Review of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the ......Review of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America (CRESPIAL) 20

ReviewoftheRegionalCentrefortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCultural

HeritageofLatinAmerica(CRESPIAL)

20January2014

Reviewby:AngélicaArbulú[email protected]:UNESCO,SecretariatoftheConventionfortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritageParis

TableofContentPage

ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................................................1Methodology..................................................................................................................................................................4Purpose,contextandscope........................................................................................................................................................4Datacollection,verificationandanalysismethods..........................................................................................................5Findings...........................................................................................................................................................................6Managementstructure.................................................................................................................................................................6Financialstructure.........................................................................................................................................................................7Humanresourcesandcapacities.............................................................................................................................................8Natureandfunctions....................................................................................................................................................................9ManagementandadministrationofCRESPIAL..............................................................................................................10Oversight.........................................................................................................................................................................................10CoordinationandinteractionwithUNESCO....................................................................................................................11Attheprogrammaticlevel.......................................................................................................................................................13

Area1–Multinationalprojects ................................................................................................................ 13 Area2–Promotionandawareness‐raising ............................................................................................. 14 Area3‐Networkingandtraining ............................................................................................................ 15 Area4‐Strategicalliances ....................................................................................................................... 15

Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................171. GeneralrecommendationsontherenewaloftheAgreement........................................................................172. Recommendationsforimprovingtheeffectivenessofitsoperations.........................................................173. Recommendations for improving the effectiveness of coordination and interaction withCRESPIAL........................................................................................................................................................................................184. RecommendationsforpossibleamendmentstotheAgreement...................................................................19Annexes........................................................................................................................................................................21I. ListofInterviewees...........................................................................................................................................................21II. CRESPIALOrganizationalChart...................................................................................................................................22III. Questionguideforthebilateralinterviews............................................................................................................23IV. AgendaofthetenthmeetingoftheExecutiveCommittee................................................................................25V. AgendaoftheeighthmeetingoftheGoverningBoard......................................................................................26VI. Listofkeydocumentsperused....................................................................................................................................27VII. TermsofReference...........................................................................................................................................................29Table1–Countries’totalcontributionstoCRESPIAL..................................................................................................7Illustration1–CRESPIAL’sStakeholders........................................................................................................................12

1

ExecutiveSummaryThisexecutivesummarycontainsasynopsisofthemainaspectsofthereviewreport.ThemainaimofthereviewwastoassesstheCentre’sperformance inrelationto itsobjectivesandfunctions, as setout in theAgreementbetweenUNESCOand thePeruvianGovernment (hereinafterreferredtoastheAgreement),anditscontributionstoUNESCO’sstrategicprogrammeobjectives.ThisreviewwascommissionedbytheSecretariatoftheUNESCOConventionfortheSafeguardingofIntangibleCulturalHeritage1(theConvention)atUNESCO’sHeadquartersinParisandformedpartofthe Agreement renewal process. TheReviewCommittee on Category 2 Centreswill use the reviewfindings to make its recommendation to the Director‐General on the advisability of renewing theAgreement.Themethodologyusedwaseclecticandconsistedofananalysisofsecondarydocumentation,activeobservation of management processes (the Executive Committee and the Governing Board), semi‐openbilateral interviewsandsubsequentvalidationcomprising furtherbilateral interviews,held toconfirm initial findings, and a preliminary report that was shared for validation purposes withUNESCO,CRESPIAL,theGovernmentofPeruandallinterviewees.Thefinalreportwasatlastdrafted,taking into consideration the comments receivedandobserving theprinciplesof independenceandneutrality established by the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). A list of interviewees isprovidedinAnnexI.Themain criteria that guided the reviewwere relevance, efficiency, quality and effectiveness. It isconsidered that appropriate and sufficient information was gathered for the review to be deemedexhaustive,fairandunbiased.Giventhenatureandobjectivesofthereview,themainconstraintwasthe lack of objective or quantitative sources, but thatwas offset by triangulating information fromvarioussourcesandvalidationasmentionedabove.ThereviewrevealedthattheRegionalCentrefortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritageofLatinAmerica(CRESPIAL)hadbecomeestablishedasabodythatwasrespectedandhighlyvaluedbythecountriesintheregion,asdemonstratedbythegrowthofitsmembershipfromsixtofourteenStates.Thatpositionenabledittoadvanceitsobjectives.Amongotherthings,thecountriesvaluedinparticular itsability topromote linkages,exchangeanddisseminationof intangibleculturalheritage(ICH)among the countriesand thusenhancecooperationandconsistencyboth in ICH‐safeguardingapproaches and public policies and in using available ICH resources more efficiently, while evenleveragingadditionalresources.Exchangewasespeciallyvaluable tocountriesat the incipientstagebecause they could gain, through CRESPIAL, from other,more advanced, countries’ experience andexpertise,andtotransboundaryculturalexpressions.CRESPIAL definitely fulfilled its objectives and discharged it functions in accordance with theAgreementbutmade little contribution toUNESCO’s strategicobjectives, largelybecause theywerenotlistedintheAgreement.ItisthereforerecommendedthatArticle3oftheAgreementbeamendedto refer specifically to the connection with UNESCO and its strategic objectives, in line with theamendmentsproposedindocument37C/18.TherewasagreementonCRESPIAL’sroleinpromotingtheUNESCOConventionandawarenessoftheimportance of the alliance with UNESCO, which made CRESPIAL independent and regional incharacter,despitebeing financedbyonlyonecountry.Recognitionof itsstandinghadnot,however,ledtogenuinecommitmenttoUNESCO’sobjectivesundertheAgreement.ThemainidentifiedcausesofthatshortcomingwerethattheAgreementstipulatedgenericresponsibilitiesonly;themanagementandoversightstructureexcludedUNESCO;UNESCOdidnotprovidefundstoCRESPIAL;peopleinthecountriesbelievedthatUNESCOdidnotunderstandreal‐lifesituationsandchallenges in theregion;peopleinthecountriesdidnotknowexactlywhat“category2centre”connoted.CRESPIAL’smanagementstructureconsistedofaGoverningBoardandanExecutiveCommittee.TheGoverningBoardinitiallyincludedcivil‐societyrepresentatives,asrequiredintheConvention,butthe 12003.

