Current Status

The UNESCO Convention has been reconsidered during the 1990s, mainly because the 1993 Directive of the European Union on the Return of Cultural Objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State and its complementary Regulation led a number of States to revise their national legislation in ways which made it more compatible with the UNESCO Convention.

Many of these States had become very concerned about their own problems of illicit traffic as theft of cultural property increased despite high security in cultural institutions and the number of losses from museum reserves, dealers; galleries, libraries, churches and private dwellings became disquieting. For their own purposes, therefore, they needed to look again at available instruments to control illicit trafficking.

Moreover, the return of freedom of movement across the borders of the former Eastern bloc has led to the massive export of important and less important cultural objects from those countries which sought the co-operation of their Western European counterparts to counteract this haemorrhage.

Other interregional organisations also began to develop co-operative frameworks. To mention just one: the Commonwealth (54 countries) has developed a model law on reciprocal enforcement of export controls of cultural property (theft is considered to be already adequately covered by Common Law).

The Culture Committees remit is to:

During its existence, the Committee concentrated mainly on questions of cultural diversity; culture and development; emerging intangible heritage policy (driven partly by UNESCO centrally in Paris) and implications for the ratification by the UK Government of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (following the House of Commons Culture Select Committee report Cultural Property: Return Illicit Trade in September 2000).
A recent private members Bill by Richard Allen MP for Sheffield Hallam, supported by the Government and entitled Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill would provide the legislative basis for implementing the 1970 Convention and has a good chance of becoming law.

Despite the suspension of the Committee - prior to its abolition - the Institute continued to co-operate with and support the UK Secretariat. IHBC recently made a detailed submission on the Evaluation of the Action Plan stemming from the Inter-governmental Stockholm 1998 Conference on Culture and Development at the request of the Secretariat. This was acknowledged to be invaluable to its intended response and demonstrated how the recommendations of DCMS’ A Force for Our Future was delivering UK heritage actions related to the international agenda.

These IHBC Web pages will aim to continue to disseminate information and engage public interest in the heritage aspects of UNESCO in so far as they affect the UK.

Bob Kindred MBE IHBC is the Institute's representative on the UNESCO UK Culture Committee

e-mail: unesco@ihbc.org.uk

• Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 14 November 1970

• Currently, 91 States Parties to the Convention and a number of States with important art markets are considering ratification

• Non-retroactivity: only applicable to cultural objects stolen or illicitly exported from one State Party to another State Party after the date of entry into force of the Convention for both States concerned

• Definition of cultural property (Articles 1 and 4): very wide definition adopted, but property has to be explicitly designated by the State as important for its archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science

• Domestic protective measures to be adopted by States Parties (Article 5):

- draft appropriate national legislation

- establish national services for the protection of cultural heritage

- promote museums, libraries, archives

- - encourage adoption of codes of conduct for antique dealers

- implement educational programmes to develop respect for cultural heritage

• Control movement of cultural property (Articles 6 to 9):

- introduce a system of export certificates

- prohibit the export of cultural property unless it is accompanied by an export certificate

- prevent museums from buying objects exported from another State Party without an export certificate

- prohibit the import of objects stolen from museums, religious institutions or public monuments

- penal sanctions to be imposed on any person contravening these prohibitions

- emergency import bans may be adopted when the cultural heritage of a State Party is seriously endangered by intense looting of archaeological and ethnological artefacts

- require art dealers to maintain a register of the exact origin of each object they purchase

• Return of stolen cultural property (Article 7):

- at the request of the State Party of origin, another State Party will seize and return cultural property on its territory stolen from a museum, religious institution or public monument

- the request has to be made through diplomatic channels

- the object has to be documented as being part of the inventory of the institution

- the requesting State has to pay just compensation to an owner who has purchased the object in good faith or holds a title which is valid according to national law

- the requesting State has to provide all the evidence to support its claim

Its Drafting and Provisions

The UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property 1970 was the first international legal instrument to tackle these issues. Discussion had taken place since the beginning of the 20th century about the problem of illicit traffic, particularly in respect of antiquities. The Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention) 1954 covered the looting of cultural property in case of armed conflict. Incidentally, it is surprising to hear that the UNIDROIT and UNESCO Conventions are impossible to adopt in countries which have already become party to the 1954 Protocol, an instrument which has more onerous obligations in respect of seizure and return than either of the later Conventions.

It was not until 1964 that the first instrument to deal with illicit traffic in peacetime was agreed to: the UNESCO Recommendation on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Export, Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This Recommendation provides standards for the national States; administration of cultural heritage to avoid market-driven damage and loss.

The next step was the drafting of a Convention to deal with the international dimensions of the problem. Understandably, the Convention was controversial. At that stage there were still collecting institutions which doubted the extent of illicit trafficking and the degree to which it entered into the licit trade. States, which saw themselves as victims of this process, on the other hand, expected dramatic results from international collaboration, without necessarily appreciating the complexities of the art trade and trading laws in the West. Nonetheless, it was possible to draft an acceptable text and there are currently 91 States party to the Convention.

The provisions of the Convention are not as well known as they should be. Principally, the Convention works at the level of government administrations: governments are required to take action at the request of a State party to the Convention to seize cultural property that has been stolen. There are also obligations on national States to administer their own cultural heritage adequately to prevent illicit traffic. There are, however, issues concerning the Convention which initially made some Western States reluctant to become party to it. Some States found its terminology somewhat ambiguous and its provisions concerning illegal exports not altogether clear. It did not deal adequately with aspects of private law that are now recognised as being of considerable importance since differences between national legal systems regarding the transfer of movables have been exploited to avoid controls. Other provisions, such as those relating to acquisitions by institutions in an importing country (Art. 7 (a)), and those requiring registration and the keeping of records by dealers (Art. 10(a)), were seen as difficult by States with federal legal systems and by those which did not yet have legislation on these matters. For these and other reasons most Western States did not become party to the Convention.

