UNIDAD 1_10

CURSO ONLINE.

LA SALVAGUARDIA DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL INMATERIAL: CONCEPTOS, CRITERIOS Y METODOLOGÍAS.

Unidad Didáctica 10.

National Inventories of Intangible Cultural Heritage

The different approaches in Europe

Dr. Mark Schep Dutch Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage

Pescador remendando redes. Vila Franca do Campo, Sao Miguel. Luis Agromayor. Archivo Agromayor

Mark Schep

© Mark Schep

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2003, when UNESCO’s General Conference adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, we saw the birth of a new heritage concept, intangible cultural heritage (ICH). ICH encompasses a variety of cultural activities such as festivities, crafts, expressions, performing arts, rituals, and oral traditions. Inventorying heritage is one of the key elements to manage cultural heritage. In order to be an effective tool for the management of heritage, inventories should contain information on the location, whether the heritage still exists, and whether it changed significantly (Myers, 2016). In Article 12 of the 2003 UNESCO Convention can be read that one of the main tasks for State Parties is to make a national inventory: “To ensure identification with a view to safeguarding, each State Party shall draw up, in a manner geared to its own situation, one or more inventories of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory. These inventories shall be regularly update” (UNESCO, 2022, p. 10).

A (still) growing number of State Parties have signed the convention, obliging the participating State Parties to adhere to the treaty and to establish a national inventory of ICH. Although setting up one or more inventories is an obligation for state parties, UNESCO deliberately decided to not give specific guidelines for the inventorying (Blake, 2006). On UNESCO’s website can be read:

Since there are great differences among States concerning population, territories and distribution of intangible cultural heritage, as well as great diversity in their political and administrative structures, the Convention leaves each State Party a great deal of freedom to draw up inventories in ways best suited to its own situation, allowing national and local conditions and concerns to be taken into account (UNESCO). 1

In this unit I will focus on the inventorying methods of European State Parties, I will do this by taking the Netherlands as a case study. First, I will elaborate on the guidelines that UNESCO provides about inventorying and the three lists that UNESCO manages. Next, I will discuss the reflections of other scholars on this subject. Subsequently, I will describe how the Dutch Inventory is structured and how other European countries take on this task.

1 https://ich.unesco.org/en/inventorying-intangible-heritage-00080

© Mark Schep

2. UNESCO: LISTS AND INVENTORYING

a. The three UNESCO-lists

The 2003 Convention stimulates state parties to set up their own inventories. These Inventories can be the gateway to the three lists UNESCO has to make the intangible cultural heritage (ICH) visible worldwide. The first, and most popular list, is the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, which is made up of those intangible heritage elements that help demonstrate the diversity of this heritage with the goal to raise awareness about its importance. The Representative list contains 611 inscriptions. Second, the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, consists intangible heritage elements that are nominated by communities and States Parties because they require urgent measures to keep them alive. The goal is that inscriptions on this List help to mobilize international cooperation and assistance for stakeholders to undertake appropriate safeguarding measures. The Urgent Safeguarding List contains 82 elements (UNESCO, 2024). Third, State Parties can nominate elements for the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices. This list contains programs, projects and activities that best reflect the principles and the objectives of the Convention. One of the goals of this list is to give inspirational examples of safeguarding. The Good Practises list contains 27 elements. More information about these lists and its criteria can be found on the website of UNESCO.2

b. Guidelines for inventorying

As mentioned in the introduction, State Parties that ratify the 2003 Convention, should inventory the ich in their own country. There are no strict guidelines or formats given by UNESCO (Blake, 2006). However, a key concept in the 2003 Convention (in contrast to the World Heritage Convention of 1972) is the participation of communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals (CGIs). Article 15 of the 2003 Convention states:

Within the framework of its safeguarding activities of the intangible cultural heritage, each State Party shall endeavour to ensure the widest possible participation of communities, groups and, where appropriate, individuals that create, maintain and transmit such heritage, and to involve them actively in its management (UNESCO, 2022).