2

practice was discontinued for financial reasons and because representativeness and meaningfulinvolvementcouldnotbeguaranteed.Itwasconcludedthat,onaccountofCRESPIAL’ssizeandnature,substantive civil‐societyparticipation in themanagementbodieswasnot sustainable. It is thereforerecommend that theAgreementbe amended to reflect this fact, instead seeking to strengthen civil‐societyinvolvementinothertechnicalbodies,suchasmultinationalprogrammegroups,andthatthecountries’understandingoftheimportanceofcivilsociety’sroleintheseprocessesbestrengthened.The participants agreed that themanagement and administration of CRESPIAL had improvedsignificantlyinthelasttwoyears.However,thereviewconcludedthattheefficacyofCRESPIALwouldbeimprovedbysharpeningitsfocus,whichwouldentailsettingclearandmeasurableobjectivesandgoalsgearedtoresults‐basedmanagement(RBM).InordertofulfilthecommitmentscontainedintheAgreement,thewaysinwhichtheysupportUNESCO’sobjectivesmustbestatedclearly.Decisions were made mainly in the Executive Committee, and the main working documents wereapproved at annual Governing Boardmeetings. It had been deemed to be a good practice that theGoverning Board sat for two days, which permitted amore extensive dialogue, but the Boardwasfound to be primarily an administrative body that engaged in little in‐depth discussion, mainlybecausedocumentsforapprovalwereissuedjustbeforemeetingsbegan,attimewhencountrieswereparticularly busy and thus had little time to dedicate to the process. In addition, although theAgreementprovidedthatCRESPIALwascommittedtoUNESCO’sstrategicobjectives,UNESCOwasnotincludedinthemanagementanddecision‐makingstructure.Inordertostrengthentheeffectivenessofthe Governing Board and Executive Committee, strategic and operational plans must be discussedmorewidely,bothwiththecountriesandwithUNESCO,beforesubmissionforapproval.Tothatend,itisrecommendedthatdialogueregardingthedocumentsforapprovalbecommencedmuchearlierandthat the final version be received by countries two weeks before the meeting.2In order to ensurealignmentwith the strategic priorities, it is recommended thatUNESCObe included at the draftingstage, before strategic and operational plans are distributed to the Governing Board. It is alsorecommendedthattheGoverningBoardandExecutiveCommitteemeetingsbemovedtothestartofthe year and that they be staggered, if possible, so that more time is available to incorporate thediscussionsintothetexttobeapproved.CRESPIALreportedtotheGoverningBoardandExecutiveCommitteethroughabiennialreport,whichprovidedagenericoverviewofactivities,resultsandbudgets. ItdidnotreporttoUNESCOortotheGovernment of Peru.3The review concluded that oversightwas insufficient and it is recommendedthat reports be issuedmore frequently, so that every sixmonths simple reports detailing progressmadeandchallengesfacedandprovidinganupdatedfinancialbreakdownaredistributed,inlinewiththeconclusionsofthefirstmeetingofcategory2centresinSozopol.ItisalsorecommendedthattheresponsibilitiesoftheUNESCOfocalpointsbeincreasedtoformalizethemonitoringofthesereports.InadditiontobeingconsistentwiththeParisAccords,thiswouldhavetheadvantageofpromotingadirect and concrete line of dialogue between CRESPIAL and UNESCO, thus strengtheningcommunication,inlinewiththeSozopolconclusions.Pursuant to theAgreement, CRESPIALwas financedby theGovernment of Peru, but CRESPIALhadsought to increase funding for its activities through direct contributions from the countries. AnestimatesubmittedbytheCRESPIALteamshowedthat,in2013,countriescontributed,throughdirectsupporttoactivities,4US$483,372,nearlytwicetheamountprovidedbytheGovernmentofPeru. Itwas therefore necessary to adapt to the countries’ demands and to negotiate objectives, with theattendant risks of dispersal of strategic aims and diversion of human resources. Another challengeassociated with the financing system was the tendency to work with countries that had greaterfinancialresources,whichalsotendedtobethemostadvancedinICHterms.Toavoiddispersal,itisrecommended,onthebasisofthereview,thatafocusingexercisebecarriedoutinordertoidentifypriorityareasandeliminateactivitiesthatcannotbejustifiedwithinthoseparameters. 2 AtUNESCO,thestatutorydeadlineforpublishingtheworkingdocumentsofthegoverningbodiesoftheConventionisfourweeks

