Overall results framework for the 2003 Convention and its implication to higher education.

My presentation is called ‘New Trends and Directions in the 2003 Convention’ although it is a bit hard to say which trends are new because this is really the first round of periodic reporting we are getting. So what I want to do is give you a summary of the information received by UNESCO following the start of the periodic reporting process. So they are obviously new directions because this is the first time. Some results are surprising and unanticipated, and others are to be expected.

In reality, safeguarding ICH (or whatever term one uses)1 has been an important issue for the large majority of countries around the globe and their citizens long before the 2003 Convention was adopted. The ‘problem’ of ICH, therefore, was a lack of formal international recognition of this reality and a cultural heritage protection paradigm that prioritised monumental European cultural forms over local and indigenous ones and that, when it addressed traditional culture, it did so from a heavily researcher-oriented viewpoint. The experience of those countries that are Parties to the 2003 Convention shows clearly that ICH in all its various forms is a rich social and, often, economic and even political resource that provides a variety of possible routes towards sustainable models of development. This variety is determined by many social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental factors and is itself part of the invaluable diversity of this form of heritage.

This paper begins by reviewing the current implementation of the 2003 Convention at the international level, notably its ratification status and the inscriptions on its two lists—the Urgent Safeguarding List and the Representative List—as well as on the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices. It then examines how procedures to process nominations and inscriptions on the lists and register have been improved and rationalised since drawing up the first version of the Operational Directives in 2008.The paper takes note of the significance of the capacity-building activities undertaken by the UNESCO Secretariat. It then addresses the implementation of the Convention at the national level on the basis of the First Periodical Reports on the implementation of the Convention that have recently been submitted to the Committee. Various fundamental issues are brought to light.Finally, the paper discusses the importance of distributing tasks among the three East-Asian Category 2 Centres for the implementation of the 2003 Convention in the Republic of Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Japan and underscores the significant roles that have been entrusted to the information and networking centre in the Republic of Korea.

Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage has always been an important issue for the large majority of countries and their citizens, long before the 2003 Convention was adopted. However, this was not formally recognized internationally, and a cultural heritage protection paradigm that prioritized monumental and prestigious heritage over local and indigenous cultural forms dominated. The experience of countries that are party to the 2003 Convention clearly demonstrates that ICH in all its various and diverse forms is a rich social, economic, and even political resource for sustainable development.

The unbalanced geographical distribution of accredited NGOs was identified as one of the major concerns by the General Assembly, the Committee and the Secretariat when the reflection process on the advisory role of accredited NGOs started at 12.COM in 2017. One of the recent actions to address the challenge is an initiative towards the establishment of aworking group for the ICH NGO Forum dealing with regional imbalance of accredited ICH NGOs. The initiative came from our NGO, the Finnish Folk Music Institute, and was endorsed by the ICH NGO Forum Steering Committee. The working group will start discussions based on the possible measures received via the survey and work with the aim to overcome the ongoing imbalance.

"Fiji perceives the 2003 Convention as an important tool to enhance the national pursuit to protect, promote, and revitalise traditional knowledge systems and intangible cultural heritage (ICH) of not only the indigenous iTaukei but also the many other ethnic groups that have made Fiji their home. It is these migratory ethnic cultures that are creating a challenge to the survival the indigenous culture, but at the same time, they are also a blessing in disguise because the influx of different cultures creates a multi-ethnic cultural society, one that is open to dialogue, national identity, and greater understanding, which then promotes pluralism in creativity and innovation. However, one of the most promising features of migratory cultures is that their dancers, spoken language, and forms of worship have to some extent become accustomed to the new environment that has engulfed their new social structure. And this is the most fascinating thing about ICH—it is evolving, so it is a form of living heritage. The migratory groups whilst practicing their heritage have also adopted elements of the local culture. The same also applies to the indigenous culture, which has adopted aspects of the migratory culture over time. For example, garlanding (veivakasalusalutaki) during traditional welcoming ceremonies and other events was not originally a part of iTaukei ICH, but through time, it has been adopted from other Pacific Island cultures, such as the Rotuman, Indo-Fijian, and Chinese cultures. So we are continually faced with questions and challenges as to that which the community perceives as their true ICH and that which is borrowed, and in respect of those that are a blend of both, where do they fit? Or to whom does it belong? What if the community collectively feels that it is not their own, what do we do? Do we still enter this into our national inventories? The contemporary ICH (art)—how are we to embrace it? These are issues we hope to explore further in the "