2 Purpose of the Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage and of the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices - intangible heritage - Culture Sector - UNESCO

© Mark Schep

Over the last 20 years UNESCO has published a few documents that give State Parties some guidance regarding the inventorying process. A few years following the implementation of the Convention, UNESCO (2014) published an in-depth study on inventory-making. The findings were enclosed in a working document in preparation for the ninth session of the Intergovernmental Committee. Seven years later UNESCO published an online Guidance Note on Inventorying (UNESCO, 2021). In this Guidance Note, eight guiding principles are named. Inventories:

1. should be based on procedures that were agreed upon with the communities, groups or, where appropriate, individuals concerned, while their consent is required before the start of inventorying processes, and for major decisions during these processes

2. should present intangible cultural heritage elements that were identified with the participation of the communities and groups concerned, and of relevant nongovernmental organizations

3. should aim to be inclusive

4. should contain substantial information about the inventoried elements

5. should be designed in such a way that they contribute to the purposes of the Convention, safeguarding in the first place

6. should be regularly updated, with the participation of the communities, groups and individuals concerned

7. should be reported about in the six-yearly periodic reports that States Parties have to

8. should respect customary practices concerning access to intangible cultural heritage

These Guiding Principles have been further elaborated on in the Guidance Note. As well as considerations for the preparatory phase of the inventorying process, criteria that are used in the inventory process, and recommendations and thoughts of the Committee and its advisory bodies. In the preparation phase State Parties are advised to develop competent bodies. And to find a balance between top-down and bottom-up processes. Participants in this process should include communities, experts, NGO’s and representatives of relevant research organisations. The Ethical Principles for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage should be taken as a starting point for working with communities. State Parties are advised not to use the word lists, in order to prevent misunderstandings regarding the international lists. In the Guidance Note can be read that inventorying is seen as an open and evolving process. In order words, it is a work in progress. UNESCO identifies four stages in setting up an inventory from scratch: (1)

UNIDAD

© Mark Schep

planning; (2) gathering information/documentation; (3) systematizing/analysing and archiving the information collected and (4) drafting and publishing inventory entries.

There can be different approaches in the inventorying process. There are two main approaches: community first and heritage first. When the community is the starting point, they, or the communities together with the relevant body work on the identification of their ICH. In the Heritage first approach, the intangible heritage itself is identified by the relevant body (and partners). Which is followed by a phase in which CGIs that identify with the element of ICH are recognized as the CGIs concerned. As can be read later, the Netherlands works with a community first approach. The Guidance Note also deals with the criteria that should be used for the inventory. I will name a few of the criteria. UNESCO suggests that the criteria should be clear and not large in number. CGIs should comply to the definition of ICH and the spirit of the Convention. The ICH should be transmitted from generation to generation. Last, the documents give some recommendations. For example, to have one or more inventories. The Committee also warns overemphasizing a ‘national’ culture because it can lead to a marginalization of non-mainstream forms of ICH and minority communities.

The above is a brief summary of the Guidance Note. For the full elaboration, I would refer the reader to the Guidance Note itself.3 So far, the focus has been on UNESCO and its instructions on inventorying. Over the last decades, the Convention has led to a fruitful field of research and reflections. I will briefly discuss the insights from other scholars that relate to the process of inventorying.

c. Reflections on the Convention

As noted above, the concept of participation and communities are central elements of the 2003 Convention. Inventories should be drawn up with the widest possible participation of communities. In this, the role of experts and professionals is less prominent compared to the 1972 Convention. Sousa (2018) reflected on what participation means in the context of the 2003 Convention and indicated that ”participation correlates to a process (for instance, consultation, counselling, debate, or intervention, which, for democratic and empowering purposes, will lead the CGIs to become involved in the planning and implementation of actions with a specific aim, in this case, the safeguarding of ICH” (p. 10)). This is the ideal that is strived for. However, both

3 The Guidance Note can be read here: https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/50279EN.pdf. Or in Spanish: 50279-ES.pdf (unesco.org)

© Mark Schep

participation and community are heavily discussed concepts. For example, because of the power relationships that exist between the CGIs and the ‘managers’ of the inventories (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Smith, 2006; Baron, 2016)). It is also not always clear whether communities really have a role in the nomination of their heritage, often it is government led (Duvelle, 2014). Or whether they want to have a role in the first place. For example, Bortolotto et. al. (2020) explained that Greek communities felt that filling in the nomination forms is the responsibility of the experts. Although the role of experts is less in the 2003 Convention, the experts are a necessity to decode the Convention for the CGIs (Sousa, 2020). For this reason, Jorijn Neyrinck (2014) pleaded for close cooperation between the professionals and the CGIs.

