C Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Andries Gryffroy, rapporteur
1 Introduction:
intangible cultural heritage as a “living heritage”
1. The motion which prompted this
report (
Doc. 14041) states that “[g]lobalisation and the information society
are radically changing the way we produce, consume, communicate
with others and live our daily lives. Many of our local, regional
and national traditions (music, song, dance, festivals, rituals,
farming practices, cuisine, dialects, etc.) are disappearing; little
by little, age-old occupations, craft activities and the corresponding
skills and know-how are being lost”.
2. My report builds however on a “positive” vision of intangible
cultural heritage (ICH) as a “living heritage”, which – as the 2003
Convention
for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) (“ICH Convention”) states in its definition
(Article 2) – concerns practices, representations, expressions,
knowledge and skills “transmitted from generation to generation,
and constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to
their environment, their interaction with nature and their history”.
3. Obviously, this is the inherent potency and resilience of
ICH, but it entails also the continuous fragility of ICH being subject
to so many variables. Industrialisation, urban development, the
expansion of mass tourism, the standardisation of lifestyles in
towns and villages, and of the various forms of knowledge and skills
all constitute a context which places the intangible cultural heritage
in a vulnerable position. This is why I am convinced of the importance
of exploring the diverse forms of partnerships between those involved
in its safeguarding and also of looking at the way in which they
pursue their action together at local, national and international
level, to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage in a viable
manner.
4. The idea is not to shield the intangible cultural heritage
and rigidly entrench age-old practices, but rather to enable them
to develop and evolve with the times, and to encourage actual practices
that are vitally embedded in contemporary society and are flourishing
in interaction with other cultures.
5. According to the ICH Convention, these living heritage practices
manifest themselves, among others, in the following domains: oral
traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the
intangible cultural heritage; performing arts; social practices,
rituals and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature
and the universe; and traditional craftsmanship. It is important
to note that this is not an exhaustive list of the areas constituting
the intangible cultural heritage. Each country is free to choose
the areas, including additional ones, such as traditional sports,
cuisine or healing practices.
6. The
Council
of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage
for Society (CETS No. 199, “Faro Convention”) of 2005 emphasises
the important aspects of heritage as it relates to human rights and
democracy. It recognises that cultural heritage is valuable for
its own sake and for the contribution it can make to other policies.
The Convention promotes a wider understanding of heritage and its
relationship to communities and society, and defines an all-embracing
framework which is necessary to ensure that cultural heritage and
culture in general have their rightful place at the centre of a
new vision for sustainable development.
7. In particular, the Faro Convention highlights the growing
importance of cultural heritage relative to:
- sustainable development: cultural heritage is seen as
a precious resource in the integration of the different dimensions
of development – cultural, ecological, economic, social and political;
- globalisation: cultural heritage is a resource for the
protection of cultural diversity and a sense of belonging (putting
down roots) in the face of growing standardisation;
- renewed awareness of the cultural identity dimension in
conflicts: cultural heritage is a resource through which to develop
dialogue, democratic debate and openness between cultures.
8. Indeed, intangible cultural heritage cross-cuts all domains
of society with its cultural, ecological, economic, social and political
dimensions. For example, it can be closely associated: to income
generation and tourism for sustaining livelihoods and inclusive
economic development; to water and energy management, to food security,
to health care and quality education for all (as part of an inclusive
social development); to environmental sustainability through stronger
community-based resilience to natural disasters and climate change;
and also to the peace and security dimension of sustainable development
through prevention of disputes and post-conflict resolution.
Note
9. In the following chapters, I therefore propose to consider
intangible cultural heritage from different angles. Chapter 2 will
consider intangible cultural heritage as an integral part of sustainable
development, both in the urban and rural context. Chapter 3 focuses
on ICH in the context of cultural diversity, which is a key issue for
the Council of Europe having direct impact on the democratic stability
of our continent. Transmission of intangible cultural heritage between
generations is fundamental to preserving ICH since many traditions
and knowledge would otherwise disappear; therefore, Chapter 4 considers
how best to pass on this knowledge and know-how through different
forms of education and vocational training. Chapter 5 focuses on
impacts of new technologies and digital society on ICH, both positive
and negative. In terms of processes and governance (and in line
with both the ICH Convention and the Faro Convention), Chapter 6
highlights the importance of facilitating a “bottom- up” approach,
by providing examples of grassroots involvement and participation.
Finally, the last chapter proposes some policy guidelines and concrete
measures that could be implemented at State and European level.
