Performing the “Tribe”? Ethnic Heritage Associations and the UNESCO 2003 Convention in Malawi

Re-Imagine

The Republic of Korea not only implemented the UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter “2003 Convention”) with the amendment of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, but also introduced an independent new Act on the Safeguarding and Promotion of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter “Intangible Cultural Heritage Act”) in 2015 to reduce the gaps between the international convention and domestic legislation. As a result, the scope of the term “intangible cultural heritage” has been enlarged, a new principle of protection emphasizing the characteristics of changing intangible cultural heritage has been adopted, and designation of heritage as intangible cultural heritage and their transmission systems have been diversified. This study attempted a comparative analysis to examine the impact of the 2003 Convention on the relevant legislation of the Republic of Korea, with a focus on the Intangible Cultural Heritage Act. Although a more responsive legal and administrative environment has been created under the aegis of the Act, there still exists much room for improvement. In particular, promotion of non-state actors, including communities that were emphasized in the 2003 Convention as one of the most important stakeholders for the protection and transmission of intangible cultural heritage, reflection of the Sustainable Development Goals that was freshly introduced in the Operational Directives of the 2003 Convention, a more horizontal approach for the designation of heritage items and maintenance of the heritage lists, and further attention to the raising of awareness and capacity-building measures were proposed as a direction to take.

This paper reveals the contemporary Chinese state’s active role in shaping the country’s religion-related intangible cultural heritage (ICH) safeguarding, through a systematic review of China’s official inventories of national representative ICH projects and extensive investigations of relevant local practices and initiatives. Although China is ruled by a political party officially embracing an atheist ideology, various elements of the contemporary Chinese state have been proactively involved in safeguarding religion-related ICH. The Chinese state’s involvement in de facto religion-related ICH safeguarding predates its adoption of explicit ICH safeguarding narratives. Still, the Chinese state’s practices and initiatives in safeguarding religion-related ICH flourished after ratifying the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2004. Since then, China’s central government has established a nationwide framework to recognise representative ICH items, including religion-related ones. Beyond Beijing, various local state agencies have also developed noticeable enthusiasm for supporting the safeguarding of religion-related ICH. In addition to engaging directly with ICH safeguarding, the contemporary Chinese state has also shaped China’s religion-related ICH by working closely with some academics and religious groups.

Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage took international momentum in 2003, the year in which UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH Convention). The consensus reached within UNESCO was to create a framework convention inspiring state parties to develop a national legislation to safeguard intangible cultural heritage. State parties are given the freedom to design this legislation according to their needs and capacities. Despite the freedom given by the ICH Convention, state parties may want to consider certain limits. The ICH Convention has an international dimension, providing benefits to the state parties, be it in the form of international awareness raising of their intangible cultural heritage or financial contributions to the safeguarding of their intangible cultural heritage. If state parties would like to enjoy these benefits, following the spirit of the ICH Convention is a must. The adoption of the ICH Convention was especially supported in Asia, a region in which intangible cultural heritage tends to be more prominent than its tangible equivalent. It should thus not come as a surprise that the ICH Convention spurred legislative initiatives all over Asia. Some Asian countries, like the Philippines, amended their heritage laws to reflect the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Other Asian countries, like Laos and Vietnam, adopted holistic heritage laws, reflecting both the protection of tangible heritage and the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Still some other Asian countries, like Thailand, created specific intangible cultural heritage laws. There are also Asian countries, such as Cambodia, that have not taken a legislative approach. Based upon the findings of a research projects conducted by IRCI and Kyushu University, this paper investigates to what extent Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam have endorsed the spirit of the ICH Convention.

In the last decade, appearances of the Mari Lwyd have steadily increased during winter time in Wales. A tradition based around the decoration of a horse’s skull, regulated competitive verse and song, and community integration, would in many other parts of the world be acknowledged and celebrated as intangible cultural heritage. Yet, while the number of nations to have ratified the UNESCO Convention on the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage continues to grow on an annual basis, no such examples can be found in Wales however, or any other part of the United Kingdom, due to a continuing position of reticence from the Westminster government toward the convention. Does this lack of ratification indicate that Wales is not home to any examples of intangible cultural heritage? This article explores the notion of whether Wales is home to any valid forms of intangible cultural heritage, before challenging whether the same vulnerability seen in many of the international examples of intangible heritage can be illustrated in Wales. Ultimately this will argue that Welsh intangible cultural heritage is an important, living component of contemporary Welsh culture, and that UK ratification of the treaty, rather than being something that might be desired in Wales, should in fact be considered as a necessity.