The Convention does not lend itself to direct application in a domestic system of law. States Parties can make reservations and adapt its provisions to optimise compatibility with their administrative requirements. The objection made by some that checking imports would create a huge bureaucracy has not been borne out by experience (Canada, USA).

Its Implementation

The United States became a party in 1983, after intense debate. its convention on cultural property implementation act provided a unique implementation process. stolen cultural property can in any case be claimed directly in U.S. courts. a special system of import controls was set up for states facing major threat to their cultural heritage. import bans or bilateral treaties have been established under these provisions for Bolivia, Cambodia, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mali and Peru. in keeping with these provisions, objects have been seized and returned to their countries of origin. some seizures have been challenged in court and some of the importers have succeeded, generally on grounds of insufficient proof. The UNESCO Convention has had a considerable impact on the international market. A major input was the ICOM Code of Ethics, the current version of which, developed in 1978, provides that museums should not acquire, evaluate, authenticate or exhibit cultural objects which do not have a satisfactory provenance. The Code of Practice adopted by the major British dealers and auction houses in 1984 also adopted the principles of the Convention. UNESCO has now prepared a voluntary International Code of Ethics for Dealers that also embodies the principles of the Convention.

The United States became a party in 1983, after intense debate. its convention on cultural property implementation act provided a unique implementation process. stolen cultural property can in any case be claimed directly in U.S. courts. a special system of import controls was set up for states facing major threat to their cultural heritage. import bans or bilateral treaties have been established under these provisions for Bolivia, Cambodia, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mali and Peru. in keeping with these provisions, objects have been seized and returned to their countries of origin. some seizures have been challenged in court and some of the importers have succeeded, generally on grounds of insufficient proof. However, illicit trade continues to increase. In 1983, UNESCO held a meeting of experts to examine the Convention and see whether its performance could be improved. A number of recommendations were made. The experts did not propose revising the Convention, which would have been a very difficult process, especially as there were already over 60 States Parties. They did, however, propose that UNESCO ask an institution specialising in private law to examine the provisions of, and differences between, national private law provisions and develop rules to complement the public law provisions of the 1970 Convention. UNESCO immediately proceeded to commission UNIDROIT (the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Rome) to deal with the matter. This led to the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995, which was developed in close co-operation with UNESCO. UNESCO fully supports the Convention and works closely with the UNIDROIT Secretariat to publicise it with the hope that as many States as possible will become party to both Conventions. The 1995 Convention also appears on this Website.

Conventions and Charters

The Hague Convention, 1954

Recommendation on Historic Areas 1976

Adopted by the General Conference in Nairobi in November 1976, the ‘Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas’ was in response to growing concern at dangers caused by uniformity and depersonalized housing in modern town planning and the impact on old town centres or districts and on traditional villages. The definition of historic areas as a coherent whole with human activities, buildings and surroundings was the subject of particular attention. Recommendations were made on the establishment of national, regional and local policies to introduce particular safeguard through technical, economic and social measures. The roles of research, education at all levels and of information management were emphasized in the process with reference to strengthened collaboration with ICCROM, ICOMOS and ICOM.

Adopted by UNESCO in 1954 as its first International Convention, it had first been conceived at the end of the nineteenth century. The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict went through several editions before being re-edited. Its significance lay in providing an international definition for cultural property, articulated in three categories: (i) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; (ii) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit movable cultural property; and (iii) centres containing a large amount of cultural property. The Convention provides instructions for the marking and safeguarding of such property in the case of armed conflict, and it also proposes the possibility of establishing an international list of such properties.

 UNESCO UK's response to the consultation on
the ratification of the Hague Convention (PDF)

ASSOCIATED MEASURES SUPPORTED THROUGH UNESCO

Recommendation on Archaeological Excavations 1956

‘Venice Charter’ 1964

Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in New Delhi in December 1956. The first recommendation concerns International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations and recalls the general interest of international cooperation concerning the study and preservation of all archaeological remains. It also proposes that the criterion based on preserving all objects originating before a certain date should be abandoned, and should in any case use criteria allowing the necessary flexibility in protection taking into account public interest and the scope of research. Further, recommendations are stated on the general principles concerning the legal and administrative system of protection, control of excavations, preservation and assignment and rights of finds, trade of antiquities, clandestine excavations and excavations in occupied territories.

The Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments approved an International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites that has since been known as the ‘Venice Charter’ - a fundamental reference for conservation policy.

UNESCO signed this document together with representatives of sixteen countries. The aim is the common responsibility to safeguard cultural heritage for future generations in ‘the full richness of their authenticity’, but the Charter also emphasizes that each country is responsible for applying the plan within the framework of its own culture and traditions. The Charter’s 16 paragraphs define some of the fundamental principles of conservation (by reference to the conclusions of the Athens Charter 1931), but also, in practice, the Italian Norms by Giovannoni of 1932, and the current development of restoration policies and theory. The meeting recommended the foundation of ICOMOS achieved the following year.

Recommendation on Landscapes and Sites 1962

Adopted by the General Conference in Paris in December 1962, the recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites emphasizes the scientific and aesthetic importance of cultural and natural landscapes and sites and the fact that they form a heritage which is a major factor in the living conditions of the general public. Included recommendations for protective measures in urban and rural planning schemes; scheduling of isolated sites; and, protection of extensive landscapes by zoning. Special attention is given to education which addresses schools and the general public.

‘Nara Document on Authenticity’ 1994

Organized by the Japanese government in collaboration with Norway, Canada UNESCO ICOMOS and ICCROM the meeting recognized the need to establish clear guidelines for the assessment of the significance and the authenticity of World Heritage Sites. This had emerged from a broadening of the base for the conservation of cultural heritage worldwide with the meeting of experts taking into account the content of the Venice Charter.

The ‘Nara Document on Authenticity’ recognizes that conservation of cultural heritage in all its forms and historical periods is rooted in the values attributed to the heritage. Our ability to understand these values depends, in part, on their credibility and truthfulness. Knowledge and understanding of the sources of information on original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their related meaning is a pre-requisite for assessing all aspects of authenticity.