beforecommencementofthemeeting.3 In2013,theGovernmentofPerurequestedareportonthebudgetforthecurrentyear(disbursementandexpectedexpenditure).4 GiventhenatureofCRESPIAL,itisdifficult,ifnotadministrativelyimpossible,fortheothercountriestotransferfundsdirectlytoit.

3

The countries acknowledged unanimously the high level of commitment and dedication of theCRESPIALstaff.Trainingoftheteamhasbeenidentifiedasagoalinthestrategicplanfor2014,buttheareasthatmustbestrengthenedhavenotbeenspecified.Theprioritytrainingareasidentifiedduringthe reviewwere: (1)RBM‐geared programmemanagement, including the ability to plan to achievesustainable, realistic and measurable targets and goals, and identify indicators correlates withUNESCO’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) indicators; and (2) strengthening of the genderperspective, both theoretically and practically, especially in relation to work with communities.Without such training,women’s roles in the communitywere liable to be overlooked or simplifiedwhendevisingsupportforsafeguardingactivities.ThereviewconcludedthatCRESPIALcouldnothaveexpertsonitsteamtomeetallofthecountries’demandsand,consequently,itisrecommendedthatitprovideaccesstoexpertisethroughadatabaseof regional ICH specialists, 5 and 6 which would therefore include human resources, tools andmethodologiespotentiallyusefultothecountries.CRESPIALcommunicatedwithUNESCOthroughtheDirector‐General’srepresentativeinHavanaandthe focal point for Latin America at the Secretariat in Paris. Although there was consensus thatcommunication between UNESCO and CRESPIAL had improved, it still lacked clear objectives andprocedures,anditwasconsequentlyadhocandunsatisfactorytobothparties.Itwasconcludedthattheflowofinformationwasinsufficient,anditisrecommendedthatcommunicationbeimproved,inlinewiththeSozopolconclusions,throughregularbilateralmeetingsbetweenUNESCOandCRESPIAL,andthatcommunicationchannelsandresponsibilitiesbetweenthetwo institutionsbeagreedupon.Somemembersof theGoverningBodyreportedthatcommunicationwithinCRESPIAL,andbetweenCRESPIAL and the countries, had deteriorated. It would therefore be advisable for procedures,communicationchannelsandCRESPIAL’sresponsibilitiestowardsitsmembers,forexample,throughnewsletters, to be spelt out in bilateral agreements, which would support the above‐mentionedrecommendation on stronger dialogue among Governing Body members before approval ofoperationalandstrategicplans.Attheprogrammelevel,CRESPIALhadidentifiedfourfocusareas,namely(1)multinationalprojects,(2)ICHpromotionandawareness‐raising,(3)networkcreationandtrainingfor institutionbuilding,and(4)strategicalliancestoensureICHinstitutionalsustainability.Themainstrengthofthemultinationalprojectsthematicarealayinitscapacitytorootdialogueinactualagreements,whethertheybecommontechnicalcriteriaorpublic‐policyguidelines,whichwas;important intransboundaryICHcases.Asaninternationalbody,CRESPIALwasinauniquepositionandconstitutedakeyplatformforensuringalignmentwithUNESCO'svision.ThatfunctionwashighlyprizedbythemembercountriesandwasregardedbythereviewerasakeyaspectofCRESPIAL’sworkandofgreatpotentialtoUNESCO.The main weaknesses identified were the lack of meaningful participation by communities andemphasisonregisteringratherthansafeguarding.Severalparticipantsstressed,however,thatneithersafeguarding nor community activities were matters for a regional centre such as CRESPIAL but,rather,shouldfalltothecountries.ThereviewerconsidersthatCRESPIAL’sroleshouldbetoensurethat the countries have appropriate and sufficient knowledge and tools to develop inclusivemethodologiesfocusedonsafeguarding(goingbeyondmerelydocumentingandincreasingvisibility),and to align those methodologies with UNESCO’s national training strategies. In short, CRESPIALshouldplayprimarilyacapacity‐buildingrole.The promotion and awareness‐raising thematic area had focused on photography and videocompetitions, virtual workshops on participatory ICH‐recording methods and the disbursement ofcompetitive funding.Otheractivities includedthecoordinationandconductofactivitiestocelebratethetenthanniversaryoftheUNESCOICHConventionandmaintenanceofCRESPIAL’svirtualplatform.Itwasconcludedthatthoseactivitiespromotedtheawareness‐raisingandpromotionobjectivessetin 5 The CRESPIAL team considered that “it is too soon to use of the term “expert”, as there are no registered ICH specialists or