There are also critical notes on making heritage lists. Besides the risk of fossilization, the listing practises favour clearly bounded communities, while communities often are heterogenous and fluid (Margry, 2014; Kuutma, 2019). This resonates in the Dutch system, in which the ICH has to be connected to a community. Especially for nationwide forms of ICH this can be problematic. Who is the community and who is the owner? This is often difficult to pin down. Valdimar Hafstein (2018) warned (among other things) of the consequences of listing processes, such as (unwanted) transformation and the appropriation of the ICH. In line with this, Kristin Kuutma (2019) noted that inventorying transforms intangible heritage into political assets and inevitably leads to the “codification of cultural expressions and practices into manageable symbols of representation and argumentation” (p. 159).

Scholars also raise questions about hierarchies that may arise when you list heritage. For example, it can be interesting for communities to be the first to register a type of ICH that has multiple local variations, because being the first can generate more attention and status (Margry, 2014; Hafstein, 2018). These hierarchies can also be seen in the three lists of UNESCO. The Representative list is by far the most popular, while the Urgent Safeguarding list sometimes is seen as the list you do not want to be on. We observe a similar thing in the Dutch context; communities make a hierarchical distinction between heritage on the different lists.

The procedures that are used to make an inventory are also reflected upon. For example, how working bottom-up can have unwanted consequences. For example, Margry (2014) stated that the bottom-up approach leads to an Inventory that is more or less a random collection of ICH. What is made visible on the Inventory is dependent on the people that find their way in the system. Therefore, working bottom-up can in some cases be more exclusive than inclusive (Hertz, 2015). A shared critical note is that the

© Mark Schep

procedures are often created to work for the managers of the listing system and less for the CGIs. Next, I will take a closer look on how this process of inventorying works in the Netherlands.

3. INVENTORYING IN THE NETHERLANDS

After the Netherlands ratified the UNESCO 2003 Convention in 2012, the Dutch Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage (KIEN) was commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science to implement the 2003 Convention. Since 2016, KIEN is part of the Dutch Open Air Museum, but KIEN has its own mission and vision. KIEN decided to stay close to the text and principles of the Convention. The definition and domains that UNESCO uses, were translated into Dutch, and still serve as the key concepts for the inventorying. In contrast to UNESCO, languages or dialects can be nominated for the inventory in the Netherlands.

In the first few years, there was one list: the National Inventory. In these years, it were mainly communities acquainted to the predecessor of KIEN, the Centre for Folk Culture, which made it to the Inventory. In 2016 KIEN changed the listing system and introduced two new lists. The main reason for this was because KIEN gradually discovered not all communities were reached. Another reason was the fact that not all CGIs need or want to write a safeguarding plan, which is an obligation for the Inventory.

An Intangible Heritage Network was set up alongside the Inventory. In this Network, practitioners could register their ICH, without the obligation to write a safeguarding plan. Also in 2017, a Register of Inspiring Examples of Safeguarding was added, which makes inspiring safeguarding methodologies visible. Besides the Network and the Register, the Inventory (to which the preparation of a safeguarding plan remained linked) continued under a new name: Inventory of Intangible Heritage Netherlands. The road to this Inventory changed slightly.

© Mark Schep

The first step is to register in the Network, which can be done via on online platform. On this platform the CGIs need to comply with the definition of ICH and the ethical guidelines. Furthermore, they must write a brief description of the ICH and the community and upload a photo. All applications are checked the heritage advisors. When everything is right, the ICH will be made visible on the website. Communities that want to move from the Network to the Inventory can send a motivation letter to the heritage advisors. Each year, 15 CGIs can follow the track to the Inventory. They are invited by the heritage advisors to follow a workshop of three morning/afternoons, together with three or four other representatives of CGIs. In this workshop they receive information about the 2003 Convention and assistance in writing the safeguarding plan. When the safeguarding plan is ready, the independent Review Committee compares the safeguarding plan against the criteria of the ICH and makes a preliminary decision on its inclusion in the Inventory. The advice is accompanied by praise for what the CGIs did well and some recommendations for improvement. The inscription most of the times leads to an official ceremony in which the director of KIEN signs the certificate, and sometimes by the mayor. The CGIs can use the official logo of the Inventory on their website and receive a small sign/plaque. Every three years the CGIs have to engage in an evaluation conversation with one of the heritage advisors to discuss the safeguarding plan. Without this evaluation conversation, and after repeated warnings, KIEN can decide to move the ICH from the Inventory to the Network. Both the Network and the Inventory grew rapidly over the past ten years; there are more than 200 elements in both the Network and the Inventory

