
Japan▪ Intangible Cultural Heritage
Project Report vol.1, 2012,(by Sakai City)▪ Sakai City

▪ In accordance with the
IRCI's Long-term andMedium-term
Programmes approvedat the 1st GBM in 2011
▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)▪ In accordance with the
IRCI's Long-term andMedium-term
Programmes approvedat the 1st GBM in 2011
▪ IRCI Progress Report(October 2011-April
2013)

Activity Focus: Encourage cooperation with projects carried out by Sakai City (Long-term III-2)

S

Inaugural Symposiumof IRCI2011

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

614,330(3,497,000)f▪ Symposium held in Sakai,
Japan, October 4, 2011

▪ 2011 1st GBM (Draft
Work Plan and Budget,III)Summary of IRCI Projects
Symposium on
Intangible Cultural
Heritage

2012

Agency for
CulturalAffairs

Seminars on Intangible
Cultural Heritage

2012

ICH panel exhibition

Spot exhibition on
Southeast Asian Puppet
W Theatre

TU
V

231,845(24,000)f▪ Symposium held on February
17, 2013(Sakai City)f▪ ICH Seminars on July 15,
October 21, and November
23, 2012.

2012(Sakai City)

f

2012

(Sakai City)f▪ Exhibition at Sakai City
Museum during October 2November 4, 2012

▪ IRCI reported its activities.
▪ Intangible Cultural Heritage
Project Report vol.2, 2013,(by Sakai City)▪ IRCI contributed to the ICH
Seminars.
▪ Intangible Cultural Heritage
Project Report vol.1, 2012,(by Sakai City)▪ Intangible Cultural Heritage
Project Report vol.1, 2012,(by Sakai City)▪ Exhibition catalogue▪ Public lecture (ICH
Seminar)▪ Intangible Cultural Heritage
Project Report vol.1, 2012,(by Sakai City)▪ Sakai City▪ National Museumof Ethnology▪ 2011 1st GBM (Draft
Work Plan and Budget,III)▪ Sakai City

▪ 2011 1st GBM (Draft
Work Plan and Budget,III)▪ Sakai City

▪ 2011 1st GBM (Draft
Work Plan and Budget,III)▪ 2011 1st GBM (Draft
Work Plan and Budget,III)▪ Sakai City▪ National Museumof Ethnology*Agreement Article 4.2 (Centre's Function)
In order to achieve the objectives, the functions of the Centre will be:(a) to instigate and coordinate research into practices and methodologies of safeguarding endangered ICH elements, while cooperating with universities, institutions, community representatives
and other governmental and non-governmental organizations in Japan and elsewhere in the region(b) to assist, in terms of research, countries in AP region in implementing measures as referred to in Articles 11-14 of the Convention, while paying attention to developing countries(c) to organize workshops and seminars focusing on the role of research as a useful component for safeguarding the ICH and related practices and methodologies, involving experts,
community representatives and administrators from the Asia-Pacific region(d) to encourage and assist young researchers in Asia-Pacific engaging in research activities related to safeguarding the ICH(e) to cooperate with other C2 centres and institutions active in the domain of safeguarding the ICH, in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond(f) to initiate cooperation among all other interested institutions active in the safeguarding ICH, while furthering technical assistance vis-à-vis developing countries, in the Asia-Pacific region

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Annexure 5: Work Plan and Budget for FY2015

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
47

as of24/ 9 / 2014

<Mapping Project 1> International Forum on ICH Safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific Region
Expected results

International and regional cooperation for ICH safeguarding strengthened through sharing research information

PeriodFY2015

Relevance

Agreement Article 4.2: (a) (c) (f)37C/4 paragraphs: 66, 68, 69

37C/5 paragraphs: 4023, 4024, 4029, 4030

Current issues:Specific project goals (How can the issues be resolved or improved?):

1. Information of research activities pertaining to the safeguarding of ICH in the
Asia-Pacific region is not effectively shared among ICH experts, which is limiting
the development of productive discussions.
2. ICH safeguarding researches are still an emerging field of study, with limited
number of specialists involved.

1. Arguments related to ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region progress
through the international researchersʼ forum
2. The forum connects ICH researchers having various research fields and academic
backgrounds to develop a network for information exchange, and functions as acommonplace for discussion.

Details of specific activities:

Targets and partners for the activities:

1a. Organize an international forum on specific topics* related to ICH safeguarding
in the Asia-Pacific region.
(* Themes of the forum will be determined at the meeting to be held in January
2014.)
1b. CFP (call for papers) will be sent to major institutions.
1c. Hold the forum at Islamic Arts Museum Malaysia, in FY 2015.
2. Publish papers presented at the forum.
3. Discuss specific focuses for future forums after FY 2015.
4. Discuss and prepare for the future periodical publication of scientific journal
specialized in ICH safeguarding.

