UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage and its System
Since Washoku, traditional dietary cultures of the Japanese, was inscribed on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists in 2013, Japanese interest in and recognition of this system have increased greatly. However, this system is only one of many ways to achieve the goal of preserving intangible cultural heritage around the world. Therefore, we should use inclusion wisely without being hemmed in by it and focus on the original purpose, which is realizing the preservation of intangible cultural heritage. In order to do so, it is necessary to thoroughly understand and view the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage system objectively.
1. History of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage
First, we should take a quick look back at the history of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
The first international framework to protect cultural properties was established as a convention with legal force some 45 years ago. This first framework was the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention). The World Heritage Convention specifies tangible properties such as real estate. Then, in 2003, more than 30 years after the World Heritage Convention, the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage was established. The reason it took such a long time to include intangible cultural heritage in a convention was that the concept of intangible cultural heritage was not at all shared globally.
In 1950, the Cultural Property Protection Act, which clearly specified intangible cultural properties, was established in Japan. It was the first act in the world regarding intangible cultural properties. In 1962, Korea established its Cultural Properties Policies to specify intangible cultural properties. For some time after that, Japan and Korea were the only nations to pursue the legal preservation of intangible cultural properties. This placed both countries significantly ahead of other nations around the world in the legal protection of intangible cultural properties for a number of years.
How did the world come to pay attention to intangible cultural heritage? There were a number of reasons, but one of the major reasons was the world heritage system’s overrepresentation of sites in Western Europe. Third-world nations in particular complained about this, and these complaints led to the development of an intangible cultural heritage system as an alternative to the world heritage system. In 1998, the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity was adopted by UNESCO. This became the foundation for the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, which was established in 2003. The purpose of the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity was to raise public awareness of intangible cultural heritage and encourage people to preserve and improve it.
A total of three proclamations (Proclamations) were issued until 2006, and a total of 90 elements of intangible cultural heritage were included in the lists. From Japan, Nogaku Theatre, Ningyo Johruri Bunraku Puppet Theatre, and Kabuki Theatre, which are all Important Intangible Cultural Properties of Japan, are included in the lists. The Proclamations played an extremely important role in the preservation of intangible cultural heritage. They were key to a significant increase in global awareness and accelerated the preservation of intangible cultural heritage through the development of budgets, organizations, and legal systems.
In 2003, the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted by UNESCO. Japanese and Korean specialists exerted effort for development of the Convention. The Convention entered into force in 2006, and the inscription of heritage began in 2008. However, in 2008, the 90 elements of cultural heritage listed in the Proclamations were automatically included in the lists of the Convention. Therefore, the actual procedures for accepting and examining nomination proposals, and the inscription of elements on the lists began in 2009.
As of April 2006, when the Convention entered into force, 47 countries had ratified the agreement; however, this number increased to 175 countries in just 10 years (as of September 2017). Japan was the third nation to ratify the agreement. Fig. 1 State Parties to the Convention shows the countries that initially ratified the agreement. Individuals involved in the initial agreement have stated that the ratio of the Arab and Eastern European countries was extremely high and that they also had an influential voice. In contrast, countries in Western Europe seemed initially indifferent about the Convention. However, member countries in Western Europe have increased and the regional balance has gradually improved.
2. UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists and Inscription
Next are details regarding the content of intangible cultural heritage. As explained above, UNESCO established three Intangible Cultural Heritage lists. The most well-known list in Japan is the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (Representative List). This list is made up of the intangible heritage elements that help demonstrate the diversity of this heritage and raise awareness about its importance.
The Representative List is the most well-known among three and inscribes the largest number of elements. However, the most important list is the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (Urgent Safeguarding List), which is the primary list that most reflects the principle of UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. The primary purpose of UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage is to pass down intangible cultural heritage to the next generation, and if such intangible cultural heritage is at risk of destruction, we need to take urgent and appropriate action to preserve it under international cooperation and assistance. This is why the list is the most important.
The third list is the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices, which was renamed from the Register of Best Safeguarding Practices in 2017. This list was established as a means of sharing successful safeguarding experiences and examples of safeguarding performed in accordance with the principles of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The Representative List will be discussed later.