Patrimonio

Figure 1. The three circles of inventorying

National Inventories of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The different approaches in Europe

© Mark Schep

2. KIEN’s website, the different locations of ICH on the Dutch map

3. KIEN’s website, the overview of the Network, Inventory, and Register

La salvaguardia del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial: conceptos, criterios y metodologías

Figure

Figure

© Mark Schep

Internal conversations within KIEN, scholar’s reflections on the 2003 Convention, and insights from KIEN’s research projects on inventorying, has led KIEN to decide to use 2024 as a year of reflection regarding inventorying. In 2024, there will be no new additions to the Inventory and no evaluation conversations, but the Network will remain open for applications. The goal is to adjust the procedures in a way that it is more tailor-made to the needs of the CGIs.

4. EUROPEAN EXAMPLES

There are several ways in which the State Parties draw up an inventory. I will describe some general trends in the inventorying and will highlight the methods of inventorying of Estonia, Belgium (Flanders), Finland, and Portugal. For this, I use the interviews two of my fellow researchers and I engaged in for a research project on updating the national inventories (Schep, 2024). We interviewed European heritage advisors/researchers from Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

In most State Parties, the bodies that manage the inventories vary from museums, centres for folk culture, the ministry of culture to specific NGO’s that are set up for the task. The main reason for setting up an inventory is to make the ICH visible and to raise awareness of the ICH. Most State Parties have more than one (online) list. Often one of the lists is more low-key, with less preconditions and obligations. These easier accessible lists are often the gateway to the “National Inventories”. The Dutch Network, described above, is an example of a more low-key list. Below I will describe the procedures in Belgium and Finland; both countries also have such a list.

CGIs always play a role in the inventorying process, but in some cases the nomination of ICH is done by a museum or local government. Most state parties work with a community first approach, but in Slovenia it is combined with a heritage first approach. For example, a nation-wide tradition, Potica, a traditional holiday pastry, is in the Inventory without a specific community that nominated the ICH (Schep, 2024). In most cases the CGIs can register their ICH via on online platform. Mostly this can be done yearround for the low-key list, nominations for the National Inventory are often limited to certain periods of the year, every other year, or for a limited selection of CGIs. This is because most State Parties have time-consuming procedures for inscriptions and only have limited staff (Schep, 2024).

© Mark Schep

Most State Parties follow the guidelines of the Convention and ask for a brief description of the ICH, the history of the ICH, and to indicate some safeguarding actions. In some cases (e.g., the Netherlands and Slovenia), the CGIs are asked to make a safeguarding plan for their ICH. Often, the online registration of the ICH is followed by a feedback process. CGIs receive suggestions for adjustments or are asked to hand over additional information, for example photos In some cases, expert letters of recommendation have to be added to the nomination, or experts play a role in the description of the ICH For example, in Austria the experts make a summary of the text that is written by the community. While in the Netherlands, the heritage advisors only give suggestions for improvement for the texts, mainly on grammar or form. This feedback is mostly not focused on the content of the description. This gives agency to the communities but could also have unwanted consequences. For example, it could lead to a misrepresentation of the heritage or an incorrect historical representation. For the visitors of Kien’s website it is not always clear that the texts are written by communities, which could make the website a stage for the reproduction of unwanted messages.4

The inscriptions on the National Inventories are always formalized via either a Review Committee or by sending the applications to the responsible Ministry (Schep, 2024). The acceptance of an application is often followed by a ceremonial meeting to give a certificate to the communities. Another benefit in many State Parties is that CGIs can use a symbol of the National Inventory on their website, or even receive a flag with the symbol. For CGIs, this ceremony can be a moment of pride and visibility, for example, when the mayor is invited, or a (local) newspaper publishes an article about the acquired heritage status. Often there are misunderstandings, for example, newspapers may misreport about the World Heritage status or whether a particular heritage is indeed legally protected (Schep, 2024).

UNESCO requires that the inventories should be kept up to date. One of the main reasons for state parties is to keep the contact information and the description about the ICH up to date. And, to check whether the heritage is viable. For most state parties the updating is an ongoing process, which goes via the telephone conversations, emails or online adjustments made by the CGIs themselves. In some cases, questionnaires are used, or as in the Netherlands evaluation conversations (Schep, 2024).