10. I wish to thank Ms Jorijn Neyrinck, independent expert for
intangible cultural heritage in Belgium, who contributed with her
knowledge and field experience to preparing this report. I also
wish to thank all the other experts who participated in our committee
meetings and those whom I met during the two fact-finding visits
in Croatia (July 2018) and in Georgia (September 2018). Their strong
commitment, enthusiasm, experience and many interesting thoughts
nourish this report.
2 Intangible cultural heritage from
a sustainable development perspective
11. Since the adoption, in 2015,
of the United Nations
2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, Europe spoke with a strong voice to consider culture
as a 4th pillar of sustainable development.
Note Moreover,
a new chapter was added to the Operational Directives of the 2003
Convention in 2016, elaborating on safeguarding ICH and sustainable
development.
Note It shows a clear link with the UN
Agenda 2030 and can provide inspiration. We would therefore need
monitoring and evidence-gathering in Europe to provide a convincing
input for the (future) Agenda 2045 in which culture, including intangible
heritage, can be one of the key elements.
2.1 ICH
in an increasingly urbanised society
12. Almost three quarters of the
European population live in urban areas and this is foreseen to
rise to over 80% by 2050.
Note Rural-to-urban migration
has obviously a growing impact on ICH and it would be necessary
to develop new and creative approaches towards safeguarding ICH
in order to minimise the negative impacts of urbanisation while
maximising the potential of ICH to contribute to a more cohesive
society. For example ICH has the potential to help migrants build
bridges with other communities. ICH can also equip rural-to-urban migrants
with the tools to enhance their quality of life in urban settings.
Note
13. The recent UN New Urban Agenda – Habitat III
Note highlights the role of ICH in urban
sustainable development. In this context, the European Union calls
on member States to enhance the role of cultural heritage within
sustainable development, focusing on urban and rural planning, redevelopment
and rehabilitation projects.
Note
14. ICH remains nevertheless very productive for rural development
and renewal through cultural, social, economic and environmental
development. For example, ICH contributes to sustaining rural traditional
skills, knowledge and identities that are grounded in the local
area.
15. Moreover, urban and rural ICH dynamics are interdependent
and they overlap in many ways, largely owing to increasing mobility
of people, wide access to media, sustainable tourism and economic
initiatives, etc. For example, people regularly travel to the countryside
to spend holidays “back home”, to celebrate family bonds, and/or
to (re)connect with ritual and festive events, enjoying the experience
of local traditions, crafts and cuisine in a rural environment;
and vice versa, culturally diverse rural food traditions, rituals
and festivities find their way into urban life and neighbourhoods.
16. This illustrates the influence that cultural heritage can
have on society and the economy, fostering a sense of belonging
and well-being, underpinning the cultural and creative sectors,
and offering a playing field for the micro-economy with small and
medium-sized enterprises from local communities.
2.2 ICH
in sustainable economies and tourism
17. Handicrafts are an important
ICH element for the micro-economy and the local economy. Traditional knowledge
and skills can indeed inspire innovation, be enhanced where appropriate
by new technologies, and contribute to sustainable development.
18. The programme Handmade in Brugge
Note delivers a convincing experiment.
Being a World Heritage city, Bruges offers an interesting case of
a city which applies stringent heritage management while having
to face mass tourism pressures. For centuries, the city flourished
with high-skilled craftspeople and workshops, but this has gone
through a steep decline in recent years owing to the consequences
of large-scale production and distribution, mass tourism and high
real estate prices. A coalition of local partners then launched
the Handmade in Brugge programme which combines ICH safeguarding
approaches with an urban integrated policy agenda which interlocks
local economy, tourism, education, cultural policy and sustainable
development. The programme connects a diversity of actors in the
city, including individual craftspeople, local associations of entrepreneurs,
the cultural sector and the City Council. Various initiatives are
provided to encourage and support local craftspeople, with room
for experimentation and contemporary approaches which link the past with
the present and the future.
19. The case of the Gondola manufacture in Venice is another enchanting
experience combining crafts and sustainable tourism.
Note Collaboration grew from trying to
find solutions and methods to safeguard the arts and crafts of the
Laguna. It gathered a cluster of legal experts, anthropologists,
cultural economists and associations of crafts for making gondolas,
Murano glass and Burano lace, as well as political and administrative
actors. They tried to find a solution, inspired by the Faro Convention,
and decided to cultivate a “heritage community” in Venice as part
of a wider “Venetian community”. This initiative led to creating
a register for the identification and monitoring of heritage items.
