1 / 11

Open ended intergovernmental working group on the right scale or scope of an element

This discussion paper examines the appropriate scope or scale for various contexts in relation to intangible cultural heritage. It explores the concept of the "right" element, the elaboration of nominations, the relevance in different geopolitical and cultural contexts, and the importance of safeguarding. The paper also discusses the inclusivity of inventories and the benefits of inscription on representative and urgent safeguarding lists. Additionally, it examines the feasibility and reproducibility of best safeguarding practices and their potential impact on local communities.

romo
Download Presentation

Open ended intergovernmental working group on the right scale or scope of an element

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Open ended intergovernmental working group on the right scale or scope of an element UNESCO Headquarters 22 and 23 October 2012 Room XI, 10 a.m. – 6 p.m. Discussion paper ‘Right’ for what context? Elements of intangible cultural heritage in inventorying, listing, safeguarding and raising awareness Maria Cecilia Londres Fonseca

  2. Eduard Hildebrant. Largo de Santa Rita. Rio de Janeiro 1844-1846

  3. ‘Right’ element as intangible cultural heritage • In conformity with Article 2 of the 2003 Convention • Recognized by tradition bearers • Priority for elements that are not subject to other protection systems

  4. Appropriateness in the elaboration of the nominations • Not ‘cultural facts’ but ‘constructions’ • Processes and not products • Do not correspond necessarily to the perception of bearers • Requirement for free, prior and informed concent

  5. ‘Right’ for different geopolitical and cultural contexts • Local – recognized by bearers as important references for their identity • National – important references to the historical and cultural formation of the State • International – contribution to the promotion of cultural diversity

  6. ‘Right’ in the context of safeguarding • Inventories (Art. 11 & 12) • Representative List (Art. 16) • Urgent Safeguarding List (Art. 17) • Best Safeguarding Practices (Art.18)

  7. ‘Right’ in the context of inventories • Tool with inclusive nature • Participation of bearers concerned • Inclusion of sufficient information and documentation • Participation of all the countries concerned in case of multinational inventories

  8. ‘Right’ in the context of the Representative List • Inscription that resonates for the national society • New meaning added to the elements already inscribed on the Representative List • Target public that can benefit from inscription

  9. ‘Right’ in the context of the Urgent Safeguarding List • Necessity of urgent safeguarding demonstrated • Contour of element well-defined • Safeguarding plan elaborated with the participation of bearers

  10. ‘Right’ in the context of Best Safeguarding Practices • Feasibility of applying actions in other geopolitical and cultural contexts • Indications of the positive effects • Reproducibility of practices • Can stimulate initiatives appropriate for local situations

  11. Conclusions • The right scope or scale for one context is not appropriate in another context • Management capacity by bearers • Benefit for the communities

More Related