4 Unpublished internal advice nota by KIEN researchers dr. Marlous van den Akker and dr. Rozemarijn van de Wal.

© Mark Schep

a) Inventorying in Estonia

Estonia was among the first (European) countries to ratify the convention. Since 2007 they are working on the preparation of the inventory. The Estonian Centre of Folk Culture is the main body responsible for the implementation of the Convention. it organises awareness- raising and training activities, advises communities and administers the national inventory of ICH. There is a lot of collaboration with the local network of 16 folk culture specialist in each county. The in 2009 newly created Estonian Council for the ICH, with 20 experts, approves the entries for the national ICH inventory. In a publication made by the Estonian Centre for Folk Culture is explained that the aim of the inventory is “not to showcase the most eye-catching and ear-striking elements of ICH but to recognise the inherent value of such heritage to its bearers and practitioners as well as to society at large” (2020, 12).

The Inventory in Estonia does not build upon existing databases but develops the Inventory in a bottom-up fashion.5 There is one list for the ICH. The idea is that every entry is done by representatives of a given community. The main criteria are, whether the element is relevant to the community, and whether it is passed from generation to generation. The communities should give information about the safeguarding and transmission of the element. All entries are structured in the same way: a short text about the ICH (past and present) and audiovisual material. The main entry, describing the element of intangible cultural heritage, can be linked to three types of additional entries: individual practitioners; organisations connected with the element; places or regions that are important for this element (Estonian Centre for Folk Culture, 2020) The ICH is clustered in 9 domains: settlement; way of life; living environment; management of natural resources; food and nutrition; crafts; language and poetical genres; customs and religion; pastime and playful activities, etc. The Estonian Council for the ICH has to approve the entry before it will be show on the List. Every five years the information on the inventory should be updated in collaboration with the community. Currently there are over 100 hundred elements of ICH inscribed.

b) Inventorying in Belgium - Flanders

In Belgium, the inventorying of ICH is done in both Wallonia and Flanders. I will focus on the procedures in Flanders. Werkplaats Immaterieel Erfgoed is the responsible body

5 The procedures and Estonian list can be found here: https://rahvakultuur.ee/ vkp/nimistu.

UNIDAD

© Mark Schep

for the inventorying process. Belgium was among the first State Parties that ratified the Convention and served as an example for the Netherlands in setting up the Inventory. As neighbouring countries there are exchanges on a regular base. For example, they have a seat in each other’s review committees.

In Flanders there two listing mechanisms. The low-key Great Collection (Grote Verzameling) and the official Inventory Flanders. The Great Collection is easily accessible for CGIs, they just have to nominate their ICH via the website of Werkplaats. In a few steps this can be done. Applicants need to give the title of their ICH, a brief description, choose what themes relate to their heritage, such as food and drinks or sports and games. In the last steps you need to give you contact information, upload photos, and tick the box to recognize the definition of ICH and the fact that the ICH does not conflict with (inter)national regulation. There are currently more than 400 elements in the Great Collection. The application for the Great Collection is also the first step to the Inventory.6

The official Inventory Flanders is set up by the Flemish government and currently contains over 70 elements. CGIs that want to be on the Inventory have to nominate themselves at the Department of Culture, Youth, and Media. The two starting requirements for a nomination are that the ICH is located in the Dutch language area of

6 www.immaterieelerfgoed.be

Figure 4. Screenshot of the Great Collection

© Mark Schep

Belgium and signing the Declaration of the Ethical Principles. The criteria are like other State Parties and UNESCO, there needs to be consensus within the community, CGIs need to show that they are actively engaged in safeguarding, and to show awareness about the challenges in the transmission of the ICH from generation to generation. Next, the community must fill in the (online) application form; communities can get assistance from local heritage agencies in this process. The form contains all sorts of questions to get the bigger picture of the ICH. What it is, who is involved, what the challenges and chances are, etc.? Furthermore, photos and video material must be included in the application. Every year, the deadlines for an application are April 15 and October 15. After the application, a group of experts tests the application against the criteria and draws up an advice. On this basis, the minister decides whether to place the intangible cultural heritage on the inventory. Once the ICH is placed on the Flanders Inventory, CGIs may use the 'Flanders Inventory' logo. Every two years CGIs are asked to fill in a rapportage about the status of the ICH. CGIs can request for assistance in this process.7

c) Inventorying in Finland

Finland ratified the Convention in 2013 and the Finnish Heritage Agency is the responsible body for the implementation. In Finland there are three ‘lists’, the low-key Wiki-Inventory; a list that is filled by school children; and the National Inventory. As in the other State Parties, the low-key list is the gateway to the National Inventory.8