Most importantly, it was crucial to steer away from attempts for
individual candidatures for each craft or practice, and to think
in terms of a bigger safeguarding plan for crafts of the Laguna.
20. Several publications on ICH and crafts in Europe may feed
our reflection and policy orientation. In Austria, a study surveyed
the state of traditional craftsmanship.
Note It
seeks to define and analyse the parameters within which traditional
craftsmanship exists, to assess relative degrees of endangerment
and to determine the future importance of traditional craftsmanship
in terms of cultural policy and the economy. The online publication
“Future for crafts”
Note is a guidebook as well as an inspiration
for policy and craft-related activities that can make crafts viable
in the future and more visible (future-proof). It offers a wide
range of insights and practical tips and tricks for policy makers,
craftsmen, entrepreneurs and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
that are active with respect to craftsmanship and are being confronted
with the current modern-day challenges.
2.3 Connecting
food traditions and culinary heritage to sustainability
21. Initiatives on food traditions
and sustainability are trending all over Europe and seem to have
become a lab of civil society engagement for more sustainable ways
of producing and consuming. There is a recent and quite impressive
rise in short food supply chain initiatives, building mostly on
local community farming and production. These initiatives very often
seek ways to (re)connect with local food traditions and identities.
They show the strong interest people have for more sustainable ways
of producing and consuming while at the same time valuing the richness
and wisdom to be found in regional cuisine and its heritage experience.
22. In Georgia for example, the traditional techniques of making
ancient Pshavian food “Dambalkhacho” (soaked cottage cheese)
Note were inscribed on the national ICH
protection list in 2014. The technique was revived thanks to the
initiative of Soso Rigishvili’s family in Tianeti Municipality.
With the help of a State grant, the family expanded the production
and with 10 or 12 other families they now regularly supply the Tbilisi shopping
malls. As a national product, Dambalkhacho actively participates
in the cheese festival and various exhibition-sales of national
products. The Georgian Agricultural Research Center is intensively
studying the product, working on its standard, production rules,
composition and technology to prepare the product for commercialisation
throughout Georgia.
23. Similarly, different projects of urban and community gardening
are popping up in city contexts, just like the various local markets
offering traditional products, or micro-breweries using traditional
recipes, traditional bakeries,
cuisine
du terroir, etc. Specific heritage projects are now devoted
to these topics, such as
AlpFoodway:
a cross-border project being set up in the Alps documenting in a
cross-disciplinary way the Alpine food cultural heritage (benefiting
from support from the Interreg project).
Note
2.4 ICH,
sustainable health and well-being
24. ICH can provide an important
contribution to sustainable health and well-being; this is an emerging
field. In this respect, the European branch of the World Health
Organization (WHO) is collaborating with UNESCO to explore crossovers
with ICH, in response to a call in Europe for more locally grounded
and culturally sensitive approaches to health.
Note
25. In Greece, for example, childhood obesity is worryingly high.
The increase in obesity resulted from unhealthy food habits and
difficult living conditions which were a direct result of harsh
economic circumstances in the country. Ancient healthy and balanced
food traditions based on a Mediterranean diet of olive oil, fruit
and vegetables are being lost in favour of cheaper food solutions
– often rich in fats and sugars. Research is therefore conducted
on ways to foster healthy food habits, by reconnecting to the food
heritage of the living environment.
2.5 ICH
and sustainable management of the natural environment
26. ICH is also a significant resource
for traditional knowledge and know-how regarding the sustainable management
of the surrounding natural environment. In Catalonia (Spain), the
safeguarding of ICH has aroused the interest of managers of natural
protected areas. They consider the traditional knowledge and practices
related to nature fundamental both for the preservation of the environment
and for the continuity of local traditional practices. The pioneering
project at the Montseny Natural Park and Biosphere Reserve
Note has been followed in 2017 and 2018
by an inventory by the Cadí-Moixeró Natural Park. The involvement
of an interdisciplinary team (anthropologists, environmental scientists,
historians and others) has been crucial to identify, document and
enhance ICH practices in this field.
3 ICH
in the context of a culturally diverse society
27. The large influx of migrants
in Western Europe has decisively altered the ethnic composition
of all the major cities. It redefines the notion of community and
thus also of intangible heritage. The examples below show that ICH
can indeed become a constant source for shaping vivid and cohesive
sustainable cities and communities. It can offer people a sense
of continuity but also the resilience and dynamics to adapt to a
rapidly growing cultural diversity.