Targets:
Experts on ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region (in particular, participation ofyoung researchers including PhD students are encouraged);
experts, institutions, and museums related to ICH safeguarding;researchers in ICH related fields

Expected outcomes (indicate the beneficiaries and who will effect changes ifchanges are part of the outcomes):

How the outcomes will be measured, means of obtaining data, and potential:
1. The forum will be evaluated based on the number of participants andcontributing papers.
2. Factors such as participantsʼ research fields/expertise and geographic focuses
will be considered for the development of researchersʼ network.

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2

1. Arguments related to ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region progress,
leading to the development of ICH safeguarding studies in the Asia-Pacific region.
2. Interdisciplinary network of researchers and specialists are developed to enhanceresearch activities.

Partners:
Islamic Arts Museum Malaysia
ICH specialists selected by IRCI; research institutions related to ICH safeguarding in
the Asia-Pacific regionPerformance Indicator:
1. CFP will be sent to major institutions.
2. A forum will be successfully organized.
3. Researchers from a various disciplines/research focuses participate in the forum.
4. Papers presented at the forum will be published.
Benchmarks (by Mar. 2016):(by Mar. 2017)(by Mar. 2018)

1. Send CFP to major institutions, and post at IRCI
website.
2. At least 30 researchers participate in the forum.
3. Researchers from at least 6 different
disciplines/research focuses participate in the forum.
4. Publish the papers presented at the forum.
Specific deliverables (if applicable):

Distribution and beneficiaries of the deliverables, how benefits are provided:

proceedings, including discussions and papers presented at the forum

Proceedings will be distributed to UNESCO, culture sections of governments in the
Asia-Pacific countries, and major institutions in the region.

Notes:
Total budget for Mapping Project 1 and 2: 10.5 million JPY* In addition to the above budget, IRCI is seeking external grants for expanding the scale of forum.

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2

as of08/ 9 / 2014

<Mapping Project 2> Research Data Collection on ICH Safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific Region and Optimization of its Use
Expected results

International and regional cooperation for ICH safeguarding strengthened through sharing research information

PeriodFY2015 – FY 2017

Relevance

Agreement Article 4.2: (a) (c) (f)37C/4 paragraphs: 66, 68, 69

37C/5 paragraphs: 4023, 4024, 4029, 4030

Current issues:Specific project goals (How can the issues be resolved or improved?):1. Systematic information on ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region is limited.
2. Information of research activities pertaining to the safeguarding of ICH in the
Asia-Pacific region is not effectively shared among ICH experts, which is limiting
cooperation for ICH safeguarding.

1. Current database of IRCI is significantly improved through continuous datacollection and by functional development in collaboration with IT specialists.
2. Refined database is widely utilised by specialists and institutions as a common
platform for sharing information related to ICH safeguarding researches.

Details of specific activities:

Targets and partners for the activities:

1. Collect information related to ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region, such as
research papers and reports, institutions and researchers.
2. Expand and strengthen database functions, (a) by adding more entries collected
in above activities, and (b) by collaborating with IT specialists.
3. Hold constant review sessions every 4 months, for assuring effective datacollection and optimization.
4. Release the refined database on IRCI website to be utilised by related institutions
and experts.

Targets:
Researchers on ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region; experts, institutions,and museums related to ICH safeguarding; researchers in ICH related fields

1. Refined database functions as a common platform for sharing information.
2. Effective utilisation of the database contributes to the improvement of
information sharing among specialists and institutions that are working for ICH
safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region.

How the outcomes will be measured, means of obtaining data, and potential:
1. Refining database functions is evaluated by the number of new entries, and byfunctional improvement added to the database.
2. Degree of database utilisation is measured by analysing access information (suchas access count and countries).

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2

Expected outcomes (indicate the beneficiaries and who will effect changes ifchanges are part of the outcomes):

Partners:
1. and 2(a). ICH specialists, research institutions and museums in Asia-Pacific thatare in contact/collaborations with IRCI(* Cooperation with ICHCAP will be pursued through mutual consultations.)
2(b)．IT specialists on database development.