The Wiki-Inventory has over 240 entries, from over 400 communities in five different languages. The Inventory is open for entries all the time and visible in Finnish, Swedish and English. On the website can be read that articles in other languages are also encouraged. Which makes this inventory even more accessible. There are only a few questions asked to make an entry. For example: 1. Who practises the tradition?; 2. What is the ICH and how is it practised; 3. The background and history?; 4. The transmission of the ICH?; 5. The future of the ICH?9 If necessary, CGIs are helped with their registration by the senior advisor Leena Marsio and interns. Compared to the Netherlands a small team. The CGIs get assistance with photos en technicalities. When there is a problematic case, it will be discussed with the advisory board. The ICH is clustered in the following categories:

7 Departement Cultuur, Jeugd en Media. Aanvraag indienen voor de Inventaris Vlaanderen | Departement Cultuur, Jeugd & Media

8 The website of the Inventories: Intangible cultural heritage (aineetonkulttuuriperinto.fi)

9 For the full list of questions CGIs have to answer, see Questions-for-the-the-NationalInventory-2019_191025_082807.pdf (aineetonkulttuuriperinto.fi)

© Mark Schep

Festivities and practices; Performing arts; Music and dance; Oral traditions; Crafts; Food traditions, Games and playing; Nature and the universe. CGIs that are on the Wiki can apply for the national inventory. This can be done every other year. The Ministry of Education and Culture nominated 86 elements in the National Inventory of Living Heritage. The step from the Wiki to the Inventory is small. The texts for the Inventory should be a bit extended and the Heritage Agency has a closer look at who is behind the nomination.

Figure 5. Screenshot of the festivities and practises page of the Wiki-Inventory

An interesting step in the process is the peer evaluation. This participatory approach of peer feedback is quite unique in Europe, although Portugal also has a public consultation phase. Everyone who wants to give peer feedback can sign in. They will get a permission to see the application and give feedback The peers do it with their own name or organization, so it is transparent who they are. There are tens of people registered as peer reviewers. For example, professors, professionals, and volunteers Marsio explained that they are very valuable, and the feedback is used to improve the

La salvaguardia del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial: conceptos, criterios y metodologías Página 16 | 21

National Inventories of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The different approaches in Europe

© Mark Schep

nomination and description of their ICH. For example, someone can suggest that other CGIs are engaged in the same ICH. The feedback is only visible to the Finnish Heritage Agency and the Advisory Board, but CGIs can ask to see the feedback. Next the Advisory Board discusses the nomination and when everything is fine, the Finnish Heritage Agency prepares the nomination for the minister. Updating the inventories is a continuous process in Finland, the main reason for this is that the information should be correct and up to date.10

d) Inventorying in Portugal

In Portugal, the National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage (INPCI) is the responsibility of the Public Institute for Cultural Heritage (PCIP - Património Cultural, Instituto Público, former DGPC - Directorate-General for Cultural Heritage). The Inventory was launched in 2011. The legal framework that was set up after ratifying the 2003 Convention states that the inventorying should be a participatory process. At least there should be consent of the CGIs, but preferably active involvement of the CGIs that are the bearers of the ICH.

CGIs can submit a proposal to register an ICH element, at the PCIP. They can get assistance and technical support for the preparation of applications from the Regional Directorates for Culture. Next to this, supervision of a professional (anthropologist e.g.) is compulsory (Carvalho, 2022). This potentially raises the threshold for CGIs to participate. Like in the other State Parties, the application is submitted online. In Portugal this is via the MatrizPCI 11 The inventory requests should include safeguarding measures aimed at ensuring the valorisation and future viability of the ICH manifestation. Submissions should also include an identification and characterization of any threats to the continuity of the practice and/or transmission of the intangible cultural heritage element. The registration is followed by various stages of feedback and analysis. This process is coordinated by the PCIP. There is a prior assessment which is followed by an Improvement phase (when necessary), and Direct Consultation phase. Interestingly there is also a Public Consultation phase, an extra layer of participation. All the proposals are made visible online and are open for feedback of others. This could lead to a public debate about