28. In Finland, a Wiki-inventory for Living Heritage was launched
on the internet in 2016. It offers different communities an opportunity
to present their own ICH. The platform has become an avenue of expression
for many heritage communities and groups, opening eyes to the diversity
in the country. Among the first entries on the Wiki were the Romani
song tradition, Sami handicrafts, the minuet tradition in Finland’s
Swedish-speaking community and African dance and music in Finnish
African communities. Cultural diversity has been an issue that the
National Board of Antiquities has stressed in the work with the
Convention right from the start. Close co-operation with NGOs and
institutions working with minorities has been a key issue along
the way, facilitating the process of inclusive ICH policies.
29. In Georgia, ICH-related workshops and training are regularly
held with both minority and diaspora communities. An interesting
project “We illustrate the World Fairy Tales” was implemented with
high school students (from Azerbaijan, Armenian and Russian public
schools; from Polish and the Ukraine Diasporas educational centers)
where they created and freely illustrated their native fairy tales.
The Georgian National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation
Note published this collection in five
minority languages and in Georgian translation as well.
30. In Rotterdam, ethnic or religious festivals such as Diwali,
Keti Koti and the Chinese New Year have evolved into communal festivals
shared by all. This happens through the interplay of different stakeholders
in a dynamic, culturally diversified environment and a shared urban
space. At the same time, in the super-diverse city district of West-Kruiskade
in Rotterdam, new forms of social belonging appear in which the
diversity of intangible heritage is celebrated as something to share.
31. The Mechelse Ommegang is
a large scale procession taking place in the Belgian city of Mechelen,
once every 25 years. Being an important social event and symbol
for the city, this represented a challenge for the youngest “Ommegang”
in 2013, since the local population had changed and diversified
over the past quarter of a century. Various participative actions
and projects were organised to involve new inhabitants and as a result
the giants were modified to reflect the current cultural diversity.
The traditional giants’ song was transformed into a rap song. Information
leaflets were distributed explaining the tradition to people and educational
activities were set up for the young. The Heritage Cell Mechelen
acted as a key mediator for these heritage safeguarding efforts
and cultural dialogue.
32. Every year in September
, the
Tocatì Festival fills the centre of Verona with a programme full
of events and street games. The city centre dazzles with traditional
music, dances and games, activities for children and, of course,
delicious local food. The Tocatì Festival, organised by
Associazione
Giochi Antichi, pays particular attention to traditional games, especially
those linked to local history. Games are most often handed down
from one generation to another. At the same time, it is the annual
meeting of a network of traditional games and sports associations
from across Europe. Visitors are also encouraged to take part in
the games.
4 Transmission
of ICH through lifelong learning and education
33. Intangible heritage is all
about passing on “embodied knowledge”. This knowledge and know-how
is contained in the bodies, heads and hands of people. The craftsman,
the storyteller, the dancer, etc., they all inherited and handed
down skills, knowledge and know-how to new generations of practitioners,
young or old, from here or elsewhere. Hence, “learning” is core
and omnipresent in ICH, and it is lifelong. Transmission of the
ICH practice, skills and know-how is the first and foremost objective,
if we want to succeed in safeguarding and enhancing ICH.
34. European Strategy 21 is devoted to learning heritage and traditional
skills, crafts and know-how. The UN 2030 Agenda (Sustainable Development
Goal No. 4 on “quality education and lifelong learning”) highlights
the importance of access to vocational learning. Within the Overall
Results Framework for the ICH Convention, there is a thematic area
devoted to “transmission and education” which mobilises and defines
objectives and indicators to monitor the impact of the Convention
in this area.
35. Several ICH domains are directly linked to post-secondary
education such as technical and vocational training; and many traditional
occupations, knowledge and apprentice systems provide effective
examples of developing technical and vocational skills.
36. For example, a learning system in France consists of the
compagnonnage (partnership), which
is a unique teaching method for transferring craft-related knowledge
and skills. The national training is a combination of initiation
rituals, formal instruction and an educational “
Tour de France”. The instruction
can start for young people aged 16 and lasts on average for five
years. At the end of the training, they take a master. The system
of the
compagnonnage, as a
network of transmission, in which some 45 000 people are involved in
France, has been registered since 2010 on the Representative List
of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
Note
37. Sharing and transmission of ICH has always been the core of
the work of The Storytelling Network of Kronoberg. Passionate about
their work with youth, they have educational programmes which span
from eight-month modules to university courses. The activities aim
to raise awareness about storytelling and transmitting the art but
are also used as a tool to reach the goal of the curriculum itself.
