- of China. Fifty-three States Parties took part, as well as three category 2 centres and eight accredited NGOs. This meeting represented a fundamental step in the process of consultation and dialogue between States Parties to achieve the ultimate goal of adopting the framework. Based on the high-level results map put forward by the 2016 expert group, after three days of deliberations the working group unanimously approved a draft overall results framework. In December 2017, during its twelfth session, the Committee endorsed the draft overall results framework and recommended that this session of the General Assembly approve it. In addition, the Committee requested that the Secretariat convene an information meeting in Paris to allow States to familiarize themselves with the overall results framework, its content and the practical implications for them in the future. The information and exchange session was thus held on 20 April at UNESCO Headquarters. This meeting gathered a wide participation from States and accredited NGOs, and the Secretariat presented the draft overall results framework as it stood along with the possible rollout and implementation strategy. A number of States, along with one NGO, raised queries regarding the mechanism and the implementation strategy to be adopted.
- 301. The Secretary presented the results framework annexed to Document 9, which was presented on two tables. One was the so-called high-level framework and the other provided 'core i ndicators ' and ' assessment factors ' . With regard to Table 1, High-level framework with brief indicators, the structure was intended to provide a general overview and summary of the results framework at a glance. The top four rows comprised the impacts and outcomes proposed by the expert group in Beijing and welcomed by the Committee at its eleventh session in 2016. The next rows of the framework presented the eight thematic areas, corresponding to 'core i ndicators ' as adopted by the open-ended working group and endorsed by 12.COM. The twenty-six core indicators presented in Table 1 were abbreviated statements. The content of the eight thematic areas was presented during the information and exchange session on 20 April. These eight thematic areas were chosen to address key areas when implementing the Convention. With regard to Table 2, Core indicators and assessment factors, arranged by thematic areas, it represented the set of twenty-six core indicators in full detail and the eighty-six assessment factors grouped together into these eight thematic areas. The eight thematic areas were not strict or mutually exclusive. Some indicators concerned multiple thematic areas that sought to bundle together three or four indicators, which were related. Thus, certain indicators were closely tied to other thematic areas rather than the one to which they were assigned, but these groupings were meant to be useful and to help keep the indicators in line. For each indicator, the framework presented one or several assessment factors against which that indicator was meant to be assessed. These generally referred to the results within a single State Party and variously included outputs or outcomes. The approach adopted was that of UNESCO's current programme document, the 39 C/5. The assessment factors were all concrete results that could be attained and reported, and those results then demonstrated the extent to which the indicator was attained. Because most indicators have two or more assessment factors, it would be possible to conclude that within the given State Party, an indicator was accomplished fully or to a lesser degree. For example, in indicator 5, part of the theme ' Transmission and education ' , this indicator sought to measure the extent to which intangible cultural heritage and its safeguarding were integrated into primary and secondary education. Four assessment factors had been defined, each one dealing with a specific aspect of this general topic. As mentioned, these assessment factors were expressed as results. Although some were simple outputs, most of them were higher-level outcomes to the extent possible. The far-right column included citations to relevant provisions of the Convention or Operational Directives. This column was important to show that States Parties report on things that they had already been encouraged to or were required to do by the Convention or by previous decisions of the General Assembly. There were a few cases that did not have specific citations but which referred to Good Practices or other measures that had been seen to work effectively in different countries.
- 302. The Secretary explained that a major challenge, of course, was having a results framework that represented the contributions of many diverse actors who have a role in implementing