10 For more information on the Finnish procedure, see https://www.aineetonkulttuuriperinto.fi/assets/Instructions-for-National-Inventory2019.pdf

11 Available via http://www.matrizpci.dgpc.pt/MatrizPCI.Web

© Mark Schep

the nomination. When all phases have been completed there will be a decision to register through a publication

At the moment of the interview with Marta Sanchez da Costa (January 2024), there were 58 elements on the national inventory, seven of them considered in need of urgent safeguarding. Compared to the other State Parties in this overview, this is a relatively small number This might have to do with the intensive procedure. Elements that are registered in the Inventory should engage in a review every ten years. But changes to the ICH and the description in Matriz can be done at any time. For a more in dept analysis of the Portuguese inventorying, see Ana Carvalho’s article on Intangible Cultural Heritage and Public Policies in Portugal (2022).

e) Other inventories

This overview of course is far from complete. Not all European state parties are described, and inventorying also takes place in all the other continents. One interesting example to mention is the case of Japan. Before the 2003 Convention there were already listing mechanisms in order which were not always in line with the guidelines and principles of the convention. For an analyses of the situation in Japan, see chapter 4 of Marilena Alivizatou’s book Intangible Heritage and Participation. Encounters with Safeguarding Practises (2022). Furthermore, on UNESCO’s website several inventory methods of non-European State Parties are highlighted.12

5. CONCLUSIONS

In this section, I will draw some general conclusions. UNESCO stimulates State Parties to make inventories that are matched to the needs and context of the State Party. Over the years, learning from the experiences of all the State Parties, UNESCO published some guidelines how to make an inventory. Because there are no strict obligations, there still is a great diversity in the ways national inventories are shaped The main reason for setting up an inventory is to make the ICH visible and to raise awareness of the ICH. In some cases, the heritage is taken as the starting point, while for most State Parties, for example the Netherlands, the CGIs are the premise. The bodies that manage the inventories vary from museums, centres for folk culture, the ministry of culture to specific NGO’s that are set up for the task All the State Parties in this publication give a central role to CGIs in the

12 For an overview, see: Inventorying practices - intangible heritage - Culture Sector - UNESCO

© Mark Schep

inventorying, although challenges and questions, such as bureaucratization, hierarchy, and ownership, remain relevant

Most European State Parties have one or more online “lists” that are open for entries of CGIs. Often there is an easily accessible list, such as the Great Collection in Flanders and Wiki-Inventory in Finland. These inventories are often the gateway to the so-called National Inventories, the ones with more requirements. For example, in the Netherlands, CGIs have to write a safeguarding plan (and reflect on it every three years) when they want to move from the easily accessible Network to the Inventory. A typical entry on the Inventory has information on the practitioners and community, the history, and a description of the tradition. In some cases, CGIs are asked to name specific threats to the heritage and safeguarding actions. The texts are often written by the CGIs themselves and edited by heritage advisors/experts. In some State Parties experts are responsible for the texts.

There are often specific moments in the year, or even certain years, in which the ICH can move from the low-key list to the National Inventory. This often has to do with the quite intensive procedures and the limited time and heritage advisors to coordinate the process. Most of the times entries to the Inventory have to pass a review committee or the ministry. Once the procedures have been completed, CGIs often receive a certificate or logo they can use to show they are on the Inventory. The Inventories are mostly kept up to date via questionnaires, (telephone) conversations with the CGIs, or through adjustments that communities can make themselves on an online platform.

In this publication, I described several examples of inventorying in Europe, and as noted there are many more to explore It is interesting that there are still State Parties ratifying the 2003 Convention, for example The United Kingdom recently Therefore, they are now in the process of developing an inventory system. It is exciting to see what system they will set up, being able to learn from the experiences of other State Parties.

6. REFERENCES

Alivizatou, M. (2021). Intangible Heritage and Participation: Encounters with Safeguarding Practices. London: Routledge.

Baron, R (2016) Public folklore dialogism and critical heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies. Vol. 22: nº8, p.588-606. Available at DOI:10.1080/13527258.2016.1150320. [Consult 14 October 2023].