In addition, they can contribute to solving problems associated
with dyslexia, bullying, or special needs of immigrant children
– to help them improve their knowledge of the Swedish language and
ways of life and using stories to connect people in their diversity.
As a result, children and young people realise that we often share
the same stories as a “common” intangible cultural heritage.
38. In Finland, ICH and education webpage
Note was launched on the occasion of
the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018, especially targeted
for schools. An educational tool was put together about ICH in Finland,
but also at European level, with links to inventories across the
world, video links, discussion cards, etc.
5 Intangible
cultural heritage and digital society
39. The digital revolution is profoundly
affecting our cultural experience, not only in terms of new technology-based
access, production and dissemination, but also in terms of participation
and creation, and learning and partaking in a knowledgeable society.
Note Digital media have become powerful
forums for managing, expressing, sharing and exchanging content
and contacts on safeguarding and enhancing ICH.
40. We should take account of the rich and new possibilities offered
by the information technologies to preserve, enhance and share ICH.
In this respect, the Faro Convention invites Parties to “develop
the use of digital technology”, for example, web inventories, virtual
visits and the use of 3D technologies. These techniques should make
it possible “to enhance access to cultural heritage and the benefits
which derive from it” (Article 14). Also Strategy 21 recommendation
S7 promotes collaborative platforms for making inventories. Since
making participatory inventories is one of the obligations for States
Parties to the ICH Convention, incentives should be provided to
accommodate digital methods and platforms on inventorying ICH and safeguarding
practices in Europe.
41. In terms of digital inventories, a European funded
i-treasures.eu project experiments
with ICT-based documenting and transmitting to apprentices rare
know-how and skills from
Living
Human Treasures; it proposes novel methodologies and new technological
paradigms based on multisensory technology. Other examples would
be the efforts of Memoriamedia.net to map e-inventories of ICH
Note and
the multi-actor network co-operation which has been growing around
the participatory digital inventorying of ICH.
42. However, digitisation is not free of challenges for ICH. The
Council of Europe has already pointed out the risks to European
cultural diversity and the need for adequate conditions for cultural
content in the digital age. How can practitioners, groups and communities
cope with disruptive effects and considerable transformations in
ICH practices as a result of the digital revolution? In this respect,
we can take as examples crafts versus 3D-printing, or new virtual
communities being spread worldwide but connected and exchanging via
the internet. Also the digital documentation and transmission of
ICH is still a relatively unexplored territory, generating questions
of ownership, intellectual property rights, balancing the plea for
open data (freely available to everyone to use and republish) on
the one hand and secrecy and discretion on the other.
6 ICH
communities and participation
43. During our discussions with
the experts, we all agreed on the need to closely involve local
people in the safeguarding process. Indeed it is up to the local
communities, groups and individuals concerned by ICH to freely define
their own intangible cultural heritage, and they ought to closely
participate in the policy processes to create a heritage safeguarding
plan. The Faro Convention emphasises this point, using the term
“democratic participation” and encouraging everyone to participate
in “the process of identification, study, interpretation, protection,
conservation and presentation of the cultural heritage” (Article
12).
44. The idea of “the widest possible participation of the Communities,
groups and individuals (CGIs) concerned and with their free, prior
and informed consent” is used when States Parties nominate an element for
the Lists of the ICH Convention.
45. However, in this respect, it is important to emphasise the
negative consequences that would result from de-contextualising
intangible cultural heritage in practice. For example, performing
traditional dances for tourists on a massive scale, or displacing
a ritual from its fixed date for commercial gain, risk breaching
the connection people experience with their heritage. This brings
with it negative effects for the viability of the ICH and decisively
changes the dynamics of the living heritage. Carefully balanced
development of ICH is therefore always a key issue. In 2016, a set
of 12 ethical principles was adopted to complement the ICH Convention, addressing
mostly the fragile balance between respect for the autonomy of “Communities,
groups and individuals concerned” on the one hand, and guidelines
as well as limits to interventions in the safeguarding of ICH, on
the other hand.
Note
46. An exemplary practice can be found in the work of the Batana
Ecomuseum
Note and its many partners on its local
maritime heritage in the Adriatic coastal town of Rovinj in Croatia.
The
batana is a traditional
wooden boat which the community has chosen as its symbol. It is
a precious bond connecting the local residents of various ethnicities.