Performance Indicator:
1. Provision of additional entries by other institutions and experts will be increased.
2a. Database entries will be increased.
2b. Database function will be strengthened by adding modifications and new functions to the current database design.
3．Access to the database will be increased in the total access count, and in the number of unique visitors.
4. The process of data collection and optimization is monitored through constant review sessions.
Benchmarks (by Mar. 2016):(by Mar. 2017)(by Mar. 2018)

1. At least 5 institutions/specialists provide data
entries.
2a. Expand the database at least 600 entries.
3. Access count reaches 500.
4. Hold at least 3 review sessions.

to be determined

to be determined

Specific deliverables (if applicable):

Distribution and beneficiaries of the deliverables, how benefits are provided:

Research database on ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region

Database will be available and updated on IRCI website. Update information will be
notified to related researchers and institutions via e-mail, and on the website.

Notes:
Total budget for Mapping Project 1 and 2: 10.5 million JPY* In addition to the above budget, IRCI is applying for Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (by JSPS) for extending database functions.

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2

(Revised)

as of

29 /

9 /

2014

Study of Legal Systems related to Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Greater Mekong Region
Expected results

Legal systems related to the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in the Mekong region strengthened

PeriodFY 2013 – FY 2016 (April 2013 – March 2017)

Relevance

Agreement Article 4.2: (a) (b) (f)37C/4 paragraphs: 66, 69

37C/5 paragraphs: 4023, 4024, 4029, 4030

Current issues:Specific project goals (How can the issues be resolved or improved?):1. UNESCO does not have sufficient information on legal systems related to thesafeguarding of ICH in the Mekong region.
2. Available literature generally notes the insufficient development of legislation regarding
cultural heritage in the Mekong region.
3. Sufficient analysis of legal systems is not provided.

1. Information on the legal systems related to ICH in the Greater Mekong region is collected
and analyzed , and the findings are shared with UNESCO and the governments as well
as research institutions of countries in focus and in other areas
2a. Current issues on ICH related legal systems in the Mekong region are identified.
2b. If the government of countries in focus requests, recommendations for solving current
problems will be provided by the legal experts based on the findings in 2a.

Details of specific activities:

Targets and partners for the activities:(1st year)
1. Review of existing legal systems by the legal expert team
2. Send a questionnaire to the government authorities and universities.
3. Field interviews based on the findings in 1 and 2 by the legal expert team (Laos and Cambodia in
2013)

The project primarily focused on three countries of Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia;
however, other countries in the Mekong region such as Thailand and Vietnam could be
included from the 2nd to 4th years.

(2nd – 4th years)
Given the critical importance and the potential of this research, project period is also
extended to FY 2016 so that productive results will be delivered in the scope of
implementing further programmes.

4. Draft a final report including the result of workshop and recommendations.
5. Discuss possibilities of developing further programmes based on recommendations.

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2

1. By the end of FY 2013, IRCI, through the commitment of legal experts, reach agreementon project activities with the governments concerned, and identify local project partners.
2. Legal experts conduct the review of existing legal systems to safeguard ICH, which
include laws and regulations as well as other mechanisms and arrangements in the
Mekong countries.
3. Hold a workshop/seminar, inviting legal experts/government officials, without excluding
other stakeholders, to examine current conditions of the above mentioned legal systems
related to ICH in the Mekong region.

Targets (for 2nd – 4th year): stakeholders, including government officials in ICH or related
section as well as NGOs and research institutions
Partners (for 2nd – 4th year): individual researchers/legal experts working in the countries
in focus in both governmental and private sectors

Expected outcomes (indicate the beneficiaries and who will effect changes ifchanges are part of the outcomes):
1. Analysis of legal systems to safeguard ICH, including laws, regulations, policies andgood practices in the countries in focus will be made and issues needing solutions will beidentified.

How the outcomes will be measured, means of obtaining data, and potential:
In addition to available legal documents, interviews are conducted for examining the current
situations and problems of legal systems related to ICH. Impact of the project outcomes will
be assessed by collecting feedback from stakeholders for ICH safeguarding ingovernmental and private sectors.

Performance Indicator:
1a. Current legal systems related to ICH in three countries in the Mekong region (Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar) will be studied and analyzed.
1b. Current legal systems related to ICH in other countries in the Mekong region (such as Thailand and Vietnam) may be analyzed.
2. At least one workshop/seminar will be held in the FY 2015.
3. Final report will be drafted and completed.
Benchmarks (by Sept. 2014):(by Mar. 2017)

Draft project reports on the 2 countries.

1. Complete the analysis of current legal systems related to ICH in the Mekong region.
2a. Hold a workshop inviting participants from at least 3 countries in the Mekong region.
2b. Current legal systems in at least 3 countries are analyzed at the workshop.
3. Project final report completed by Mar. 2017.

