Operational Directives for the implementation of the Convention for the

The list system and CSICH need to abide by further regulatory frameworks as spelt out by the Operational Directives for the implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Heritage (OPs) that were first adopted in 2008 and were last amended in 2018 which, in fact, amended its 2016 predecessor only slightly. Namely, the current regu-latory framework specifies procedural monitoring obligations and adds a multilateral component to reporting processes while fostering regional exchange. OP procedures generally allow the Convention to be adapted to new developments, avoiding a static

status while enabling CSICH to remain a flexible legal instrument. The OPs can be regard-ed as fundamental in terms of their societal adaptability and progressiveness and when placing them into the overall UNESCO framework: most notably, they allow the Commit-tee to regularly update provisions and to specify obligations in a contextual manner.

While the OPs shall essentially guide the States in implementing the Convention, they also fill many gaps that are left unaddressed by CSICH, being itself a brief legal instrument. It is therefore crucial to engage with and comprehensively consider the OPs as the corner-stone of the overall UN ICH framework. Its thematic scope embraces

 all levels of ICH safeguarding at the international level, cooperation and interna-tional assistance,

 the ICH fund,

 participation mechanisms involving different entities,

 awareness raising on ICH and the use of the emblem of CSICH,

 reporting mechanisms and

 relating ICH and sustainable development at the domestic level.

A few issues stand out as particularly novel, broadening both substantive and proce-dural dimensions of the Convention. This particularly concerns the Convention’s partici-pation framework and modalities. Firstly, ‘Representative List criteria’ explicitly refer to the widest possible participation of communities, groups and individuals as well as to cultural diversity and human creativity. Secondly, particular attention is required for the principle of equitable geographical distribution, South-South and North-South-South cooperation and the particular needs of ‘developing countries’ (Best Practice Programmes criteria). In that sense, the instrument has been regarded as an approach towards fulfilling a promise to the Global South and for restoring relations in the form of recognition.¹⁸ This further enables States to address world society and to demand inclusion of specific ICH practice in commonly agreed lists – if we would adopt a positive outlook of ICH prac-tice.¹⁹ The OPs also reveal possibilities of ICH requests beyond a State-based orientation:

multi-national nominations as well as ICH subscriptions that are extended to other com-munities around the world diversify the State-based framework. In fact, priority is given to multi-national ICH submissions among other criteria. Such joint proposals have further spurred awareness-raising as well as variety and pluralisms emerging inevitably from the multiplicity of practices. Joint proposals are enhanced by a strengthened network, created

18 Interview with Robert Rode (Brandenburg University of Technology (BTU) Cottbus).

19 Ibid.

partly based on common proposals,²⁰ partly spurred by the community focus of the in-strument, inspiring further cooperation in the light of a far-reaching scope of the commu-nity concept.²¹

At community level, a few steps have been taken to facilitate participation at the grass-roots. This concerns general recognition practice, for instance, such as the use of the ICH emblem which has been widely received in the minority context, largely based on the acknowledgement and appreciation it conveys.²² While recognition practice similarly implies ensuring the very community’s participatory possibilities of safeguarding ICH, such obligations could also be extended to informing people and capacity-building at local levels, constituting essential components of ICH safeguarding generally.²³

Another, albeit comprehensive, part of the OPs in terms of thematic diversity is ac-commodated under the broad umbrella of ‘safeguarding ICH and sustainable develop-ment’ at the domestic level. ICH is considered a driver, a guarantee of and a strategic resource to enable sustainable development (SD) while both ICH and SD are regarded as interdependent. The OPs further disentangle the broad concept of sustainable develop-ment, distinguishing between social, economic and environmental dimensions. Thereby, an inclusive approach is adopted which is supposed to consider all sectors and strata of society: this explicitly encompasses indigenous peoples and migrants as well as people(s) of different ages and genders, persons with disabilities and members of vulnerable groups. Firstly, the social dimension comprehends ‘sustainable food security, quality health care, quality education for all, gender equality and access to safe water and sanita-tion’ (Para.177, OPs). Inclusive governance and freedom to choose respective value sys-tems thereby underlie the social dimension. The OPs approach each component in detail, specifying obligations in each case. Food security, for instance, implies both food prepara-tion skills and gathering, food preservaprepara-tion knowledge and practices as well as related rituals and beliefs which facilitate food security and nutrition. Again, a holistic approach is strived to be assumed, tackling different issues related to food. Similarly, provisions related to education go beyond educational systems; rather educational programmes and non-formal means of transmitting knowledge emerging within the respective

20 Interview with X21 and X7.

21 Interview with Robert Rode (Brandenburg University of Technology (BTU) Cottbus).

22 Interview with Judit Šołćina (Head of Minority Secretariat of the four autochthonous minorities in Germany).

23 Interview with Filomena Sousa (Researcher in the Portuguese NGO Memória Imaterial and Member of

“Institute for the Study of Literature and Tradition – heritage, arts and culture”).

ties and groups are required to stand on equal footing. The OPs also attempt to breach the gap between cultural rights and gender dimensions: while gender discrimination is ex-plicitly ruled out, it is to be recognised that groups pass on their norms and values through ICH (see Chapter 4.6 for related debates). Secondly, the economic dimension similarly touches upon broader issues and ultimately rights, such as fighting against poverty and inequalities, addressing employment and energy as well as sustainable tour-ism which assumes a community-oriented role: States are required to demonstrate ‘all due respect’ in terms of safeguarding ICH and respect for the ‘rights, aspirations and wishes’

of the communities, focussing on the adverse impact tourism may have (Para.187, OPs).

Thirdly, the environmental sustainability dimension addresses a particular urgent contri-bution based on its orientation towards the management of natural resources, climate change and natural hazards and the way vulnerable populations are exposed to such dilemmas.

3.2.5 Ethical Principles for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage (EPSICH)