Recommendation on Public Works 1968

Adopted by the General Conference in November 1968, the recommendation concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works resulted from a concern aroused over the danger for ancient temples caused by the construction of the High Dam in the valley of the Nile. The recommendation recognizes that it is essential to harmonise the preservation of cultural properties with the changes necessitated by social and economic development. Consequently it is necessary to identify important heritage sites before planning and implementing protective measures are feasible. The general principle is to safeguard in-situ, however, when the economical and social conditions override this (and cultural property must be destroyed, abandoned or transferred elsewhere), a careful study should be made with detailed records to aid future research.

World Heritage Convention 1972

Adopted at its General Conference in Paris in 1972 as a result of the growing ecological concern for the environment, this international Convention concerned the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. This has become the most widespread UNESCO Convention ratified by over 150 States. It is concerned primarily with immovable property classified by: monuments, groups of buildings (ensembles), and sites. The Convention established the World Heritage List of cultural and natural heritage sites of ‘outstanding universal value’. A threatened World Heritage Site can be included on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Policy is guided by the Venice Charter (se below) and has promoted a debate on the application of conservation principles in different cultures. The Convention has become perhaps the most powerful international tool for the promotion of conservation of both cultural and natural heritage.

Recommendation on Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972

Adopted by the same General Conference as the World Heritage Convention, the recommendation concerning the protection of the cultural and natural heritage at national level. It is conceived as complementary to the Convention to induce States to safeguard all components of their cultural and natural heritage as it should ‘no longer be regarded as a check on national development but as a determining factor in such development’, Furthermore, such heritage should be considered as one of the essential aspects of regional development plans and planning in general. Attenti6n is drawn to the organization of services and cooperation among the various bodies; definition of appropriate protective measures, whether scientific, technical, administrative, legal or financial; educational and cultural action; and international cooperation.

THE 1995 UNIDROIT CONVENTION ON STOLEN OR ILLEGALLY EXPORTED CULTURAL OBJECTS OTHER INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ON ILLICIT TRADE

• Adopted by Diplomatic Conference in Rome on 24 June 1995

• Currently, 12 States Parties, 14 other States have signed but not yet ratified

• Drafted at UNESCO’s request to develop a uniform minimum body of private law rules for the international art trade to complement the public law provisions of the 1970 UNESCO Convention

• Restitution of stolen cultural objects (Articles 3 and 4) and return of illegally exported cultural objects (Articles 5 to 7):

• “The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it”.

• Possibility of compensation paid to the possessor of the stolen object where care was taken to avoid acquiring sto–len cultural property; criteria for the establishment of diligence include circumstances of acquisition, character of parties involved, price paid, consultation of a register of stolen cultural objects. No compensation necessary where the State does not already provide it (Article 9(1))

• An illegally exported cultural object is to be returned if the object is of significant cultural importance for the requesting State

• Possibility of compensation paid to the possessor of the illegally exported object where care was taken to avoid acquiring illegally exported cultural property; criteria for establishing diligence include circumstances of acquisi–tion and absence of an export certificate required by the law of the requesting State

• Clandestinely excavated objects (Articles 3 and 5):

• Illicitly excavated objects are considered to be stolen

• Procedure for claims:

• brought by the private owner or a State before a court in the country where the object is located

• time limits: generally 50 years or within 3 years of knowledge of the location of the object and identity of its possessor

In In addition, other international legal instruments apply to illicit traffic in cultural property:

• Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: provides for the return of cultural property illegally exported from occupied territories

• European Union Directive 93/7: applicable among the 15 Member States of the EU, it provides for a specific pro–cedure for the return of illegally removed cultural property

• Commonwealth Scheme: establishes a procedure for the return of stolen or illicitly exported objects within the Commonwealth; model legislation has been drafted which the 54 Commonwealth Member States may use as a basis for national legislation

PROPOSED UNESCO CONVENTION ON INTANGIBLE HERITAGE

IMPLICATIONS FOR IHBC AND PRESERVATION OF CRAFT SKILLS

The UNESCO UK Culture Committee has recently been asked to consider the initial implications for an international Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage. One of the interesting aspects for IHBC is the implication for the practical transfer of traditional craft skills from one generation to another. This has particular relevance in relation to the crisis for heritage skills identified by the DCMS in Force for the Future and Sustaining our Living Heritage – Skills and training in the heritage sector by the Heritage Lottery Fund.


Background

Despite the success of the World Heritage Convention, but where it is recognised that Africa is not well represented on the World Heritage List, it is not considered appropriate to widen this existing Convention definition to cover Intangible Heritage. This is partly because the 150 signatory counties would make this difficult and partly because there would have to be along transition between old and new Conventions and the views of the 700 existing UNESCO Experts on World Heritage might be difficult to assimilate.

It is of concern to ICOMOS and a number of European countries that there are considerable tangible heritage assets to maintain without also having to contend with intangible ones. Furthermore there are problems of defining what intangible heritage is “outstanding”; what the right means of preservation are and how preservation should be structured – especially when policy is usually formulated in a “top-down” manner by national governments not by the practitioners directly affected. “Bottom-up” structures are therefore required not the reverse.

One possible solution would be for UNESCO to make a Recommendation - to act as a national standard. This could cascade down to local authorities and others but would have a lesser status than a Convention. Nevertheless despite the inherent difficulties, UNESCO intends to define intangible heritage by Convention to be implemented by the Autumn of 2003. The initial conclusion of the UK Culture Committee is that the practical consequences must be deliverable or a Convention is not be worth having.

There will be no priority domains and it will be for each community to define what should be protected. UNESCO considers it impractical to attempt a census of each threatened heritage skill (but this is an aspect IHBC might be equipped to help define for the UK?).

