LHE/20/8.GA/INF.1 - page 55

- the Convention. Indicator 5 covered interventions by State actors, as primary and secondary education was generally a public responsibility. However, indicator 4, for example, indicated that the assessment factor also included results obtained by non-State actors. For instance, factor 4.3 referred to programmes and initiatives undertaken by communities, groups, NGOs or heritage institutions. While developing the results framework, there had been an attempt in the spirit of the Convention to include results that came from the bottom up, from initiatives of communities, groups and individuals, and from civil society actors involved in implementing the Convention. These were all important results and it was essential that the results framework capture these alongside interventions by States. It was also noted that the indicators were never expressed in terms of the 'extent to which' the State Party had done x or accomplished y . The States were indeed the primary reporters, but once again there were many diverse actors contributing to the results. Each State Party may report results for one or more of these assessment factors, and by considering them together one could measure at a certain time the extent to which the indicator was achieved at the country level. By having multiple assessment factors for each indicator, one was able to calculate whether the indicator was fully attained, partially attained or to what degree. In the longer term, as the Secretariat collects and compiles information from the States, one could also see the extent to which the indicator could be achieved globally or was being achieved globally - how many States were fully achieving it, partially achieving or not at any given time. Therefore, the purpose of the indicators and assessment factors was to get a global picture on the status of the implementation of the Convention, but they were very much intended to also be useful to States Parties themselves for use in monitoring implementation at the national level. So, this should allow each State to assess its own achievements and results using a shared framework, and for all States to see how well the Convention was being implemented at the global level. This did not mean that States were given marks or scores, or that they were ranked against each other. Therefore, these indicators needed to function both at the country level and at the global level. When core i ndicators referred to the 'extent to which' , this should be understood in two ways depending on the context. For monitoring and evaluation on the global level, 'extent to which' would mean the proportional percentage of States Parties in which a given situation existed, or change that had been achieved and its degree. When the same indicator was used by a State Party for its monitoring and evaluation at the country level, the 'extent to which' referred to the degree to which that given situation existed or change had been achieved within the territory of that State.
- 303. The Secretary drew the Assembly's attention to illustrate its future use. First of all, the results framework would have to be complemented by other tools. If the indicators were going to be applied consistently it would be important to provide clear guidelines to States Parties. Typically, with a results framework like this, each indicator is accompanied by a guidance note or explanation. For the open-ended working group, the Secretariat had prepared two samples of such guidance notes and it planned to further develop one note for each of the twenty-six indicators should the overall results framework be adopted in this current session. However, a results framework is not complete until it has baselines and targets. Their establishment would happen at a later stage as it was important to first agree on the framework itself. The baselines and targets were also tied to specific monitoring and reporting periods and would always be adjusted from one period to the next, while indicators and assessment factors were expected to be more stable over time. This did not mean the indicators were unchangeable, but they were not expected to change with every reporting cycle. The 2013 IOS recommendation to develop an overall results framework for the Convention on clear objectives, time frames, indicators and benchmarks also provided recommendations on the results-based approach to improve the periodic reporting. Therefore, the adoption of an overall results framework called for a reflection on how the periodic reporting process could become more than just a reporting obligation, but rather a learning opportunity for States Parties to periodically take stock of their achievements and challenges, and to define or redefine their national priorities for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. It was clear from the beginning that the adoption of an overall results framework should not mean additional reporting obligations for States nor a parallel system