As a total of three lists, the number of inscribed intangible cultural heritage elements around the world is 470 as of 2017. The breakdown is 399 elements in the Representative List, 52 elements in the Urgent Safeguarding List, and 19 elements in the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices.
The number of inscribed elements from Japan is shown above the graph in Fig. 3 Number of Inscribed Elements by Year (470 elements as of 2017, 399 elements inscribed on the Representative List). The 90 inscribed elements were shifted from the Proclamations as described above, and actual inscription started in 2009. Japan planned to submit 14 elements; however, one nomination proposal was rejected. In the end, 13 elements were nominated and inscribed. In 2010, the entire number of inscriptions dropped significantly. As you know, the current annual number of elements examined by UNESCO is limited to 50, a limit instituted in 2010. In fact, Japan submitted nomination proposals for 13 elements; however, UNESCO decided to examine, and then ultimately inscribed only two.
The main reason that UNESCO limits the number of nominations is its capacity to conduct screening. UNESCO can only handle a limited number of nomination proposals each year. In addition, UNESCO prioritizes balance and equality among regions. Looking at the nomination proposals for the first inscription in 2009, 44 among 75 elements were from the Asia and Pacific Regions (Fig. 4 Number of Inscribed Elements in 2009 by Country). Among 44 inscribed elements, 40 were from China, Japan, and Korea, which was extremely unbalanced. Although this was natural because both Japan’s and Korea’s preservation systems for intangible cultural properties had long histories and they both had sufficient preparation for their nomination proposals, UNESCO considered it unfair, and gradually limited the number of nominations.
In 2011, discussions to set an upper limit to the number of nominations screened each year started. It was at the 2011 General Assembly in Bali, Indonesia. I was at the assembly and was shocked by the difference in understanding about ethnic culture between Japan and the rest of the world. The nominations Japan had planned to submit proposals for were deemed similar to other intangible cultural heritage elements already inscribed on the list. Members of the assembly referred the nomination to Japan for additional information. To be more specific, they asked questions and requested more information about Oga no Namahage (New Year visiting of masked deities in Oga, Akita); and in the end, it was not inscribed on the list. The reason it was rejected was its similarity to Koshikijima no Toshidon in Kagoshima, which had already been inscribed on the list. Mino Washi (craftsmanship of traditional Japanese hand-made paper in the Mino Region) was not inscribed on the list because it was similar to Sekishu-Banshi (papermaking in the Iwami region of Shimane Prefecture). My major is ethnology and felt the idea that Toshidan and Namahage were the same was a joke. Japan had implemented preservation systems for intangible folk cultural properties and had already conducted detailed surveys of individual intangible folk cultural properties by region. The approach has prioritized small differences in ethnic cultures among regions, and this became the foundation of Japanese intangible local and cultural asset preservation. We had been very aware of detailed cultural differences among regions for a long period of time; however, I realized that our way of thinking about intangible cultural heritage was not accepted globally.
Another thing that I clearly remembered from the assembly was that content of the nomination file was not read thoroughly, which is understandable in a sense. Intangible cultural heritage is not an object that we can see; therefore, it is impossible to understand the value unless we deepen our understanding of its cultural background and elements. Under such circumstances, we are required to make a judgement from the small amount of information written in the nomination file. Mibu no Hana Taue, the ritual of transplanting rice in Mibu, Hiroshima and Sada Shin Noh, sacred dancing at Sada shrine, Shimane were inscribed on the list in 2011. I personally think that if Sada Shin Noh had been proposed for under the name of Sada “Kagura,” it would not have been inscribed on the list. This is because Hayachine Kagura was already inscribed on the list. This assembly made me realized that examinations were conducted at such level.
Based on discussions at the conference in 2011, they decided to limit the number of nominations each year to 50 in 2013. Currently, nominations by Japan are examined once every two years. However, if the number of nominations increases, examinations conducted once every two years might be broadened gradually because Japan has already had may inscribed elements and the priority is extremely low. This is how the examinations work.
3. Criteria for Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Features
Definitions and criteria for intangible cultural heritage are included at the end of this paper. The definitions clearly state five categories; namely, (a) oral traditions, (b) performing arts, (c) social practices, rituals, and festive events, (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe, or the (e) knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts. Among such intangible cultural heritage, the elements that satisfy five criteria indicated by the resume may be inscribed on the list.
