LHE/20/8.GA/INF.1 - page 17

- September 2018 to take up the remaining items of the agenda in the ad hoc working group and it looked forward to receiving support for the draft recommendations, which would be presented to the Committee in Port Louis, Mauritius.
- 70. The delegation of Japan appreciated the great efforts of the Committee members and especially Mr Byong-hyun Lee during the informal ad hoc working group, and it expressed gratitude to the Secretariat for preparing the documents. It appreciated that the ad hoc working group had actively discussed the issues related to dialogue between the submitting States and the Evaluation Body, as well as the decision-making process for the Committee on nominations. Through the discussions of the ad hoc working group, it became clear that the submitting States and Evaluation Body had formed a sort of vicious circle in which both of them bore the burden of excessive work that sometimes led nowhere. In order to stop this vicious circle, the delegation stressed the importance of recalling the original purpose of the Convention. Article 2 of the Convention provided the definition of intangible cultural heritage and certain forms of cultural elements that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This provision highlights the unique character of the definition of intangible cultural heritage, which did not refer to Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), regarded as essential for inscription on the World Heritage List. Based on such definitions, the Operational Directives specify the criteria for intangible cultural heritage nominations, including consistency with the definition of Article 2 of the Convention, visibility, awareness and dialogue, safeguarding measures, the widest possible participation of communities, and their free, prior and informed consent. For this reason, the delegation believed that the evaluation process should confirm that the nominated element met those criteria rather than try and evaluate the cultural values of the nominated element, let alone the OUV. The delegation therefore suggested reviewing the intangible cultural heritage evaluation process that recalled the original purpose and objective of the Convention in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and the Operational Directives. The delegation also believed that such a review would help accelerate the pace of inscription and reduce the burden for all States. It was also pertinent to further strengthen capacity building, given that some countries only had a few inscriptions on the Representative List despite their wealth of intangible cultural heritage. Thus, the capacity-building programmes should be enhanced through workshops and training in a win-win approach, benefitting both the submitting States and the Evaluation Body.
- 71. The delegation of Turkey thanked Mr Byong-hyun Lee for the report, adding that it had actively contributed to the deliberations of the ad hoc working group throughout 2017 and had held extensive discussions on the possible establishment of a dialogue mechanism. While the delegation valued dialogue as an important tool to enhance the Convention's work, what was understood by ' dialogue ' in this Convention was different from the 1972 Convention. In this Convention, the Evaluation Body evaluated the file itself, not the OUV of the element. To increase the quality of the files, the delegation believed that technical assistance was required. Thus, the focus of the work should be on how to assist States in preparing better nomination files. Thus, before introducing a dialogue mechanism, it was important to take note of the impact of measures already undertaken. It was noted that the working group had also taken up funding mechanisms of the Convention, the implementation of recommendations of the Open-Ended Working Group on Governance, and interaction with the accredited NGOs under the Convention. The delegation would continue to contribute in this regard.
- 72. The delegation of Austria congratulated the Chairperson on her election and thanked the Secretariat for its dedicated work and excellent preparation of the meeting. It also thanked Mr Byong-hyun Lee and the Republic of Korea for the organization and chairing of the meetings, in particular, the two open-ended meetings that contributed to making this complex process more transparent and inclusive. The delegation also thanked the Evaluation Body for its valuable feedback, input and suggestions during the process, adding that it was 100 per cent in favour of dialogue and any measures that may help States Parties submit good files. It fully agreed that the politicization of the Committee's work should be avoided in the future. As pointed out by members of the Evaluation Body, it seemed reasonable to first