The terminology will also need further development. Presently the UNESCO definition of intangible cultural heritage developed by an expert meeting held in Turin is defined as:

In some countries practical transfer of traditional craft skills has been achieved by conferring on individuals the status of living national treasure’ – an initiative first developed in Japan in the 1950s. The individual retains this status for life enabling escape from the pressures of needing to seek commercial support but gaining economic security and independence, a secure place in the social structure while also being able to train apprentices. Such an arrangement might be explored in the UK?

An abridged version of the UNESCO Web pages on the “living national treasures” system is set out below:

“For many population groups, theintangible cultural heritageis the essential source of an identity deeply rooted in the past. Unfortunately, however, a number of its manifestations, such as know-how for craft production and oral traditions have already disappeared or are in danger of doing so. The main reason is thatlocal intangible cultural heritageis rapidly being replaced by a standardised international culture, fostered not only by socio- economic 'modernisation' but also by the tremendous progress of information and transport techniques. Theintangible nature of this heritagealso makes it vulnerable. There, is an urgent need to stop further losses. One of the most effective ways of safeguarding the intangible heritage is to conserve it by collecting, recording, and archiving. Even more effective would be to ensure that the bearers of the heritage continue to acquire further knowledge and skills and transmit them to the next generations. With that aim in mind, theholders of the heritage must be identified and given official recognition.

Examples of existing systems

In 1950 the Government of Japan gave special recognition to bearers of the skills and techniques essential for the continuation of certain important intangible cultural properties. Individuals so recognized were designated as "Living National Treasures". But there could also be collective and group recognition where it was these that were important and not the individual as such. At 1 July 1994, seven categories of performing arts (36 specific skills) and nine in the applied arts (39 specific skills) had been selected as important intangible cultural properties. The skills were held by 52 individuals and 23 groups.

In 1964 the Government of the Republic of Korea introduced its own system to ensure the preservation and transmission to future generations of intangible cultural properties. At September 1995, this State had a total of 92 important intangible cultural properties; 167 individual holders and 50 holding organizations.

The Philippines specifically acknowledged a category of "National Artists" under a Presidential Decree of 1973, which granted them certain, privileges and honours. Another programme creating Living National Treasures(Gawad Manlilikha ng Bayan - GAMABA) was begun in 1988 with the object of preserving indigenous traditions and transmitting them to younger generations. Three persons from different indigenous cultural communities were given this title in 1994.

More recently a regional scheme to create Living Human Treasures has been established in Romania. Such "treasures" are regarded as those exceptional folk artists that preserve local traditions in their trade.

In France, in 1994, the Minister of Culture elevated some 20 persons to the rank of "Maîtres d'art" (Master of Crafts). This is a new distinction intended for those artisans known to be outstanding for their skill and knowledge. They are required to pass that skill and knowledge on to future generations.

Although these States have all been working with a concept of Living Human Treasures, the idea itself falls within the scope of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Cultures and Folklore 1989 in which Member States are urged to preserve folklore in their respective countries. Folklore is seen as essential to the enrichment of the cultural heritage of humanity and the protection of cultural identities.

 Definition

Living Human Treasures are persons who embody, who have in the very highest degree, the skills and techniques necessary for the production of selected aspects of the cultural life of a people and the continued existence of their material cultural heritage.

The performance and the act of creation are intangible; embodied in the skills or techniques of those who do them. So too are the traditional intangible elements employed by those who protect and preserve the material cultural heritage: for example, the techniques for working stone for replacement on monuments, preparing wall coverings in traditional methods for historic rooms.

Consequently, the preservation of such intangible cultural properties implies the preservation and transmission of the skills and techniques necessary for their creation. Giving special recognition to persons who have those skills and techniques in the very highest degree can only do this.

Objective of the system

The primary purpose of establishing a system of Living Human Treasures is to preserve the skills and techniques necessary for creation of the cultural manifestations that the State considers have a high historical or artistic value.

The system should also reward those persons who embody these skills and techniques so that they will be encouraged to:

• Continue with their own work
• Where desirable, develop and expand the frontiers of that work
• At the same time, in all situations, train younger people to take their place in due course.

The system should encourage younger people to devote their lives to learning these skills and techniques by holding out to them the possibility of fame, perhaps riches also, if they can achieve the necessary level of excellence.

Elements of a living human treasures system

Legal provisions

States that decide to introduce a system of Living Human Treasures will have to establish a means of administering it appropriate to the circumstances. There is no one recommended method. For example, it is not absolutely necessary to create a system of Living Human Treasures within a legal structure. It could be done administratively, operating within the general powers of a particular government department or through a non-governmental organization temporarily created with governmental financial assistance.

However, there are good reasons for having legal provisions dealing with this subject:

• A formal structure can be created with witch the system operates. In this way people will know what the system means, how it functions and what can be expected of it
• Legal provisions can be used as an educational tool in instructing the public about the intangible cultural heritage and Living Human Treasures. The mere fact that these exist in the law enables publicists to draw on the system as a framework for their education and publicity efforts
• There will inevitably be jealousy and dispute over the elevation of particular persons to the rank of Living Human Treasures. The find that the system exists as a legal structure should restrict criticism to the actual choice made and not the method by which it was reached. The law cannot prevent a bad decision but it should ensure that all the correct steps are taken so that the system itself cannot be faulted.

Most States already have in existence legal and administrative structures for the protection and preservation of the tangible cultural heritage - buildings, monuments and sites of historic, artistic and scientific importance. In considering a legal structure to do the same for the intangible cultural heritage, what already exists will influence these decisions. But this should not determine the matter. Certainly there are elements of overlap but the intangible cultural heritage has its own unique problems, which need their own solutions.

The following paragraphs will discuss in detail the elements of al egal structure for a Living Human Treasures system. It is enough here to indicate the following as a checklist of what should be considered :

• Identification of those aspects of the intangible cultural heritage to be preserved
• Establishment of criteria for selection of nominees
• Maximum number of persons to be selected each year
• Nature of reward to be offered
• Duties of persons selected
• Cancellation of appointment

It must be realised that the following paragraphs are all subject to overriding aspects of the national legal system, such as constitutional and administrative provisions.