The criteria for inscription on the Representative List are not problems for cultural properties designated by Japanese government. However, the criterion prioritized by UNESCO is participation of the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned and with their free, prior and informed consent. UNESCO also considers it important to have the relevant concerned parties involved in all the processes of the nomination. I will talk about this in greater detail later; however, if the element satisfies all the criteria, it will be inscribed, and if information about the element is insufficient, the committee will refer the nomination to the submitting State(s) for additional information. If the element does not satisfy any of the criteria, it will not be inscribed. This is how each element is evaluated.
Next, I will provide a more detailed explanation of the features of UNESCO intangible cultural heritage. What is the definition of intangible cultural heritage in Japan, in other words, what are the objects that the Japanese government decides to nominate as elements? The Japanese government considers cultural properties in three categories as intangible cultural heritage; namely, intangible cultural properties, intangible folk cultural properties, and selected conservation techniques. A comparison between Japanese intangible cultural properties and UNESCO intangible cultural heritage shows that UNESCO concept is broader. In particular, (a) oral traditions and (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe have not been elements in the Japanese cultural property system. This is the first feature.
The second feature is more important. UNESCO does not, in principle, set a value on individual intangible cultural heritage elements. This means that the inscription of intangible cultural heritage elements on the list is not a function of the value of the element in itself. They are inscribed simply as examples of cultural diversity on the earth. Therefore, the lists are lists of examples. When the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage was initially established, the plan was for the lists to employ a sunset clause, in which the lists would change completely over a certain period of time. Although that plan dissolved during discussions, UNESCO has prioritized the concept that inscribed elements are simply examples of intangible cultural heritage on the earth. They are not “registered” because of their value, but simply “inscribed” on the list; therefore, UNESCO uses the term “inscription,” not “registration.”
The concept of not setting a value on individual elements is completely different from the world heritage system. World heritage sites have outstanding universal value while the value of individual intangible cultural heritage elements is unquestioned. In addition, the involvement of communities is prioritized in the inscription of intangible cultural heritage elements on the lists, which differs significantly from world heritage sites. While these two UNESCO systems are frequently confused, the basic concepts are completely different. In addition, the closest concept among Japanese cultural property systems to UNESCO intangible cultural heritage may be folk cultural properties. As with cultural landscape, properties that show changes in Japan’s modes of life are designated folk cultural properties; however, they do not depend on absolute values. As the value of individuals is the same, the value of individual intangible folk cultural properties is, in principle, equal. They are simply examples of intangible folk cultural properties, a concept that is very close to that of UNESCO intangible cultural heritage.
4. Policies of Japan regarding Nomination Proposals
Finally, I will explain the policies of Japan regarding nomination proposals. In principle, Japan proposes elements for nomination from among intangible cultural properties of Japan (intangible cultural properties, intangible folk cultural properties, and selected conservation techniques), from older to more recent, with equal consideration over broad categories. Of course, there have been exceptions. However, as I explained above, because the number of proposals per year was limited, and intangible cultural heritage elements that are similar to elements that have been inscribed on the list have been rejected, we gather similar elements into a group and establish proposals covering the group. Currently, proposals from Japan are examined once every two years, and the possibility that the interval may be increased cannot be ruled out.
As is well known, proposals and inscriptions from categories other than cultural properties, categories such as Washoku, have been made and will increase. From the beginning, Japan has sought General Certification and Preservation Group Certification. This means that Japan has focused on elements whose management, protection or preservation organizations are certified to make proposals for inscription. In other words, a Living National Treasure (Individual Certification) is not eligible for nomination. Some may remember confusion related to this. When Washi was inscribed on the list in 2014, certified individuals were not included on the list.
For future proposals, the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan announced in February 2017 that five elements that were referred to Japan for additional information in 2009 would be gathered into a group and prioritized for nomination, and elements other than cultural properties, elements such as life and culture, would be the subjects of proposals. Specific examples are the traditional Japanese tea ceremony (Sado), calligraphy (Shodo), and dwarfed potted plants (Bonsai).