What French food is would seem to be an unproblematic idea. Depending on one’s taste and familiarity, a croissant, or snails, might spring to mind. Those who are a little more intimate with French cuisine might suggest the taste of a coq au vin or ratatouille, and fewer still might suggest tarte flambee or cancoillotte. Whatever the relative popularity of the dish or food, the French culinary tradition is arguably so familiar and, indeed, loved around the world that almost everyone could name one or two French culinary objects. Moreover, as the (self-proclaimed) leader of Western cuisine, the style and taste epitomised by French cuisine and the associated dining experience are also arguably some of the most attractive aspects of French gastronomy. From this perspective, where French cuisine appears to be so familiar to the non-French, seeking to define what constitutes a French meal could seem to be an inane exercise. Nonetheless, in 2010, the Mission Francaise du Patrimoine et des Cultures Alimentaires (not officially translated), under the aegis of the French Ministry of Culture and Communication, put forward the nomination file "The Gastronomic Meal of the French" to UNESCO, defining in clear terms a particular image of French taste, in a bid to have the meal recognised as part of the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage. With the number of specifically culinary elements protected by UNESCO more than doubling with the 2013 session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, and with a further two in line for protection in the 2014 session, it would seem that an examination of these protected culinary traditions is in order. Rather than focusing on the problems associated with creating an intangible heritage list (Kurin; Smith and Akagawa), this article proposes an analysis of one nomination file, "The Gastronomic Meal of the French," and the ideas which structure it. More specifically, this article will investigate how the idea of taste is deployed in the document from two different yet interconnected points of view. That is, taste as the faculty of discerning what is aesthetically excellent, and taste in its more literal gustative sense. This study will demonstrate how these two ideas of taste are used to create a problematic notion of French culinary identity, which by focusing on the framework of local (terroir) taste seeks to define national taste. By specifically citing local food stuffs (produits du terroir) and practices as well as French Republicanism in the formation of this identity, I argue that the nomination file eschews problems of cultural difference. As a result, "non-French food" and the associated identities it embodies, inherent in contemporary multicultural societies such as France with its large immigrant population, are incorporated into a cohesive, singular, culinary identity. French taste, then, is represented as uniform and embodied by the shared love of the French "art of good eating and drinking".

One of UNESCO's main activities in the fi eld of culture concerns the promotion and safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. For this purpose, the Member States of UNESCO have elaborated the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, which was adopted in 2003 and entered into force in 2006. Intangible cultural heri- tage consists, according to Article 2.1 of that Convention, of practices and expressions that are handed down within groups and communities from generation to generation, that are in constant evolution and that give a sense of identity and continuity to these groups and communities. UNESCO was and has been involved in a number activities related to intangible cultural heritage in the Horn of Africa, not only in Djibouti and Ethiopia that already ratifi ed the 2003 Convention, but also in Eritrea and Somalia that are considering ratifi cation. Some of these UNESCO activities are aimed at raising awareness about the 2003 Convention, others were designed to reinforce or create, in line with the objectives of that Convention, conditions under which practitioners and tradition bearers may continue to enact, to develop and to transmit their traditional expressions and practices.

Strategies of protection and identification of intangible cultural heritage: actions taken within national cultural policies and the involvement of local communities The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003 has established a new, holistic approach to cultural heritage and a new set of administrative and legal instruments and strategies of identifying, preserving, managing and promoting intangible cultural heritage. The policy of intangible culture entails the conceptualisation of the elements of intangible heritage in the national cultural policy framework. Administration strategies and methods are often confronted with scientific contextualisation and various policies of representation and identification. Thus, while articulating the idea of the growing importance of intangible cultural heritage, national authorities increasingly construct national inventories through processes of worldwide networking and positioning through symbolic meanings such as “national issues” and “national culture”. The paper presents a brief review of administrative and legal measures and policies concerning the intangible cultural heritage of selected countries with a special emphasis on the community-based approach in the identification and safeguarding processes.

The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on 17 October 2003. It is probably the most important piece of international legal instrument giving clear recognition and protection to intangible cultural heritage worldwide. China ratified the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on 2 December 2004 and extended it to Hong Kong with effect from 7 December 2004. The UNESCO Convention entered into force on 20 April 2006 for China including Hong Kong after the acceptance of the Convention by Romania (being the thirtieth Contracting State which brought the UNESCO Convention into force). The paper will briefly set out some of the key features of the UNESCO Convention and illustrate how and to what extent the UNESCO Convention may achieve its objectives in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage by reference to some examples of Chinese intangible cultural heritage and the situation in Hong Kong. At the end of the paper, the role of museum or museum professionals in helping the implementation of the UNESCO Convention and safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in general will also be examined.

This book offers a comprehensive look at the legal safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage (ICH). It maps the legal possibilities, both within institutions and more substantive solutions, pertaining ICH. By incorporating different disciplinary takes on the issues associated with safeguarding intangible heritage, this book tells a story about how the law works and ought to work towards protecting communities, as those from where ICH stems, and to whom benefits of its exploitation must return. ICH can be safeguarded by institutions on three different levels: international, regional and national. At the international level, the foremost initiative is the specific UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). At the regional level, initiatives are undertaken both in schemes of political and economic integration, a common thread being that ICH helps promote a common identity for the region, becoming thus a desirable staple of integration. Domestically, responses range from strong constitutional forms of protection to rather weak policy initiatives aimed primarily at attracting foreign aid. Intangible heritage can also be safeguarded via substantive law, and, in this respect, the book looks at the potentials and pitfalls of human rights law, intellectual property tools and contractual approaches. Human rights law is a useful tool because of the connection between ICH and cultural identity, but it disregards the important group dimension of heritage. Intellectual property offers the strongest form of protection, but it easily ossifies heritage. Finally, contractual approaches can be used, meaning legal arrangements directly amongst the different stakeholders interested in economically exploiting intangible heritage.