Specific deliverables (if applicable):

Distribution and beneficiaries of the deliverables, how benefits are provided

Final report (submitted by the end of FY 2016), which will be prepared in English

The report will be distributed to UNESCO, governments and academic institutions in the
countries in focus as well as in other areas. The biggest beneficiaries are expected toinclude UNESCO, and stakeholders in governmental and private sectors in the countries infocus, who can utilize the deliverables as a basic resource for ICH safeguarding

Source (1st year):(2nd year)(3rd year)

Budget of around 2 million JPY
Four legal experts (Experts from Kyushu
University and the National University ofSingapore. Study team’s leader is an expert
in conflict of laws.)

Budget: 2.49 million JPY

Budget (estimation): 4.5 million JPY(4th year)

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2

as of:

18 /

9 /

2014

Research for Endangered Traditional Handicrafts in Post-Conflict States (Sri Lanka)
Expected results

Transmission of ICH in post-conflict areas promoted to support reconstruction of livelihoods.
Elements of ICH in need of urgent safeguarding identified.

PeriodFY2013 – FY 2015

Relevance

Agreement Article 4.2: (a) (e) (f)37C/4 paragraphs: 66, 67

37C/5 paragraphs: 4023, 4025, 4030

Current issues:Specific project goals (How can the issues be resolved or improved?):

1. Although the culture of traditional craftsmanship is regarded as one of the building blocks
to create the prospects for sustainable development in the areas impacted by the conflictin the northern and eastern provinces, information on traditional handicrafts per se is notreadily available.
2. Loss of life and displacement in the above areas resulted in destitution, and theextinction of traditional handicrafts has been observed by UNESCO Delhi Office. Under
these circumstances, the revitalization of traditional handicrafts by widowed artisans,which assists in the reconstruction of their traditional livelihoods, is seen as a potential
way to create a more peaceful and stable environment for recovery.

1. Collect data, identify and map the ICH elements of traditional craftsmanship and theirpractitioners (especially female) in post-conflict areas of Sri Lanka.
2. Identify and list handicrafts and skills in need of urgent safeguarding.

Details of specific activities:

Targets and partners for the activities:(1st year)
1. IRCI and Craft Revival Trust experts collect data (by research and documentation) in the northernand eastern provinces, and initiate the process of establishing a research database.
2a. Participatory community workshops for the identification of key issues, including the stakeholder
analysis, are implemented in the above provinces including.

Partners:
UNESCO Delhi Office, Craft Revival Trust, Ministry of Culture and Arts in Sri Lanka,
Ministry of Traditional Industries & Small Enterprise Development in Sri Lanka
Beneficiaries:
Practitioners and/or people having knowledge related to the practice of traditional
craftsmanship in the post-conflict areas. Particular attention is given to women and youth.

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2(2nd and 3rd years)
2b. Experts are sent to discuss action plans for revitalization upon the request of the Sri
Lankan government and UNESCO Delhi Office.
3. Extend research and data collection in northern, northeastern, and eastern provinces.
4. Conduct research on good practices of craft revitalization in other countries, forformulating action plans in cooperation with international experts.
5. Publish the project report.

Expected outcomes (indicate the beneficiaries and who will effect changes ifchanges are part of the outcomes):
1a. Traditional handicrafts and their practitioners in the post-conflict areas are identified.
1b. Data on traditional handicrafts identified in 1a. is made available for interventions by the
Sri Lankan government, IRCI and UNESCO, to solve problems.
2. Practitioners identified in 1. as being in need of socio-economic improvement aresupported by UNESCO and the Sri Lankan government in their activities of revitalizing
traditional handicrafts.

How the outcomes will be measured, means of obtaining data, and potential:
1. Database entries will be evaluated quantitatively. Specific benchmark figures will be
determined based on the result of feasibility study in 2013.
2. The number of identified practitioners requiring support will be indicated. Evaluation will
be based on the number of identified practitioners who actually participated inprogrammes provided by UNESCO and the Sri Lankan government.

Performance Indicator:
1. Information regarding handicraft production covering 10 provinces of the northern and the eastern Sri Lanka will be collected.
2a. Information regarding good practices of craft revitalization in other countries will be collected.
2b. Action plans for revitalizing traditional handicrafts in the above regions of Sri Lanka will be drafted.
3. Final report will be published.
(by Mar. 2016)

1. Conduct the feasibility study.
2. Complete handicraft data collection covering at least 3 provinces of the northern andeastern Sri Lanka.
3. Develop further benchmarks of the project such as the number of the records and more
specific geographic coverage of the entire project based on the outcome of the research
conducted in FY2013.

1. Collect further handicraft data in northern, northeastern, and eastern regions.
2a. Collect information on good practices of craft revitalization.
2b. Draft action plans.
3. Complete the final report.