These were already released to the press, and what I would like to emphasize is that local governments have not been involved in the proposal process; in other words, they cannot be involved in the process. This is the largest difference from the World Heritage proposal process. While local governments prepare recommendations and submit applications for the World Heritage listing, the national government takes the initiative in proposing Intangible Cultural Heritage elements for nomination. The most important factor in determining whether or not individual elements in different regions will be inscribed on the list of Intangible Cultural Heritage is the above-mentioned grouping. Prioritizing five elements as a group has been determined; however, depending on the grouping, the timing of the inscription may change, or some elements may not be considered. A working group of specialists discusses how each element will be grouped, and then the Council for Cultural Affairs discusses recommendations and determines the details. In early 2018, the content of the next proposal will be announced. Basically, local governments are not directly connected to the system of determining Intangible Cultural Heritage elements.
However, UNESCO prioritizes the involvement of concerned communities in the process of creating proposals. Therefore, the system headed by the national government may change in the future. On the other hand, applications for World Heritage sites handled at the local level can drain the resources of local governments. For this reason, it is difficult to determine whether local governments or the national government are better suited to the task.
5. Future Vision – What We can Do
What can we do as individuals who are not involved in the process of proposals for inscription?
First of all, we can ask the national government to create a more flexible system for proposals. As I explained above, there are three lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Japan has not submitted proposals for the Urgent Safeguarding List and Good Safeguarding Practices. We may consider proposals for these categories as well. For the Good Safeguarding Practices in particular, UNESCO has requested that Japan make proposals, and after the Great East Japan Earthquake, Japan considered a proposal regarding the restoration of performance and religious rituals, which has not yet been realized. In fact, proposals for Urgent Safeguarding List and Good Safeguarding Practices will reach the upper limit of the above-mentioned number, which prevents Japan from making proposals for the Representative List.
One of the more realistic approaches is multinational nominations, which is encouraged by UNESCO. Multinational nominations are not regulated by the upper limit of the proposals, and there are already 34 multinational inscriptions of shared heritage on the lists. Therefore, even in years that Japan is not supposed to make proposals, it is possible to apply for lists other than the Representative List. In 2015, Tugging rituals and games was inscribed on the list proposed by Cambodia, Philippines, Korea, and Viet Nam. While Korea had suggested that Japan join in the proposal, Japan decided not to for several reasons. Japan has at least 20 cultural properties related to tugging, including those designated by prefectures. In addition, the schedule indicated by Korea for submission of the proposal was only one year; and it was difficult for Japan to summarize such a large number of cultural properties and coordinate internationally for the nomination. However, multinational nominations may be one option to consider in the future. I also understand that a multinational nomination for female divers by Korea and Japan was discussed in Mie Prefecture. I was initially under the impression that the proposal was led by the local government. However, it was a private group, and the local government was not involved in any way.
It is also necessary to establish group networks. Basically, more proposals will be made by groups than before. Local governments can be closely involved in the effective use of group networks, an issue to be addressed in the future.
There are two further points to consider, and they are relatively large themes. One is how we perceive the meaning of the intangible cultural heritage system. In some local governments, the governor and mayor have been moving toward listing. The heads of local governments want to use inscription as a means of vitalizing their regions, attracting tourists, and promoting regional branding. Looking at World Heritage sites, however, among the many listed, Shirakawa-go is the only one that has seen a continual increase in the number of visitors after listing. Therefore, we need to examine whether inscription on the lists of intangible cultural heritage does in fact help vitalize regional tourism. In addition, it is necessary to consider how we make use of intangible cultural heritage for tourism, and if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Considering these issues, it is important for us to clarify the goal of having individual elements inscribed on the lists, and what the meaning of the system is for us.
There was movement toward aligning the Japanese cultural property system more closely to the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage system when the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage was established in 2003. However, both have moved in different directions for the past 10 years. Under such circumstances, Korea revised its Cultural Property Protection Law in 2016 to bring it closer to the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage system. How about Japan? We need to consider this from the standpoint of the individuals engaged in cultural property administration. Of course, Japan can maintain its standpoint free of influence from the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage system. Japan also needs to consider revising the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties soon, and we must also prioritize the utilization of cultural properties. We need to comprehensively consider such administrative movements to ensure the protection of cultural property.
IMAISHI, MIgiwa (Department of ICH, Tobunken)