The safeguarding actions for the
batana have
subsequently resulted in a lively dynamic to revive this practice
and in particular to bring it closer to younger generations. For
example, the Eco-museum offers permanent exhibitions and workshops
for young people and children; boat-building workshops and regattas
are organised; an itinerary has been developed for visitors to experience
sailing on
batana and tasting local
cuisine and singing in a
konoba, thus
reviving the ancient practices and community living which were associated
with the
batana. Since 2016,
The Batana Ecomuseum has been listed in the UNESCO Register of Good
Safeguarding Practices for intangible cultural heritage.
47. Models and methods of participatory governance are needed
to address the challenge of setting up fair and feasible heritage
community participation. Europe thrives on a widespread tradition
of active citizenship and engagement in a variety of associations,
clubs, NGOs, civil society organisations, etc. This social capital is
favouring collaborative processes of governance, but successful
practices are not so obvious or spontaneous when it comes to multi-stakeholder
conversations, confrontations and governance on what we could call
“heritage commons” with divergent issues at stake and levels of
proximity and involvement. These participatory processes will require
a sustained effort to develop practices, pilot projects and expertise
in the coming years.
48. A wide range of actors in Europe are active in the safeguarding
of ICH, including NGOs, civil society organisations, folk culture
and local history associations, eco-museums and other community
museums, professional heritage institutions such as documentary
heritage centers and archives, academic institutions and research
centres, etc. Networks among these actors are emerging internationally.
49. NGOs accredited under the ICH Convention have set up a (global)
ICH NGO Forum
Note since 2009, to foster discussion
and co-operation among NGOs, as well as to offer a contact point
for third parties. The Forum has developed into a platform for sharing
information and experiences internationally. A general programme for
NGOs has been set up to create links with ongoing networking and
sharing of skills at a regional and national level.
Note UNESCO-accredited
NGOs that are based in Europe are by far outnumbering other geographical
regions. This indicates the enormous potential for active co-operation
around ICH with NGOs and diverse actors from civil society alike.
European policies ought to provide support for these processes.
50. For example, in Nordic States, transnational and multi-stakeholder
co-operation on the safeguarding of ICH is flourishing. Joint capacity-building
programmes have been set up, as well as a recent digital platform where
Nordic safeguarding practices are being documented and shared.
Note Another vibrant example of co-operation
on the multi-actor and international level is the initiative on
urban cultures, superdiversity and ICH, which was initiated by a
collaboration of NGOs, UNESCO national commissions and research
institutes.
Note In Scotland, there is the important
work of Museums and Galleries Scotland (MGS),
Note a museum network signing up to a
country-wide ICH safeguarding strategy and an online wiki for ICH
in Scotland.
51. A new phase of collaboration is emerging with initiatives
such as the ICH and Museums Project (IMP), supported by the European
Union programme Creative Europe, bringing together five nationally
active ICH network organisations – Workshop intangible heritage
Flanders (Belgium), Dutch Centre for Intangible Heritage (Netherlands),
SIMBDEA (Italy), Verband der Museen der Schweiz (Switzerland) and
the French Center for Intangible Culturel Heritage – with associated
partnerships with ICOM, NEMO and the ICH Convention NGO Forum. They
have set up a European co-operation and exchange project exploring
the contact zone between museums’ work and safeguarding ICH development.
Note However, in comparison with monumental,
landscape, movable or digital heritage, the EU funding for ICH-related
projects remains small and underdeveloped.
52. Transnational networking and co-operation among ICH practitioners
and communities in Europe is omnipresent. Among numerous examples:
“Les Géants du Nord” gather together the French and Belgian processional
giant communities;
Note lace making associations and schools
from Croatia, Slovenia, Belgium and the Czech Republic have set
up exchanges and have been collaborating for many decades;
Note or the European Roma and Travellers
Forum.
53. The European platform for traditional sports and games (TSG)
Note is another example, showing evidence of
the impact international policy can generate to stimulate networking
and co-operation. The TSG Platform stems from multiple collaboration
initiatives
Note and transnational projects (Erasmus+)
in previous years. The co-operation was fostered by the ICH Convention,
which recognises that traditional sports and games are part of our
intangible heritage and a symbol of the cultural diversity of our
societies. In 2006, UNESCO organised a consultation, bringing together
the main actors involved in the process of safeguarding and valuing
traditional sports and games to create an international platform
for their promotion and development. This helped to create a TSG
informal world network, bringing together local communities, experts,
NGOs and national and international institutions. In Europe, this
process stimulated the creation of the European Traditional Sports
and Games Association.