Specific deliverables (if applicable):

Distribution and beneficiaries of the deliverables, how benefits are provided

1. Research database of documents, audio, video recordings and photographs.
2. List of the traditional handicrafts and practitioners in need of urgent safeguarding.
3. Survey report and recommendations for the next phase of the programme.
4. Project report

Deliverables from activities 1 and 2 will be distributed to UNESCO, the Sri Lankan
government, and Sri Lankan academic institutions. If the Sri Lankan government and
UNESCO give their consent, deliverables will also be distributed to NGOs that work in theareas of microfinance and fair-trade. Although administrative officials will be the direct
beneficiaries, practitioners will be also benefitted if programmes tied to safeguarding oftraditional handicrafts and poverty reduction are implemented.

Source (1st year):(2nd year)(3rd year)

Budget: 2.35 million JPY
Human resources: 1-2 IRCI staff; 1 staff at UNESCO Delhi
Office; 2 staff at Craft Revival Trust

Budget: 1.49 million JPY

Budget (estimation): 4 million JPY

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2

Benchmarks (by Sept. 2014):

as of:

25 /

9 /

2014

Research for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage on the Verge of Extinction: Vietnamese ICH Element Dong Ho Woodblock Printing
Expected results

ICH in danger of extinction safeguarded

PeriodFY2013 – FY 2015

Relevance

Agreement Article 4.2: (a) (b) (f)37C/4 paragraphs: 66, 67

37C/5 paragraphs: 4023, 4025, 4027, 4030

Current issues:Specific project goals (How can the issues given left be resolved or improved?):1. Due to the aging of craftsmen, the loss of traditional techniques and knowledge ofwoodblock printing has been a matter of concern.
2. In the context of rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, the number of young people
who are involved in traditional handicrafts has been decreasing.
3. The Vietnamese government and research institutions do not have sufficient information
regarding the causes of the decline of transmission.

1. Produce video records of techniques and knowledge of woodblock printing, and store
them in research institutions, local museums, and community centres in Vietnam.
2. Provide young people with opportunities to be involved in the process of documentation.
3. Form a model explaining the causes of the decline of transmission based on inputs fromvillagers and local government officials.

Details of specific activities:

Targets and partners for the activities on the left:(1st year)
1. Representatives of Dong Ho village or Bac Ninh Province learn methods of ICH documentation by
participating in a workshop in Japan.
2. Participants in the above workshop lead community-based documentation in Dong Ho village. Young
villagers are encouraged to be a part of this documentation team.

Partners:
VICAS(*Progress of the project is to be shared with UNESCO Hanoi Office.)
Targets:
Residents in and around Dong Ho village.
Aged craftsmen (for documentation), villagers and local government officials (for interviewsby VICAS).

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2(2nd and 3rd year)
3. Hold a workshop in collaboration with VICAS, inviting practitioners, researchers andgovernment officials to collect further information on the risk factors on transmitting ICH
and to discuss the methodology for sustainable safeguarding in the community.
4. Researchers interview villagers to investigate the causes of the current endangered
situation.
5. Publish the final report to present the researchers’ papers as outcomes of the three-year
research project.

Expected outcomes (indicate the beneficiaries and who will effect changes ifchanges are part of the outcomes):

How the outcomes on the left will be measured, means of obtaining data, andpotential:

1. Records of woodblock printing will be produced, which are stored in such a way thatvillagers can utilise them by themselves.
2. Communication between aged craftsmen and young people will be increased.
3. Vietnamese Government will prepare action plans for the safeguarding of ICH based on
the model formulated by the project, and applies for registration to the UNESCO's urgent
list.
4. The detail of the above process will be made available as a model case for thesafeguarding of endangered ICH, through the websites of VICAS and IRCI.

1. and 2. After the completion of the project (in Sept. 2014), a third-party expert who isfluent in the local language will be sent to the field for qualitative assessment of the
impact of the project.
3. Nomination of Dong Ho woodblock printing to the UNESCO's urgent safeguarding list
fulfills the measurement
4. The number of accesses to the project contents on IRCI's and VICAS' websites will bemonitored to assess the uses of project outcomes.

Performance Indicator:
1. Video records and documents regarding the Dong Ho woodblock printing will be produced by Dong Ho community in cooperation with Bac Ninh local government.
2. Interviews with bearers and people in the Dong Ho community will be conducted.
3. Final report will be published.
(by Mar. 2016)

1a. Invite representatives of bearers and Bac Ninh Province to the workshop.
1b. Representatives of bearers and Bac Ninh Province complete the production of the firstversion of the video record by October 2014.
2. Complete interviews with bearers and people in the community.