accreditationandcertification institutions,because theworkentailed ismultisectoral andmultidisciplinary”.Therefore, the term“expert”hasbeenreplacedby“specialist”,whichwillbeusedtorefertospecialistsinthevarioussafeguardingfields.

6 UNESCOhasaninternationaldatabaseofICHexperts,whichcouldbeusedandwhichthecountriesthemselvescouldhelptoupdate.

4

theCRESPIALAgreement but, owing to the scale of the achievements and the identifiedneed for asharper focus, it isrecommendedthatobjectivesandexpectedresults for thisyearbedefinedmoreclearlythanmerelyasproducts,sothatresourceswillnotbedilutedwithoutobtainingclearresultsowingtothecurrentlackofdefinition.The purpose of thenetworkcreationand training thematic areawas to strengthen the technicalcapacityofCRESPIALMemberStatesandwas,therefore,theareamostdirectlylinkedtotheUNESCOobjectives.However, itwasalsooneof theareasofgreatestdisagreement, in termsofbothcontentand form.The reviewconcluded that institutionbuildingwasa critical partofCRESPIAL’s role andwas largely achieved by supporting multinational projects. Nonetheless, it would be necessary tocontinue and strengthen training through courses by formulating a strategy that identified clearpriorities,methodologiesandobjectivestoguidethedesignofmethodologicallymorerobustcourses.The goal of the fourth thematic area,strategicalliances,was to establish and strengthen strategicalliances. Its main achievements included doubling the number of CRESPIAL member countries,increasingthefinancingofCRESPIALuntil2020andsecuringthecountries’economicsupportfortheCentre’s activities. As the member countries have displayed a high level of commitment andownership, it could be said that CRESPIAL effectively represents the national governments in ICHmatters.Furthermore, activities were carried out with institutions such as Venezuela’s Cultural DiversityCentreFoundation,Brazil’sLucioCostaCentreandColombia’sRadioandTelevisioncorporation,butthestrategicobjectivethatledtotheestablishmentofthoseallianceswasnotclear.ThereviewconcludedthatthethematicareahadgreatpotentialandformedpartofCRESPIAL’skeyobjectives, but currently lacked a clear strategy and clear objectives. For that reason, and asrecommendedforotherthematicareas,theobjectivesmustbesetmoreclearlytoguidefutureactioninthisarea.Thereviewconcludedthat,initsshortexistence,CRESPIALhadachievedrecognitionandcredibilityasanintermediaryinstrengtheningthesafeguardingworkofthecountriesintheregion.Assuch, itwaspotentiallyavaluableally forUNESCOinthe implementationof theConvention.Therefore, it isrecommended that the Agreement be renewed, but its objectives are currently not clear. As theobjectives are not clear, it is difficult to formulate efficient strategies, leading to some dilution ofimpactandtoinefficientuseofavailableresources.IftheAgreementistoberenewed,itsfocusareasmustbeclarified.It was concluded that CRESPIAL’s main strength was its organizational role as a regional centrecapable of convening and promoting dialogue, which was enhanced by its technical work onmultinational projects, conceptual discussions could be grounded and CRESPIAL’s Member States’publicpolicies,methodologiesandsafeguardingplanscouldbealignedwiththeConvention.Owingtoitsnatureandcharacteristics,itcouldneitherplayatechnicalroleatthecountryorcommunitylevelsnorcarryoutsafeguardingactivitiesdirectly.Inaddition,CRESPIAL’sactivitiescouldleveragehumanandfinancialresources,aswellascommitmentfromthecountriestosafeguardICH.Consequently,itcould play a key role in UNESCO’s strategy designed to promote institution building and theConvention.MethodologyThepurpose,scopeandcontextofthereviewexerciseandthemethodology,toolsandothercollectionandvalidationmethodsusedareoutlinedinthissection.Purpose,contextandscopeThe Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America(CRESPIAL) is a category 2 centre established under the auspices of UNESCO pursuant to anAgreement between UNESCO and the Government of Peru (the Agreement). CRESPIAL has itsheadquartersinCuzco,Peru.