UNIDAD

10 National Inventories of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The different approaches in Europe

© Mark Schep

Blake, J. (2006) Commentary on the 2003 UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.

Bortolotto, C. [et. al.] (2020). Proving participation: vocational bureaucrats and bureaucratic creativity in the implementation of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale. Volume 28: nº1, p.66–82. Available at doi:10.1111/1469-8676.12741. [Consult. 16 January].

Carvalho, A. (2022). Intangible Cultural Heritage and Public Policies in Portugal – An Overview. In Intangible Cultural Heritage and Digital Image: Portugal-Slovakia Readings (pp.46-63) UNESCO Chair in Intangible Heritage and Traditional Know – How: Linking Heritage, University of Évora. Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361912642_Intangible_Cultural_Heritag e_and_Public_Policies_in_Portugal_-_An_Overview.

[Consult. 25 April 2024]

Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation. The New Tyranny. London, New York: Zed Books.

Duvelle, C. (2014) A Decade of Implementing the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage. Ethnologies. Vol. 36: nº1–2, p.47-66. Available at doi.10.7202/1037598ar.

https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ethno/2014-v36-n1-2-ethno02680/1037598ar/ [Consult. 16 January].

Estonian Centre for Folk Culture (2020). Intangible Cultural Heritage in Estonia. Safeguarding framework and some examples. Available at: https://rahvakultuur.ee/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/ICH-in-Estonia-2020.pdf. [Consult. April 25, 2024]

Hafstein, V. (2018). Making Intangible Heritage. El Condor Pasa and Other Stories from UNESCO. Indiana University Press.

Hertz, E (2015) Bottoms, Genuine and Spurious. in ADELL, Nicolas [et.al.] (eds.) Between Imagined Communities of Practice: Participation, Territory and the Making of Heritage Göttingen: Göttingen University Press.

Kuutma, K (2019). “Afterword. The Politics of Scale for Intangible Cultural Heritage: Identification, Ownership and Representation”. In LÄHDESMÄKI, Tuuli, THOMAS, Suzie, & ZHU, Yujie (eds.). The Politics of Scale. New directions in Critical Heritage Studies. Berghahn Books, pp.156-170.

salvaguardia del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial: conceptos, criterios y metodologías

UNIDAD

National Inventories of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The different approaches in Europe

© Mark Schep

Margry, P. (2014). UNESCO en de paradox van bescherming. Immaterieel erfgoed in Nederland. Ons erfdeel. p.56-66. Available at https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.473060. [Consult. 22 January].

Myers, D. (2016). Heritage inventories: promoting effectiveness as a vital tool for sustainable heritage management. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. Vol 6, nº2, p. 102-112. Available at https://doi.org/10.1108/jchmsd-02-2016-0009. [Consult. 16 October 2023].

Schep, M. (2024). Keeping the National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage up to date. Evaluating the Dutch way of updating Congresso Internacional da Cátedra UNESCO em Património Imaterial e saber-Fazer Tradicional: Ligando Patrimónios University of Évora. (under review).

Smith, L. (2006) The uses of heritage. London-New York: Routledge.

Sousa, F (2018) The Participation in the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The role of Communities, Groups and Individuals. Alenquer: Memória Imaterial CRL. Available at:

https://icich.icomos.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/12/The_Participation_in_the_Saf eguarding_of_the_ICH_Filomena_Sousa.pdf

[Consult. 13 January 2024].

Sousa, F (2020) Is ‘Bottom-Up’ a Condescending Expression? Tales of Indignation and Reflexivity. Volkskunde, Vol. 3, p.373-379. Available at: https://immaterieelerfgoed.be/nl/attachments/view/volkskunde_bottom-up. [Consult. 13 January 2024].

UNESCO (2014) – Inventory-making: a Cumulative In-Depth Study of Periodic Reports. Available at https://ich.unesco.org/en/focus-on-inventory-making-2014-00876. [Consult. 14 October 2023].

UNESCO (2021) – Guidance Note for Inventorying Intangible Cultural Heritage. Available at https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/50279-EN.pdf. [Consult. 14 October 2023].

UNESCO (2022) – Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2022 Edition. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/2003_Convention_Basic_Texts-_2022_versionEN_.pdf. [Consult. 18 November 2023].

La salvaguardia del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial: conceptos, criterios y metodologías Página 21 | 21