1. Hold a workshop.
2. Conduct interviews with bearers and people in the community.
3. Publish the final project report.

Specific deliverables (if applicable):

Distribution and beneficiaries of the deliverables, how benefits are provided

1. Video records and documents on Dong Ho woodblock printing
2. Project report as a basic reference for the Vietnamese government in formulating actionplans.
3. Web contents describing the process of documentation and formulation of the model.

1. Records will be distributed to UNESCO, the Vietnamese government, VICAS, theNational Museum of Ethnology in Vietnam, and schools and community centres in Dong
Ho and in the surrounding region.
2. The project report will be distributed to the Vietnamese government and UNESCO.
3. Web contents, which will be in English, Vietnamese, and Japanese, will be open to the
public. The release of web contents will be notified to ministries of culture in neighbouring
countries to encourage referential uses.

Source (1st year):(2nd year)(3rd year)

Budget: 2.5 million JPY
Human resources: 1 or 2 IRCI staff; 3 VICAS staff; 1 or 2
officers of Bac Ninh Province

Budget: 3.39 million JPY

Budget (estimation): 4 million JPY

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 2

Benchmarks (by Sept. 2014):

IRCI/2014/3GB/3/Annex 3

Budget for FY 2015
Estimated Budget for FY 2015

(JPY)

Category
IncomeGovernment
Funds

AmountOperation Expenses

27,812,000

Agency for
Cultural Affairs

International collaborative
project for the safeguardingof cultural propertiesODA for supporting
UNESCO's activities

51,388,000

Total Amount
Endangered Traditional Handicrafts in Post-Conflict States
Safeguarding ICH on the Verge of Extinction: Vietnamese ICH
Element Dong Ho Wood Block Painting
Study of Legal Systems Related to Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Greater Mekong Region<Mapping Project 1> International Forum on ICH Safeguarding
in the Asia-Pacific Region<Mapping Project 2> Development of Research Database on
ICH Safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific Region
Expenses for website and purchase of research materials
Fourth Governing Board Meeting
Expenses for attending conferences and meetings in and out ofJapan
Miscellaneous

87,500,000
4,000,000
4,000,000

Operation expenses
Personnel expenses
Total Amount

9,800,000
40,000,000
87,500,000

External Funds

Ministry of
Education,
Culture, Sports,
Science andTechnology
Expenditure* Figures are the estimation based on the budget for FY 2014.
* Sakai City’s budget for FY 2015 is yet to be determined.

8,300,000

4,500,000
10,500,000

2,300,000
3,500,000
4,400,000
4,500,000

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Annexure 6: Analysis of projects and outcomes against MLAs and strategic objectives

IRCI Project

DetailContribution to MLA 2

Medium-term
objectives met

Mapping Research
for the Safeguardingof ICH in the AsiaPacific Region

Preliminary meeting, “Mapping Research for
the Safeguarding of ICH in the Safeguardingof ICH in the Asia- Pacific Region” (February
19-20, 2014; UNESCO).
Mapping ofresearchers and research institutions that are
engaged in research on current status andvarious methodologies of safeguarding ICH
in the Asia-Pacific region. Research
Database on ICH Safeguarding in the AsiaPacific Region (http://ichdb-irci.org/ releasedon September 25, 2014)

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH. -Significant
Contribution

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

Potentially this project can make asignificant contribution to achieving theperformance indicator for expected results
6 "National capacities strengthened andutilised to safeguard ICH…." Especially the
Benchmark:"Knowledge produced by all stakeholders
involved in the implementation of theconvention available through knowledge
management
systems"

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
48

strategic

Confidential report to UNESCO

Research for
Endangered
Traditional
Handicrafts in PostConflict States (SriLanka)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Feasibility study (workshops) in 10 provincesin northern and eastern Sri Lanka (FebruaryMarch 2014). Research on current status andsafeguarding measures of the endangered
ICH in the Asia-Pacific region due to factors
such as conflict, climate change and natural
disasters (Medium-term III-2)

2- Supporting and promoting diversity.
Safeguarding of ICH.
Potentially a major contribution to Expected
result 6 "National capacities strengthened
and utilised to safeguard ICH…."Potentially the outcome so this project if
developed will also contribute to Expected
outcome 7: " National capacities
strengthened and utilized for thedevelopment of policies and measures topromote the diversity of culturalexpressions thorough the effective
implementation of the 2005 convention

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

8 Fostering creativity andthe diversityof cultural expressions

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
49

Confidential report to UNESCO

Research for
Safeguarding
Intangible Cultural
Heritage on the
Verge of Extinction:
Vietnamese ICH
Element Dong Ho
Woodblock Printing