Once the decision is made to introduce a system of Living Human Treasures, it is necessary to establish which aspects of national life are to be preserved. As the examples at the beginning of these Guidelines illustrate, there will be probably be considerable differences here between States.

It is not necessary that the system cover the entire State or the whole of national life. In many cases this will be what happens - but it is not essential:

• The system could he restricted to a particular region of the State for reasons peculiar to that State. For example, it may appear that one province is particularly rich in those aspects of the intangible cultural heritage that it is wished to protect and preserve (Example of Romania)
• The scheme may be so restricted on a trial basis to test its operation
• Application of the scheme may be confined to a certain portion of the population. This could be particularly useful where there is an indigenous people within the area of the State. What may be important aspects of cultural life for them might be ignored by the rest of the population of the State
• If the State desired, the scheme could be adjusted to apply to different aspects of the relevant cultures

In essence implementation of the scheme depends on what the State concerned wants to achieve and should not be overly influenced by what has been done elsewhere.

But whatever the objective, there needs to be an organization established to make the decisions. The nature of this body will obviously depend on what decisions the State has made concerning the issues discussed above. The following discussion deals with a national system covering all peoples within the territorial confines of the State. It could be adapted for other circumstances.

It is recommended that a Commission of Experts be established to make recommendations to the Minister of Government responsible for cultural matters. In most cases the Minister would have the final decision but this is a matter for the State concerned within its normal administrative operations. The Commission should be supported by a permanent secretariat.

The Commission's first task would be to investigate which aspects of the intangible cultural heritage the State should preserve as a priority and so recommend to the Minister. It must be made clear that failure to choose a particular aspect does not mean it is regarded as unimportant. Everything cannot be done at once, and the Commission will have to choose which aspects are very important and are likely to disappear if they are not encouraged.

Once the decision on what is to be protected has been made, the Commission should have the task of nominating to the Minister a list of persons who embody the necessary skills and techniques. Although there will be individual nominations, in certain sectors of the intangible cultural heritage it will be necessary to nominate groups of persons as collectively embodying the relevant skills and techniques. Thus, there may be collective recognition when there is a group of two or more persons who collectively embody the artistry of a performing art or the special skills which two or more craft persons share in common. Here may also be group recognition where the members are primarily bearers of techniques and skills in the performing or applied arts where it is the contribution of the group that is important rather than the role of the individual or where many persons possess such techniques or skills.

In making nominations, members of the Commission could rely on their own knowledge but it would be preferable to institute a system whereby eligible persons could be brought to their attention by others employing the same skills and techniques, by members of the public etc. Such a process should be formalised, with the Commission calling for recommendation at a set time each year.

The Commission would also have the duty to recommend cancellation of a particular appointment as a "Living Human Treasure" where, in certain cases, the required functions are not being performed.

The Commission should have the responsibility to record the techniques and skills employed by Living Human Treasures using all available methods. While a recording does not have the same flavour as actually seeing those techniques and skills in operation, it is an essential process for their study and later comparison with those used by other persons. Such records should be duplicated and made available to the public and researchers both national and foreign.

To reiterate, the following approach to identification and designation is recommended:

• decide the scope of the proposed scheme within the State i.e. whether it should apply nationally or be restricted to a region or group of people
• establish a Commission of Experts to:
• Recommend which areas of intangible cultural property should be protected
• Nominate holders of skills and techniques within these areas for appointment as Living Human Treasures
• Cancel such appointments where necessary
• Record the skills and techniques used

Criteria of selection

a) The heritage

In choosing an aspect of the intangible cultural heritage to receive protection by way of the "living human treasured" system, States should have regard to the following criteria:

• Its outstanding and exceptional human creative value
• Its unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition and history
• Its characteristics distinctive of a given region or school

The danger of its disappearing because of:

• A serious decline in the number of practitioners and/or those succeeding them
• A significant loss of historical authenticity
• An important loss of cultural significance
• An important modification in the juridical status of the intangible cultural property bringing about a diminution of its protection

b) The Living Human Treasures

In nominating a person or group to the rank of "living human treasure", the Commission should consider the following criteria:

• The degree of skill possessed
• The dedication of the person or groups
• The ability to advance the skill or technique
• The ability to pass on the skill or technique to trainees

Number of nominees a year

No attempt is made here to suggest a maximum number of nominees for each year. That depends on many factors individual to the particular State. For example, if Living Human Treasures are going to be rewarded with money, that will influence how many can be nominated. Moreover, the more persons appointed to the rank, the less would be its recognition as a truly outstanding achievement. These are all factors which administrators, in setting up the system, must consider. However, it is recommended that the legislation state the maximum number of nominations that may be made by the Commission each year. The Commission should, of course, be entitled to nominate a smaller number if it so desires.

Rewards granted to appointees

The primary reward should be extensive public recognition of a person's appointment to this rank similar to what is done when someone receives a significant public decoration

• The award should be made at a formal ceremony where a distinctive emblem could be handed to the people concerned by the highest possible public official in the country
• A programme of activities concentrating on elements of the intangible cultural heritage should be held simultaneously to celebrate the new appointments.

The Commission should engage in continuing publicity to keep all appointees before the public eye. Once the public recognises the special position of a person to is a "living human treasure", it is highly probable that that person's services will be in great demand. In this way he/she will be able to continue using the skill or technique in question.

The possibility of financial rewards should be considered. These could take the form of a direct yearly grant free of taxation. It could also involve the provision of equipment and supplies free of tax such as value added tax. Also to be considered is an exemption from taxation of the "living human treasure's" income earned from exercise of the skills and techniques so honoured.

Other rewards could also be considered depending on the social structure of the State. For example, where there is no public health service, the grant of medical and hospitalisation benefits would be a considerable prize. Similarly, a lifetime insurance policy may be granted with the State paying the premium.