7 Conclusions
and recommendations
54. In the wake of the wide ratification
of the ICH Convention, national, regional and local ICH policies
are being established throughout Europe, demonstrating different
potential approaches and solutions to integrate ICH into heritage
and other legislative frameworks. Notwithstanding guiding principles
for cultural heritage policy in the Faro Convention and the Council
of Europe Strategy 21, I believe that the development of ICH in Europe
requires a dedicated policy vision text on the safeguarding of ICH,
in order to establish a level playing field as regards the cultural
heritage conventions for the European context, to enhance ICH policies
and measures to their full potential, and to act as a compass for
orientation for the multiple actors that are emerging across Europe
and are committed to safeguarding ICH. Therefore, I propose to promote
a policy vision on safeguarding and enhancing ICH in Europe, taking
the following components into account.
7.1 Safeguarding
ICH in an integrated approach
55. ICH is a living heritage, manifesting
itself through all domains of society. It is part of a wider context
with its cultural, ecological, economic, social and political dimensions.
The policy vision for ICH should therefore highlight interdependence
between the safeguarding and enhancing of ICH and a wider political
commitment towards sustainable development. Policy vision should
offer guidance to address this global-local challenge.
Note
56. To implement this, public authorities should foster local
and regional development projects and strategies, urban development
projects and strategies, micro-economy, creative economy and sustainable tourism
initiatives that would integrate sustainable safeguarding and enhancement
of ICH in close co-operation with ICH communities. Incentives should
be provided through funding for multi-stakeholder co-operation projects
(joint ventures) and effective platforms for sharing expertise and
experience.
7.2 Safeguarding
ICH and its relation to cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue
57. We need to link the vision
on safeguarding of ICH with a vision on cultural diversity and European
policy on intercultural dialogue. Cultural diversity should be taken
as an attitude and guiding principle in safeguarding and enhancing
ICH, thereby bringing honour to Europe’s credo of “unity in diversity”.
It could be a vision to promote macrodiversity, which stands for
safeguarding a diversity of ICH practices in Europe, as well as microdiversity,
embracing diversity and dialogue within the individual ICH practice
and its heritage community.
58. This vision stands for “a common heritage embracing pluralism”.
It empowers cultural identity, and at the same time it brings also
dynamic change and adaptation. Drawing on this vision, one can make
room for bonding, bridging and linking people and their heritage(s)
in an intercultural dialogue around a shared involvement with ICH
and its safeguarding in our societies.
7.3 ICH
communities and participatory multi-stakeholder governance
59. The spirit of Article 15 of
the ICH Convention, which highlights participation,
Note ought to be integrated with the
“heritage community” approach as introduced by the Faro Convention.
The idea of a heritage community – “people who value specific aspects
of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public
action, to sustain and transmit to future generations” (Article
2) – is central to the right to culture and cultural heritage. In
other words, it is a right to access and be involved in heritage
making. This combined approach would allow an understanding of “communities,
groups and, where appropriate, individuals”, as the involved “heritage community”
or “ICH community”.
60. Moreover, guidelines would be needed to accommodate fair and
feasible participatory multi-stakeholder governance; keeping an
eye on proportionality in which the practitioners remain at all
times empowered to activate their “custody” on the ICH practice.
7.4 Intangible–tangible
heritage interaction
61. Conventions dealing with tangible
and intangible cultural heritage abide by different inherent logic: protection
versus safeguarding; unique or exceptional versus representative
heritage and tangible heritage versus heritage that is “embodied”
in people and actions (living heritage). They bring with them diverging concepts
and interpretations, objectives and operational directives. Nonetheless,
the Faro Convention offers an overall framework, by re-framing all
heritage in relation to its value for society and by advocating
an integrated approach and citizen participation.
62. In conceptual terms, clear dispositions on either tangible
or intangible entries would help to facilitate dialogue and to recognise
where connections and shared objectives may be retrieved. In practical
terms, stimulating closer links between tangible and intangible
heritage would bring many actors closer together, and provide existing
expertise and infrastructure in the field of tangible heritage (heritage
experts, museums, libraries, archives, etc.) to grassroots initiatives
for safeguarding and enhancing intangible heritage. Such partnerships
require however a certain degree of flexibility to accommodate the
informal nature of grassroots activities.