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

A bearer and a representative of Bac Ninhprovince participated in the workshop
organized by IRCI (February 4-6, 2014).
Research on current status and safeguarding
measures of the endangered ICH in the AsiaPacific region due to factors such as conflict,climate change and natural disasters.
Encouraged by the project, the Vietnamese
government decide to build a community
centre in Dong Ho for sustainablesafeguarding of ICH

MLA 2- Supporting and promoting diversity.
Safeguarding of ICH
Minor contribution.
The claim for the sustainable safeguardingof ICH made by the centre is not wellsubstantiated as there is no evidence
provided of how the community centre willcontribute to sustainability

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

8 Fostering creativity andthe diversityof cultural expressions

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
50

Confidential report to UNESCO

Study of Legal
Systems Related to
Intangible Cultural
Heritage in the
Greater Mekong
RegionARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Meeting "Legal Systems for Safeguarding of
ICH
in
the
Mekong Region" (February 27-28, 2014;
Kyushu University). Research on current
status and safeguarding measures of theendangered ICH in the Asia-Pacific region
due to factors such as conflict, climatechange and natural disasters. Interim report.

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH. Significant
Contribution
This project has the most direct link to
UNESCO benchmarks for this MLA.
Potentially a major contribution to Expected
result 6 "National capacities strengthened
and utilised to safeguard ICH….
Benchmark=National policies and humanand institutional resources for intangible
cultural heritage developed and/or
strengthened.

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles (see para
59 &60)7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage.
8 Fostering creativity andthe diversityof cultural expressions

TowardSafeguarding theIntangible Cultural
Heritage for the
Promotion ofCultural Identity andCommunity
Resilience in TimorLeste (Study tour for
East Timorese ICH
officers in Japan)

Study tour on October 22-26, 2013 in Tokyoand 3 local communities in Japan. Researchon current status and safeguarding measuresof the endangered ICH in the Asia-Pacificregion due to factors such as conflict, climatechange and natural disasters. 2013 Study
Tour Report: 'Toward Safeguarding theIntangible Cultural Heritage
for the Promotion of Cultural Identity andCommunity
Resilience in Timor-Leste'. March 2014,
116p.

MLA 2- Supporting and promoting diversity.
Safeguarding of ICH
It is unclear how effectively this projectcontributed to this MLA.
Minor contribution through knowledge
sharing

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles
7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage
8 Fostering creativity andthe diversityof cultural expressions

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
51

Confidential report to UNESCO

Documentationof
ICH as a Tool for
Community-led
Safeguarding
Activities

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSWorkshop at the Tokyo National Museum(February 4-6, 2014). Research on current
status and safeguarding measures of theendangered ICH in the Asia-Pacific region
due to factors such as conflict, climatechange and natural disasters

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH.
Minor contribution throughsharing

Unclearknowledge

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
52

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSInternational
Symposiumin
Celebration of the10th Anniversary of
the Convention for
the Safeguarding ofIntangible
Cultural
Heritage

Celebration for the 10th Anniversary of theConvention for the Safeguarding of Intangible
Cultural Heritage" (August 3, 2014). Within
the framework of the Centre's mandate,
contribute to the projects carried out by Sakai
City for its citizens. Video recordings of public
performance are available on IRCI website.
Intangible Cultural Heritage Project Report
vol.2, 2013, (by Sakai City)

Not Directly attributable to MLA

Current status ofintangible cultural
heritage and its
protection in
ThailandField researches on traditional craftmanship(feasibility study) (December 14-18 2011;
January 10-15, 2012: January 25-29, 2012.
IRCI established a connection with the
Princess Maha Chakri Silindhorn
Anthropoogy Centre (SAC).

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH

Unclear[Promotional activity with local community
consistent with the Centre’s Medium term
programme e policy “6. Co-operate with
Sakai City to implement the project aiming
at the safeguarding and inheritance ofintangible cultural heritage and thepromotionofinternational
culturalexchange, in line with Sakai City Master
Plan.]

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

8 Fostering creativity andReview of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
53

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

the diversityof cultural expressions

Current status ofintangible cultural
heritage and its
protection in India

Field researches on traditional craftsmanship(feasibility study) (November 19-28, 2012)IRCI established a connection with Craft
Revival Trust in India, which subsequently
led to the implementation of the Sri Lanka
project.

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH.

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

Intangible
Cultural
Heritagesin
MyanmartowardInventory making

Field researches on social practices, rituals
and festive practices, rituals and festive
events,andtraditional
craftsmanship(feasibility study)(February 14-24, 2012).
Field researches on social practices, rituals
and festive practices, rituals and festive
events,andtraditional
craftsmanship(feasibility study) (December 15-30, 2012;
January 6-15, 2013). Internal report inJapanese.