Duties of appointees

The duties of Living Human Treasures should be:

• To improve their skills and techniques
• To transmit those skills and techniques to trainees
• The costs of this to be paid by the State
• To permit the recording of them in tangible form (video, tape, and publication) without any question or issue of copyright
• To present the products of their skills and techniques on a regular basis to the public
• The programme to be organised by the State in co-operation with the living cultural property
• The costs to be paid from admission fees and other proceeds of the programme with any shortfall to be made up by the State.

Cancellation of appointment

At some time a person appointed to the rank of "living human treasure" would become unable, through age or mental infinity, to perform the duties set out above. It would be unfair, however, to then cancel the appointment. As part of the reward is the honour involved, it would be better to allow the person to keep the rank but remove some of the rewards; for example, any grant made on a yearly basis could be reduced.

On the other hand, if the person is fit and able to undertake the duties stipulated, but refuses to do so after having been warned, it is fit and proper that the award should be cancelled.

Eventual UNESCO assistance

UNESCO assistance will either be financed by the participation programme or extra- budgetary funding. All requests should be submitted to :

Ms Noriko Aikawa, Chief - Intangible Cultural Heritage Section,
Division of Cultural Heritage, UNESCO. I rue Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15
Tel: (33 1) 45 68 45 19
Fax: (33 1 ) 45 68.55 96,
Email: n.aikawa@unesco.org

Preparatory assistance

Assistance will be given to Member States willing to establish the above-mentioned system for the purpose of:

• Preparing a tentative list of the intangible cultural heritage to be protected and preserved by way of the Living Human Treasures system;
• Preparing recommendations on the above;
• Preparing nominations for the list of Living Human Treasures
• Preparing requests for traditional co-operation, including requests relating to the organizationof training courses or seminars.

This type of assistance, known as "preparatory assistance" can take the form of consultant services.

Training

Member States may request support for the training of specialised staff at all levels for the formation of a national register of intangible cultural heritage which it is desired to protect and preserve as well as the list of Living Human Treasures.

Priority in training activities will be given to group training at the local or regional levels. The training of individual persons will be essentially limited to short term refresher programmes and exchanges of experience.

Requests for the training of specialised staff at the national or regional level should contain the following information:

• Details on the training courses concerned (courses offered, level of instruction, teaching staff, number of students and country of origin, date, place and duration, etc.) and, when applicable, the functional responsibility of each participant with respect to the preservation of the intangible cultural heritage programme;
• Type of assistance requested (financial contribution to costs of training, provision of specialised teaching staff, provision of equipment, books and educational materials for training course);
• Approximate cost of support requested, including as appropriate tuition fees, daily subsistence allowance, allocations for purchase of educational material, travel costs to and from training centres, etc.
• Other contributions: national financing received or anticipated multilateral or bilateral contributions.

Requests for support for individual training courses should be submitted on the standard "Application for Fellowship" form used for all fellowships administered by UNESCO which can be obtained from UNESCO National Commissions, UNESCO offices and the offices of the United Nations Development Programme in Member States, as well as from the Secretariat.

Istanbul Declaration - Updated: 24/09/2002

UNESCO's preparations for a convention on intangible cultural heritage are continuing, but more slowly than hitherto expected. A full text will not be submitted until the 2005 UNESCO General Conference. The inter-governmental meeting convened by UNESCO in September concluded that more time was required for discussion of the some of the key conceptual issues and of the precise format for a new standard-setting instrument. There was agreement that the relationship between the convention as originally proposed and the 1972 World Heritage Convention would need to explored more thoroughly.

A further inter-governmental meeting is being convened in February 2003 to allow for preparation by the UNESCO Secretariat of a further draft convention, based on suggestions received from Member States. The UK government's line is that the debate should first concentrate on the bigger issues, and that it would be inappropriate to comment on specific wording for the time being.

The Round-table of Ministers of Culture, September 2002 produced a Declaration highlighting key principles for a future convention, including:-

• the need to ensure participation by all stakeholders - including local communities;
• the need to ensure intangible cultural heritage practices benefit;
• from recognition within States, providing they respect universal human rights;
• the need to explore new forms of international co-operation;
• (focusing on the exchange of good practice, rather than ascribing value to specific expressions of cultural heritage).

The full text is at http://portal.unesco.org/ev.php?URL_ID=6209&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201

Bob Kindred MBE - IHBC Representative UNESCO UK Culture Committee April 2002

The World Heritage Committee - Budapest

The World Heritage Committee held its 26th session in Budapest, Hungary from 24-29 June, 2002. The session was attended by over 300 participants representing all 21 Committee members (Argentina Belgium China Colombia Egypt Finland Greece Hungary India Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Thailand the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe) over 50 observers from States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, representatives from the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee (ICOMOS IUCN and ICCROM) and nearly 20 other organizations.

On 28 June 2002, the World Heritage Committee adopted the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage, marking the 30th anniversary of the signing of the World Heritage Convention in 1972. The Declaration recognizes the near universality of the World Heritage Convention, and calls for the application of the Convention to ?heritage in all its diversity.?

The Committee renewed its commitment to geo-cultural diversity and a balance between conservation, sustainability and development, underlining the importance of co-operation in the protection of the world's heritage, particularly in zones of conflict.

In light of this, the Committee requested UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies to continue assisting the government of Afghanistan in elaborating a medium and long-term action plan for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. ?In order to help with the rehabilitation of Afghanistan's cultural and natural heritage, the Committee provided US$150,000 for 2002-2003 for training, documentation, conservation and management.

The Committee also unanimously adopted a decision deploring the destruction and damage caused to the cultural heritage of Palestine. It allocated US$1 50,000 for 2003 from the Emergency Reserve of the World Heritage Fund in order to assist with the task of establishing an inventory of the cultural and natural heritage in the Palestinian territories, the assessment of its state of conservation, and the identification of measures for its preservation and rehabilitation, as well as the training and capacity building of Palestinian specialists.