5

Themainpurposeof thereviewwas toassess theCentre’sperformance inrelation to itsobjectivesandfunctionsundertheAgreementanditscontributionstoUNESCO’sstrategicprogrammeobjectivesandthethematicpriorities.The Review Committee on Category 2 Centres will use the review findings to make itsrecommendationtotheDirector‐General,whowill inturndecideonthatbasisontheadvisabilityofrenewingtheAgreementwiththeGovernmentofPeru.Datacollection,verificationandanalysismethodsInaccordancewiththetermsofreference,thereviewconsistedoffourstages:

– thepreparationandstudystage,duringwhichthedocumentsand informationprovidedwerereviewedandthenecessarytoolswereprepared(seeAnnexIII–Questionguideforthebilateralinterviews);

– the second stage, involving the collection of primary information through semi‐openinterviewsanddirectobservation(asanobserverattheseventhmeetingoftheExecutiveBoardandtheentireGoverningBoardmeetingfrom6to8November2013inthecityofCuzco);

– thethirdstage,duringwhichapreliminaryreportwasdraftedaccordingtothestructureproposedinthetermsofreference;

– thefinalreportstage,duringwhichcommentsreceivedwerevalidatedandincorporated,asappropriate.

As itwasnecessary to adapt to the availability of theparties, thesemethodologicallydifferentiatedstageswere,onoccasion,conductedsimultaneously.Themethodologyusedwaseclecticandconsistedofananalysisofsecondarydocumentation,activeobservationofmanagementprocesses(ExecutiveCommitteeandGoverningBoard)andtwotypesofsemi‐openbilateralinterviews–onebasedonthetermsofreferenceandanotherdesignedtoconfirminitialassumptionsandfindings.Theintervieweesincluded:themembersoftheSecretariatoftheConventionfortheSafeguardingofIntangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO Paris) who worked with CRESPIAL; the UNESCO Director‐General’srepresentativeontheGoverningBoardofCRESPIAL,FernandoBrugman(UNESCORegionalOffice inHavana); andDavidUgarte,Director of theDecentralizedCultureDepartment of Cuzco. Inaddition,threemeetingswereheldwiththeCRESPIALteam(aninterviewwiththeDirector,a focusgroupwiththemanagementandafocusgroupwiththetechnicalteam)andbilateralinterviewswereconductedwithnineofthefourteenCRESPIALMemberStates.TheintervieweesarelistedinAnnexI.ThecountriescoveredbytheinterviewswereselectedwiththesupportofUNESCOandCRESPIAL,theaimbeingtoobtainasignificantsampleaccordingtovariouscharacteristicssuchassizeandlengthofCRESPIALmembership.Aneffortwasmadetoensurethatmorethanone focalpointparticipated ifthere had been a recent change of staff, or to contact former focal points in order to obtainmoreinformation.Theinterviewswereconductedface‐to‐face,bytelephoneandonSkype.Themainreviewcriteriawererelevance,efficiency,qualityandeffectiveness.Thevalidationprocesswasbasedontheprincipleoftriangulationandreinforcedbythepreliminaryreport which was shared for validation with UNESCO, CRESPIAL, the Government of Peru and allinterview participants. The final report was then drafted, taking into account the comments andsuggestions received, in accordance with the principles of independence, neutrality and the otherUNEG‐establishedprinciplesandstandards.7It is considered that reliableandsufficient informationwasgathered to fulfil the specificobjectivesandforthereviewtobedeemedexhaustive,fairandunbiased.