Intangible Cultural Heritage Unesco In 1972 UNESCO adopts the “Convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage”, with the famous “sites”. In 1999 the Executive Committee plans the setting up of a list of “Masterpieces of oral and intangible heritage of humanity”. Following the immediate positive feedback on the part of a number of states on 17 October 2003, during its 23rd session in Paris, the UNESCO General Conference approves the “Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage”. An analysis is carried out of the terms of the convention, the answer of the states, the number and typology of the sites up to 2010 (the next proposals will be in 2014), the historical framework and the selection criteria. The most interesting fact is represented by the disregard of very important states, which do not appear either as adherents or on the list: old ones like Germany, Great Britain and the Netherlands or young ones like Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

This article reviews the different factors which generated international standard setting for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, examines the conceptual evolution of this notion, and traces the various steps of negotiations leading to the adoption of the Convention in 2003. The establishment of the first normative instrument was the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore (1989). Much attention had been given to the question of Intellectual Property Rights, which at the end was left aside for a more global approach. In 1997, the World Forum on the Protection of Folklore, organized by UNESCO and WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization), concluded that the copyright regime was not adequate for ensuring protection, but that a new international agreement was needed. The 1992 UNESCO 'Intangible Cultural Heritage' programme consolidated by the UNESCO/Japan Fund-in-Trust, the creation of a world list of Living Human Treasures in 1993, the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and the subsequent setting-up of the United Nations decade for indigenous and minority people (1995-2004) generated a number of significant events in favour of the safeguarding of intangible heritage and made urgent the need for a new normative instrument. The Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity was conceived in 1997 as a means to fill the gap in the concept of 'world heritage', which refers mainly to the 'Northern' natural and tangible cultural heritage. The Assessment of the 1989 Recommendation played a catalytic role for the successful adoption of the 2003 Convention, in which a more holistic conception of 'heritage' prevailed, with a predominant role given to artists, practitioners and communities deserving of respect and motivation. This Convention marks a fundamental ethical positioning.

In this article, Cécile Duvelle presents the main points of the evaluation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage undertaken by UNESCO a decade after its adoption in 2003. She discusses the achievements as well as the pitfalls of the Convention. Drawing on a survey involving State Parties as well as many non-state stakeholders including NGOs, representatives of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) bearer organizations, and academics, the authors of the evaluation report consider the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage to be a highly relevant international legal instrument, both in terms of its consistency with national and local priorities and with the needs of the concerned communities, groups and individuals. The Convention has broadened the more traditional view of heritage to include anthropological and sociological points of view. It also introduced a number of important concepts related to ICH, such as the understanding that the community is the real bearer of ICH and that this heritage is defined in terms of the community; the notion that culture is living and evolving as it is transmitted from one generation to another; and the concept of safeguarding as a measure aimed at ensuring the viability of ICH. The Convention introduced new terminology and definitions that have since gained global prominence, supplanting older concepts. The article provides an in-depth discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the practice of listing ICH elements, of the promises and shortcomings of community participation, of the challenges of intellectual property and cultural diversity to ICH, of the necessary collaboration in the administration of the different UNESCO heritage conventions, and of the ways intangible cultural heritage can contribute to sustainable development, to conflict resolution and to human rights. The author concludes by commenting the recommendations of the evaluation report.

This chapter concentrates on the participation of indigenous peoples in multilateral initiatives to protect cultural heritage, with specific reference to intangible heritage. While an international instrument for the protection of intangible heritage was adopted over a decade ago, the importance of intangible heritage for indigenous peoples is evident in their work in various UN fora. I examine indigenous peoples’ interventions before UNESCO and bodies established to implement the Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage; within WIPO in respect of ongoing moves to adopt specialist instruments on traditional knowledge and cultural expressions; and finally, within UNEP and the implementation of Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. They reflect indigenous peoples’ determination to engage in the implementation of specialist instruments adopted by states and more significantly, their growing push to effectively participate in the drafting and negotiation of multilateral instruments. It is these latter efforts which are yielding more comprehensive and potentially lasting avenues for their effective engagement in the protection of their intangible heritage.

This article returns to issues raised in the pages of this journal regarding dance in the context of UNESCO's 2003 adoption of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. 1 Bakka and Karoblis' article published in 2021 2 refuted the proposal made by Iacono and Brown in 2016 3 to replace the Convention's term ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’ (ICH) with the concept of ‘living cultural heritage’. However, Bakka and Karoblis' response was written in the spirit of ‘a discursive unity’ 4 and, sharing in this spirit, I aim to consider both articles with the aim of highlighting how the discourses surrounding safeguarding ICH and those that consider dance as a significant part of culture might inform one another.