The Committee also welcomed the establishment of the World Heritage Partnerships Initiative as a means, on an experimental basis, of achieving a new systematic approach to partnerships in support of World Heritage conservation, and called for further development of a regulatory frame work for the initiative.

It asked the Director-General to develop performance indicators for the strategic objectives adopted (the 4 Cs): strengthening the Credibility of the World Heritage List; ensuring the effective Conservation of World Heritage properties; promoting the development of effective Capacity building in States Parties and increasing public awareness involvement and support for World Heritage through Communication

Commenting on the work of the Committee, UNESCO Director-General Koichiro Matsuura stated that the destruction of the ancient Buddha statues at Bamyan last year by the Taliban in Afghanistan would ?weigh on our conscience as the world's moral authority and guardian of heritage. This is all the more reason why the decision of the Committee at this session to extend its concern to protect the heritage in the Palestinian territories is so important.?

Discussion at the 26th session was intense. Because of a very full agenda some items of importance, and notably the legal issues concerning the In Danger Listing and the finalization of the revised Operational Guidelines, had to be postponed for discussion at an extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee to be held at UNESCO Headquarters from 17 to 22 March 2003.

DOCOMOMO AND WORLD HERITAGE

The World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS jointly organized a session on 'Identification and Preservation of Modern Urban Heritage' during the 7th International Conference of DOCOMOMO (the International Working-party for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement), at UNESCO Headquarters from 16-19 September 2002.
 
 Some 400 international professionals and academics, historians, architects, planners and policy-makers attended the Conference, for three days of discussions on this year's theme: Image, Use and Heritage: the Reception of Architecture of the Modern Movement.
 
 The panel on 'Identification and Preservation of Modern Urban Heritage,' organized by the WHC and ICOMOS, dealt with some of the important issues related to modern heritage, such as the test of authenticity (in design, craftsmanship and materials), the role and value of shared heritage, and the significance of urban ensembles, also in combination with historic centres.
 
 This session examined the importance of the identification and preservation of urban ensembles which are related to the modern era, and how they can be integrated with historic cities or city centres. A significant issue was the determination of the criteria for assessment of modern heritage properties proposed as World Heritage. The panel also addressed the question of how to find advocates for modern heritage.
 
 It was suggested that appropriate methodologies for the assessment and selection of this type of heritage need to be developed, providing for balanced thematic and geographical representation. Strategies must also be devised to advise States Parties and the general public on the importance of the protection and conservation of modern heritage.
 
 'The main question,' said Ron van Oers, WHC Consultant for urban conservation and management, and one of the organizers of the Conference, 'is how to reach an understanding and agreement on the specific character of properties of modern heritage, in particular the urban ensembles from the modern era, in the sense that they represent major changes in economic, social, cultural, artistic and/or aesthetic concepts and values.'
 
 The DOCOMOMO Conference also focused on buildings, urban schemes and their interpretations, the audience and users and the local and international dimensions of modern architecture. Participants also discussed the writings and images of the modern movement and the reception of technical innovations.

BUDAPEST DECLARATION ON WORLD HERITAGE

We, the members of the World Heritage Committee, recognize the universality of the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the consequent need to ensure that it applies to heritage in all its diversity, as an instrument for the sustainable development of all societies through dialogue and mutual understanding

The properties on the World Heritage List are assets held in trust to pass on to generations of the future as their rightful inheritance

In view of the increasing challenges to our shared heritage, we will:

encourage countries that have not yet joined the Convention to do so at the earliest opportunity as well as join other related international heritage protection instruments;

invite States Parties to the Convention to identify and nominate cultural and natural heritage properties representing heritage in all its diversity for inclusion on the World Heritage List

seek to ensure an appropriate and equitable balance between conserva tion sustainability and development so that World Heritage properties can be protected through appropriate activities contributing to the social and economic development and the quality of life of our communities

join to co operate in the protection of heritage recognizing that to harm such heritage is to harm at the same time the human spirit and the world s inheritance

promote World Heritage through communication education research training and public awareness strategies

seek to ensure the active involvement of our local communities at all levels in the identification protection and management of our World Heritage properties

We, the World Heritage Committee, will co-operate and seek the assistance of all partners for the support of World Heritage For this purpose we invite all interested parties to co operate and to promote the following objectives

strengthen the Credibility of the World Heritage List, as a representa tive and geographically balanced testimony of cultural and natural proper ties of outstanding universal value;

ensure the effective Conservation of World Heritage properties;

promote the development of effective Capacity building measures including assistance for preparing the nomination of properties to the World Heritage List for the understanding and implementation of the World Heritage Convention and related instruments

increase public awareness, involvement and support for World Heritage through Communication.

We will evaluate at our 31st session in 2007 the achievements made in the pursuit of the above mentioned objectives and in support of this commitment.

Budapest 28 June 2002

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity

The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity has significance for the historic environment and an Action Plan has been prepared for Implementation with 20 objectives, of which No.13. Formulating policies and strategies for the preservation and enhancement of the cultural and natural heritage, notably the oral and intangible cultural heritage, and combating illicit traffic in cultural goods and services is the most significant, although No.8 dealing with `Living National Treasures’ also has significance for the perpetuation of craft skills .

The UNESCO preamble states: “The notion of cultural heritage has expanded greatly in recent years. From initially covering only the most monumental remnants of cultures and civilizations, it has gradually been extended to embrace new categories of heritage from non-artistic fields: the industrial heritage, underwater heritage, and so forth. The twenty-year old notion of “cultural landscape” reflects our awareness that nature and culture cannot be separated in our approach to the’ heritage if we are to render a true account of the diversity of’ cultural manifestations, particularly those where a close link is expressed between human beings and their natural environment. The more recent notion of “intangible heritage” refers to acts of creation and representation (oral traditions in craft skills) that serve to transmit the ways of society, traditional skills and know-how, beliefs and practices relating to nature (e.g. pharmacopoeia), languages and oral traditions. The cultural heritage of humanity is complex, fragile and endangered. Concrete measures to protect it are more of a must than ever. Fresh perceptions of what constitutes heritage, especially the intangible heritage, need to be sought, and partnerships need to be initiated with the private sector, especially the tourism industry. UNESCO was at the forefront of the Abu Simbel and Nubia campaigns launched in the early 1960s. It launched an innovative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in May 2001. And it must maintain its vanguard attitude in the years to come.