7 UnitedNationsEvaluationGroup.

6

The main constraint, given the nature and objectives of the review,was the lack of objective orquantitativesources,butthatwasoffsetbydrawingonavarietyofsourcesandbytriangulatingtheresults.FindingsThismainreviewfindingsandconclusionsaresetoutinthissection.ManagementstructureCRESPIALwasestablishedasacategory2centreunderUNESCO’sauspicesafteranagreementwassigned by UNESCO and the Government of Peru (the Agreement) on 22 February 2006. Under theAgreement,CRESPIALisdefinedas“aninternationalautonomousinstitutionattheserviceofMemberStates” and, as a category 2 centre, it is governed by the implementation strategy formulated forUNESCOcategory2centres(35C/Resolution90).CRESPIALhadadualgoverningstructure,assetoutintheAgreement,comprisingaGoverningBoardand an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee met twice yearly and comprisedrepresentativesoffivemembercountries.TheGoverningBoardmetonceyearlyandwascomposedofrepresentativesofallCRESPIALMemberStates;UNESCOwasrepresentedby theDirector‐General’srepresentative. All members had equal voting rights. Attempts to hold additional virtual meetingsweredescribedasinadequate,owingprimarilytotechnologicalconstraints.Initially, in accordance with the Convention, one civil‐society representative from each membercountrysatontheGoverningBoard,butthepracticeofincludingcivilsocietyhadbeendiscontinued.Therewasonecivil‐societymember(fromBrazil)ontheGoverningBoardin2012buttherewerenocivilsocietyrepresentativesin2013.Thepracticehadbeendiscontinuedmainlyforfinancialreasons,asaresultoftheriseinthenumberofMemberStates.Furthermore,itwasstressedthatthepracticeposedachallenge for thecountriesas therewerenocriteria for selectingparticipants.Moreover, itwas difficult to guarantee representativeness as there were various civil‐society groups in eachcountryandseveralpotentialrepresentativeswithinagivengroup.Besides,itwasdifficulttoachievecontinuity among civil‐society representatives and theparticipants felt that they couldnot in somecasescontributetodecision‐makingbecausetheyhadlittleknowledgeoftheissues.The reviewer agrees that civil‐society participation in the Governing Board is not particularlysustainable in practice as it would raise the number of Governing Board members involved indecision‐making to 28 (plus 28 airline tickets). More significantly, the reviewer agrees with theinterviewees that itwould be practically impossible to guaranteemeaningful representativeness orparticipation for, owing toCRESPIAL’s intergovernmentalnature, civil‐society representation seemsirrelevant.Itwasconcludedthatitwouldbemoreappropriatetoseekcivil‐societyparticipationinthetechnicalworkinggroupsandintheproposedObservatoryonPlansandPublicPolicies.8The Governing Board sat for approximately two days,whichwas regarded as a good practice as itpermittedmoreextensivedialogueandboostedthecountries’senseofbelongingtoCRESPIAL.Itwasfound, however, that the Governing Board played an administrative rather than a substantive role,largelybecausemeetingdocumentswerenotavailablesufficiently far inadvance,which limited theGoverningBoardmembers’abilitytocontributeandtomakeproposalsandrecommendations.Itwasconcluded that Member Statesmust receive the documents sufficiently far in advance, in order toparticipate meaningfully. Furthermore, as a mechanism to facilitate fulfilment of the commitmentsunder theAgreement, it is recommended thatUNESCObe includedat thedevelopment stagewhenplans and strategy are being designed, in order to achieve alignment between the two institutions,which isnotcurrently thecase.Although,asa category2centre,CRESPIALhas legal and functional

8 TheObservatory, aCRESPIAL initiative that, is still beingdefined,will be a forum inwhichUnitedNations andUNESCOexperts,

academics,etc.willbeinvitedtodevelopindicatorsandinitiatedialogueonthesafeguardingplansandpublicpoliciesofcountriesintheregion.

7

autonomy,9it is under an obligation – also as a category 2 centre – to contribute to UNESCO’sprogrammesandresults,10attheriskoflosingitsstatusasacategory2centre. FinancialstructureCRESPIAL is financed by the Government of Peru, and specifically by the Cuzco Region, whosecommitmentwasrenewedinMay2013forsixyears.ThisguaranteesCRESPIALfundingof$500,000yearly,aswellaspaymentof thecentre’s runningcostsand thepremises fromwhich itoperates.Amaximumof45%ofthosefundsmaybeearmarkedformanagementandadministrationcosts.AlthoughthelevelsoffinancinghadremainedconstantsinceCRESPIAL’sestablishment,thebiennialreport stated that “CRESPIAL’sbudgethasdecreasedby20%basedonrateofexchangeofthedollartoPeru’snationalcurrency(calculationbasedonthe2006exchangerateandthecurrentexchangerate).Thebudgethasthereforeshrunkby30%,whilethenumberofMemberStateshasdoubledsince2006”.Therefore,inpractice,CRESPIAL’sbudgethasbeenreducedwhileitscostshavedoubledbecauseitsmembershiphasincreased.Most focal points interviewed said that, given the nature of CRESPIAL (essentially an agreementbetweenUNESCO andPeru), for both administrative andpolitical reasons, direct transfers of fundsweredifficult, if not impossible.However, the countries contributed to CRESPIAL by subsidising itsactivities directly. According to CRESPIAL estimates, the countries’ contributions in 2013 throughdirectactivitysupportamountedtoUS$483,372,whichwasalmostequivalenttothecontributionoftheGovernmentofPeru(seeTable1).Thetabledoesnotreflectresourcesleveragedintermsofstaff‐timeinvestedorresourcesleveragedtoimplementedmultinationalprogrammeswithinthecountries.CRESPIAL’sfundsseemedtohaveamultipliereffect,asCRESPIAL‐initiatedactivitiesoftengaverisetootheractivitiesorwerecontinuedorextendedbythecountries.TherewerealsoreportsofbilateralcollaborationasaresultofworkwithCRESPIAL.Table1–Countries’totalcontributionstoCRESPIAL