MLA 2- Supporting and promoting diversity.
Safeguarding of ICH.

8 Fostering creativity andthe diversityof cultural expressions
6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

8 Fostering creativity andthe diversityof cultural expressions

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
54

Confidential report to UNESCO

Current status ofintangible
culturalheritageandits
protection in Papua
New Guinea

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Field researches on oral traditions andexpressions (feasibility study) (September
10-30, 2012). Internal report in Japanese

MLA 2- Supporting and promoting diversity.
Safeguarding of ICH.

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

International
Field
SchoolAlumniSeminaron
Safeguarding
Cultural Heritage in
the Asia PacificDatabase
researchfor

ICH

Seminar held in Lamphun, Thailand, August
6-10, 2012 “Intangible Cultural Heritage andMuseums: Field School 2013” Surin,
Thailand, August 6-18, 2013 (co-organised
by IRCI and SAC). Report: '2012
International 'Field School Alumni Seminaron Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia Pacific, August 6-10, 2012,
Lumphun, Thailand'. SAC and IRCI, 43p.
Report: '2012 International Field School
Alumni Seminar on Safeguarding Intangible
Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific'.
February 2013, 336p.
Continuous
data
collectionofICH
researchers and institutions. The importanceof this research led to the development of'Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of
ICH in the Asia-Pacific Region' as one of thecore activities of the IRCI. Publication of'Mapping Research for the Safeguarding of
ICH in the Asia-Pacific Region'

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH

8 Fostering creativity andthe diversityof cultural expressions
7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
55

Confidential report to UNESCO

The
First
ICHResearcher's forum:
The implementationof UNESCO's 2003
Convention2013 IRCI Meetingon ICH- Evaluating
the
Insciption
Criteria for the Two
Lists of UNESCO's
ICH Convention
Documentationof
ICH as a Tool for
Community's
Safeguarding
Activities
ICH documentation
as
a
tool
for
community's
safeguarding
activities

Case study on thetransmission of afolk-art performanceand it's safeguarding
in North EasternJapan
Current condition ofsafeguarding of ICH
and its national legal
system in Bhutan

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONSForum- 'The implementation of UNESCO's
2003 Convention' in Paris, Jun 3, 2012.
Publication of this forum.

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

Meeting in Tokyo, Jan
Publication of meeting.

2013.

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

First intensive Researcher's meeting inTokyo, March 3-4, 2012.Publication of First
Intensive Researcher's meeting followed in
2012-3

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

Workshop in Tsuruoka, Japan, Feb 22-25,
2013. Participants drafted plan of filming theirown ICH elements. This project contributed
todesigningfurther
activities
for'documentation' project in 2013-2014.This
project contributed to designing further
activities for 'documentation' project in 20132014.
Field researches on safeguarding measures
in Tsuruoka, Japan (November 8-11, 2011;
January 28- February 3, 2012, February 24March 1, 2012). Relationship-building with
community and municipal government
allowed IRCI to host a workshop on
documentation
Field researches on safeguarding measures.
This project encouraged IRCI to develop the
Mekong Project in 2013-2016.

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH – Minor
contribution

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

MLA 2- Safeguarding of ICH

7 Protecting, promoting andtransmitting heritage

10-11,

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
56

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Inaugural
symposium of IRCI

Symposium held in Sakai, Japan, October 4,
2011. 'ICH Project report vol. 1, 2012 (bySakai City)

MLA2 – minor

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles

Symposium on ICH

Symposium, Feb 17, 2013. 'ICH' project
report vol.2, 2012 (by Sakai City)

MLA2 – minor

Seminars on ICH

ICH seminars. IRCI contributed to seminars.
ICH project report vol. 1, 2012 (by Sakai City)

Not directly related - promoting IRCI withincommunity

ICH panel exhibition

ICH project report vol. 1, 2012 (by Sakai City)

Not directly related - promoting IRCI withincommunity

Spot exhibition on
Southeast
Asian
Puppet Theatre

Exhibition at Sakai City museum. ICH project
report vol. 1, 2012 (by Sakai City)

Not directly related - promoting IRCI withincommunity

6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles
6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles
6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles
6 Supporting inclusive
social development,
fostering interculturaldialogue for therapprochementof cultures and promoting
ethical principles

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
57

Confidential report to UNESCO

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Annexure 7: Long-term and Medium-term Work Programme as approvedby the Governing Board

Review of the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia Pacific Region (IRCI), Final Report.
58