Making the intangible tangible

The oral and intangible cultural heritage is vulnerable because it hinges on moments in time and their actors. The concept of “Living Human Treasures” makes a pioneering contribution to the sustainability of the tangible cultural heritage, since it enables those invaluable actors to pass their know-how on to future generations. Similarly, the list of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage sets out to preserve certain key scenes, events and performances. Yet the very notion of “intangible heritage’ is still little known. And it is paradoxically so rich in potential that it could evolve in any of a number of different directions. While UNESCO strives to devise a standard ­setting instrument along the lines of the one established for the tangible heritage, it may be worth inviting Member States to develop their own research, mapping and awareness-raising strategies. National intangible heritage task forces could be established to come up with appropriate mechanisms at the national level. They should have the appropriate funding and mandate to allow them to assess legal feasibility, to identify partners and to increase awareness of the intangible heritage. New mechanisms for public debate, opinion-forming and awareness-raising could be created in order to highlight the links between national and international intangible heritage-related cultural policy. One possibility might be to create a National Forum for the Intangible Heritage in each Member State.

  Reinventing heritage schools

The few existing “heritage schools” in the Western world are deeply rooted in the tradition of monument conservation and restoration, and need to be re-attuned to contemporary times. Meanwhile, many of the West’s “landscape schools” are still geared to neat floral arrangements, i.e. the maintenance of parks and gardens. Both of these schools should be incorporated into a wider framework such as that offered by UNESCO’s current definition of the cultural heritage. They should also be brought into the mainstream of North/South exchanges, so that the strictly Western concept of “patrimony” collapses under the weight of the facts. New partners­hips may trigger the creation of institutions in developing countries and countries in transition. There is a significant need throughout the world for new, well-trained administrators capable of managing heritage projects and, moreover, coping with the ever-growing demands of the far from steadfastly culture-sensitive tourism industry.

Fighting on several fronts

There is an ever-increasing demand for rare cultural objects, especially antiquities, as witnessed in their soaring prices. To combat looting, UNESCO encourages Member States to fight on several fronts: implementing the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property; developing bilateral and multilateral agreements; ratifying the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects; establishing regional cooperation networks; increasing collaboration with organizations such as INTERPOL; and creating specialized private databases to track stolen cultural property. Yet this is not enough to deter traffickers, who are tapping into the possibilities offered by cyberspace, and cultivating the field of illicit cultural services such as money laundering through apparently bona fide institutions and so on. It follows that new conventions will have to be drafted and adopted in an effort to keep up with the ever-growing sophistication of the cultural villains.

Cultural heritage as a universal language

The cultural heritage has become a complex reality, reflecting a cultural diversity whose role in the development of societies must be recognized. Recent current events have shown how the heritage, seen as representing the values of identity - religious, national, community-based - can be held hostage as a supreme symbol of willfully rejected otherness (monuments destroyed, traditions in neglect). The heritage is a key stake in and medium for intercultural communication, and acts of aggression against it undermine all hope of dialogue. Heritage education would help strengthen the concept of a common heritage of humanity that is the fruit of manifold exchanges between cultures and civilizations. Then, through a “lexicon” of forms,” sensations and meanings, the heritage will be able to offer the universal language needed to build a culturally viable future.

With regard to objective No.8 on Living National Treasures the UNECO states the following:

When people are unique ‘living treasures”

Traditional forms of teaching are often employed to transmit a society’s “oral and intangible cultural heritage: artistic, scientific and religious knowledge, for instance. This is the most fragile kind of knowledge, as it relies on the physical and intellectual capacities of a few individuals. Preserving it can involve either collecting and archiving it - although it may soon be dead knowledge, with nobody left to tell the next generation how to use it - or conserving it in its living form and ensuring transmission to future generations. This is where UNESCO’s “Living Human Treasures’ project should be developed within the framework of the Action Plan of its Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. When artists, craftspeople and other “living libraries” gain official recognition, better care can be taken to ensure the transfer of their know-how, techniques and skills to others.

When people are resources to be shared

Such a system could be extended to people whose knowledge may not be so unusual or rare, but is still extremely useful to transmit to younger generations. These “UNESCO Resource Persons” could be invited to share their knowledge (whatever the domain) with audiences in schools, colleges, universities, workshops, private companies, and so on. It is often remarked that elderly people, especially in the Western world, are cast aside as if they were so much “dead wood”. But elderly people are often willing to continue to play an active role in society - going to hospitals to read stories to children, or to schools in the evenings to resume writing drills with early learners, etc. “UNESCO Resource Persons” and other such programmes, associated with NGOs like Help Age International, for example, could rely on these voluntary workers to help maintain the great chain of social well-being.

When the treasures are trained to speak out

There may be cases where knowledge-holders simply do not know exactly what they are doing when they perform, produce or act. It just happens. They cannot quite explain it in words. Their knowledge is so corporeal that switching from gestures to words is difficult if not impossible. Transmission of that “embodied” knowledge to future gene­rations may be problematic. Specialists could intervene, with the support of UNESCO and its Member States, in order to train the bearers of an all too intangible heritage to speak it out. After video-taping the whole process and watching it with their actors as many times as necessary, they could work together to lay down written records, and the “human treasures” could gradually be trained to make their knowledge verbally explicit - cognitive unloading, so to speak. In some cases, guidelines may be drafted for future practitioners. In a sense, this is modern pedagogy creating a traditional pedagogy. Such experimental approaches should be encouraged only when culturally appropriate.