2012 2013TOTAL CONTRIBUTION TOCRESPIAL BY ITS MEMBERSTATES

$244,021 $483,372

SOURCE:2012‐2013CRESPIALBiennialReport*AmountsinUnitedStatesdollars

These financialcontributionsshowthat thecountriesascribegreat importancetoCRESPIAL’swork.However, this financing structure entails a threefold risk: (1) diversion of CRESPIAL’s resources tofund‐raising activities, away from the objectives established in the strategic plan; (2) dispersal ofstrategicaims,asactionistakentomeetcountries’requestsratherthanfocusontheoperationalplanapproved by the Executive Committee; and (3) tendency to work with large countries which cancontributefunds,butwhichareoftenalsothecountriesthathavemorecomparativeadvantages.Moreover,althoughCRESPIALisfinanciallyindependentofPeru,thereissomepressuretoincreaseitsvisibilityandsupportat the regional level.Asa result,CRESPIAL is increasing its activity locallybysupportingtheestablishmentofsafeguardingplansandactivitiescarriedouttomarktheanniversaryoftheConvention,amongothers,althoughitisunclearhowthoseactivitiescontributetoCRESPIAL’sandUNESCO’sstrategicobjectives.It was concluded that that financial structure was problematic for the execution of activities, thegreatestrisksbeingstrategicdispersalandthediversionofhumanresourcestofund‐raisinginsteadofimplementation of the strategic plan. Another challenge associated with that system of financing 9 Newintegratedcomprehensivestrategy(37C/18PartI,Annex,paragraphA.2,“legalandfunctionalautonomy”).10 Newintegratedcomprehensivestrategy(37C/18Part I,Annex,paragraphB.2,required“contribution toUNESCO’sprogrammes”

andresults).

8

concernedstrategiesguaranteedtoassisttheweakestcountriesthatlaggedfarthestbehindinICH.Toavoid those risks, greater clarity andagreementbetween thepartiesmustbe achieved in regard toCRESPIAL’srole,missionandobjectives,andthecountriesandUNESCOmustparticipatetoagreaterextentindefiningprioritiesandstrategiesinordertopromotethefeaturesraisedbelow.HumanresourcesandcapacitiesTheCRESPIALteamconsistedof15memberswhenthecurrentDirectortookupduties.Againstthebackdropofincreasedmembershipandtheresultantriseinexpenses,theCRESPIALstaffcomplementhasbeenreducedtoninepeopleaspartofarefocusingdrive(seetheorganizationalchartinAnnexII).Eachstaffmemberhasadefinedrole,butitwasreportedthattheteamoperatedasanetwork,withanygapsbeingfilledbyconsultantshiredoccasionally.ThecountriesunanimouslyacknowledgedthehighlevelofcommitmentanddedicationofCRESPIAL’sstaff. Staff training had been identified as an objective in the strategic plan for 2014, but the gapsidentified hadnot been specified. Countries expresseddivergent viewswhen identifying the team’sweaknessesduringthereview,owinglargelytolackofagreementonwhatCRESPIAL’smainrolewasor should be. For example, thosewho believed that CRESPIAL should focus on providing technicalsupportsaidthat itrequiredmorespecialists(suchasanthropologistsandspecialists incommunitywork), while others argued that the countries’ demandswere so great and specific that CRESPIALsimplycouldnothavespecialistsonitsstafftomeetallofthoseneeds.

"Wemustbegivenguidelinesinordertofindexpertsandproducepublic‐policyguidelinedocuments”

Some stressed the importance of boosting the team’s programme‐management skills (for thepreparationofplansandbudgets, forexample)andofadoptingstrategicplanninggearedtoresults‐basedmanagement(RBM)11ratherthantoproducts.Othershighlightedtheneedtoboosttheteam’scapacity to function as a link between UNESCO and the countries (for example, by enhancing itsknowledgeofproceduresthroughwhichcountriescangainaccesstoUNESCOfundsorbeincludedinthelistsorUNESCO’strainingstrategy).Duringtheinterviews,emphasiswaslaidontheneedtotrainthecountryfocalpointsandonamajorconstraint, namelypersonnel changes throughwhichpersonswhowerenot familiarwith theworkand sometimes had insufficient knowledge of ICH were assigned to participate in CRESPIAL’sactivities,whichaffectedboththequalityandprogressofCRESPIALprojects.ThereviewerconcludedthatCRESPIALdidnothavethenecessary(humanorfinancial)resourcestoprovidespecialtechnicalsupporttomeetallofeachcountry’sneeds;itcould,however,supportthoseneedsbycompilingalistordatabaseofspecialistsinvariousdisciplinesavailableintheregionandinUNESCO.Thatwasalready thepracticeamongmembercountriesand itwouldbestrengthened if itincludedUNESCO’sandothercountries’expertise,bothwithintheregionandfurtherafield.UNESCOalready had a database that could be shared and updated with the assistance of the countriesthemselves.ThefinaldecisiononprioritytrainingareaswaslinkeddirectlytotheneedtodefineCRESPIAL’srole,missionandobjectivesmoreclearly.Someweaknessesidentifiedduringthereviewwere:

– theneedtostrengthenresults‐basedmanagement(RBM)inordertostrengthenthetoolsthatguideCRESPIAL’swork;

– the need to introduce a results measuring system capable of feeding into the UNESCOsystems;CRESPIALregardeditsroleofmonitoringthecountries’activitiesascrucial,butno mechanisms or tools had been devised to enable performance of systematicmonitoring;

– theCentre’s lackofagender focus–hence theneed toboost the team’s theoreticalandpractical knowledge of gender issues, failing which women’s roles within communities

11 Results‐basedmanagement.

9

were liable tobeoverlookedor simplifiedwhensupport for safeguardingactivitieswasbeingdesigned.