7.5 ICH
and education
63. I believe that we need to develop
actions that invigorate training related to the safeguarding of
ICH. We need to devote attention not only to higher education in
universities and other academic institutions, but also to lifelong
learning as well as to generating diverse types of employment that
promote traditional knowledge and skills. Special attention should
be given to action lines on vocational learning, in particular for craftsmanship
but also other practices that are associated with ICH (which may
range from a specialised niche mastership in performing arts, to
knowledge on medicinal herbs and healing, or for example a particular traditional
farming, herding or fishing practice, etc.). Opportunities and grants
for acquiring ICH skills and competences should be created, for
example through apprenticeships or fellowship, and by supporting mobility.
7.6 ICH
and digital society
64. We ought to provide incentives
to encourage possibilities for innovation and for the safeguarding
of ICH offered by information technologies. For example we would
need to accommodate digital methods and tools for ICH inventories
and for safeguarding practices so that they could be harmonised
in Europe (technically and methodologically aligned). I believe
this would further stimulate exchanges and knowledge sharing (European digital
cultural strategies).
7.7 Synergies
and co-operation at European level
65. In terms of stimulating better
synergy at European level, we could consider co-operation activities
that could be undertaken by the Council of Europe, UNESCO and the
European Union.
7.7.1 Platform
for the safeguarding of ICH in Europe
66. We ought to embrace the existing
forms of co-operation within a common European Platform for safeguarding
and enhancing ICH. The Platform, open to the 47 member States of
the Council of Europe, would bring together dedicated governmental
and non-governmental organisations and actors in a multi-stakeholder and
multi-level coalition around the viability and diversity of ICH
in Europe.
67. Such a platform would also facilitate building capacities
through gathering and exchanging insights from ICH safeguarding
and enhancement practices and methods, cross-disciplinary co-operation
(for example WHO’s Health 2020; New Urban Agenda; Creative industries);
educational programmes; alignment in digital strategies; ethics;
and cross-border co-operation on common ICH elements or safeguarding
programmes (for example the Council of Europe Cultural Routes Programme).
68. We should also foresee incentives for ICH brokers and mediators
to facilitate shared objectives and generate transnational co-operation.
7.7.2 Integrating
ICH safeguarding targets and competences in the Steering Committee
for Culture, Heritage and Landscape (CDCPP)
69. In order to establish better
synergy internally among Council of Europe Activities and initiatives incorporating
intangible cultural heritage, such as the European Partial Agreement
on Cultural Routes, and with the activities of UNESCO on ICH, the
CDCPP
Note could establish “complementary observers”
with representatives from the ICH NGO Forum for accredited NGOs
in the ICH Convention; from the UNESCO Category II Centre(s) for
ICH in Europe; from the network of UNESCO Chairs devoted to safeguarding
and enhancing ICH; and possible other relevant actors.
7.7.3 Monitoring
the safeguarding and enhancement of ICH
70. Monitoring of the safeguarding
and enhancement of ICH and their impact should be introduced to promote
the collecting and analysis of qualitative evidence and quantitative
data. We should examine how monitoring in Europe can be developed
in alignment with the Overall Results Framework established for
the ICH Convention in 2018.
Note This could be an opportunity for
co-operation and co-ordinated monitoring within Europe. For example,
we could integrate this work into the Council of Europe Compendium
of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe and into the HEREIN European
Cultural Heritage Information Network.
Note
7.7.4 Fostering
research on safeguarding ICH
71. ICH ought to be included in
the European Research Strategy and funding. We should foster co-operation on
a research agenda for cultural heritage, including ICH. Support
for ICH research initiatives should be strengthened within the EU
framework programme for research and innovation (Horizon 2020).
Open calls and programmes could then be launched focusing on ICH
topics. There ought to be more support for the UNESCO Chairs in
Europe devoted to safeguarding and enhancing ICH, especially to
promote transnational exchange and co-operation.
7.7.5 Integrating
ICH into existing European instruments
72. The safeguarding of ICH should
be effectively incorporated into existing European instruments.
In particular, we should:
- include
safeguarding and enhancing ICH in calls, criteria and support measures
for European cultural projects and territorial co-operation (Creative
Europe; Interreg);
- promote ICH in the European Capitals of Culture Programme;
- explore integration of ICH scope in the European Heritage
days, by moving beyond the classic open door/monuments days and
by embracing the intangible heritage actors and perspectives;
- integrate ICH policy action into the announced 2020 #Digital4Culture
strategy, using the digital potential to enhance the positive economic
and societal effects of culture;
- explore the possibilities for investing in safeguarding
and enhancing ICH in international development co-operation, in
particular in Africa, and consider collaborating with UNESCO.Note