Anotherchallengefacingtheteam,fromthehumanresourcesstandpoint,consistedinmaintainingitsresponseat thesame level,despite thegrowingnumberofMemberStatesand theconstantbudget.Severalintervieweesvoicedconcerninthatregard.Toresolvethatproblem,ifPeru’scontributionwasnot increased, CRESPIAL’s focus must be narrowed and, consequently, its areas of action must bereduced. CRESPIAL could also explore the possibility of strengthening the team through staffexchanges with the countries, UNESCO or other institutions, such as universities, and of securingsupportthroughstudentinternships.NatureandfunctionsItwas foundduringthereviewthat, intheyearssince itsestablishment,CRESPIALhadmanagedtoestablishitselfasabodythatwasrespectedandhighlyvaluedbythemembercountriesintheregion,as demonstrated by its increasedmembership from six to fourteen States. Above all, the countriesvalued CRESPIAL’s role as a facilitator and promoter of linkage among countries, creatingopportunities for dialogue to exchange ideas and agree on criteria on which to base public ICHsafeguardingpolicies.Moreover,CRESPIALpromotedSouth‐Southlearning,throughwhichcountriesgainedfromeachother’sexperienceandlearning.ThelinkagefunctionwasespeciallysignificantinLatinAmericanbecausevariousintangibleculturalexpressions straddled national borders and, consequently, the corresponding responses werecoordinatedamongthecountriesconcerned.Moreover,coordinationhelpedtopromotemoreefficientuse of countries’ limited ICH resources, while also serving as a way of leveraging other resourceswithin the countries. CRESPIAL’s influence extended beyond the scope of its own direct activities,promoting collaboration among its Member States, as evidenced by bilateral activities that thecountriesthemselvesattributetofacilitationbytheCentre.

“It’sameetingpointfordialogueandcomparativeanalysisofpolicies,andcreatesopportunitiesfordiscussion.”

CRESPIAL’sstatusasan“internationalautonomous institution”,12whichstemmedfromitsaffiliationtoUNESCOand thehigh levelof independencegranted to it by theGovernmentofPeru,whichhadsignedtheAgreementwithUNESCO,waskeytoenablingittoplaythatrole.PeruhadthesamevotingrightsastheothercountriesandhadgrantedCRESPIALfinancialindependence,whichallowedit,forexample,tousethefundswithoutfollowingtheregulationsappliedtogovernmentministries–whichwasofprimordialimportancetoCRESPIAL’sregionalactivities.Inturn,onaccountofitsassociationwith UNESCO it was independent of Peru in relation to other countries, which permitted directtechnical interaction and dispensed with the requirement to go through traditional bilateralprotocolarychannels.Countries had differing reasons for wishing to participate in CRESPIAL. Those exercises wereespecially valued by countries at earlier stages, as they gained, through CRESPIAL, from othercountries’ experience and expertise (South‐South development). Meanwhile, for countries that aremoreadvanced in safeguardingmatters,CRESPIALprovidedanopportunity to align strategies. Thecountries reported thatnational institutional capacitieshadbeen strengthened as a consequenceoftheirparticipationinCRESPIAL.

“Theheritage[inLatinAmerica]isveryrichandsomecountrieslackthestructureandcapacitytoimproveit.ThroughCRESPIAL

wehelpeachothertotrainspecialists,whichisoneofitsgreateststrengths.Discussingoperationalguidelines.WereitnotforCRESPIAL,

disparateactionwouldbetakeneverywhere.Itforcesustoreflect."

Duringthereview,itwasfoundthatCRESPIALoperatedontwolevels.Firstly,ittookpolicy‐orientedactionthroughtheGoverningBoard,throughtheExecutiveCommitteeandthroughitsparticipationinmeetingsandeventsofinternationalinstitutions,includingUNESCO’sIntergovernmentalCommittee. 12 AsdefinedinArticle3oftheAgreement.

10

Secondly,itplayedamoretechnicalrolebypromotingmultinationalprojectsandtraining.Actionbycountries’focalpoints,too,variedfromoneactivitytotheother.ItwasconcludedthatCRESPIALhadbecomeestablishedasaprimarilyintergovernmentalCentrethatexertedinfluencebothoverpublicpolicyandovertechnicalmatters.ManagementandadministrationofCRESPIALAll interviewees agreed that the management and administration of CRESPIAL had improvedsignificantlyinthelasttwoyears,especiallyafterthenewDirectortookupduties.From the strategic point of view, the strategic planwas found to be generic, broad and ambitious,given theCentre’s (human and financial) resources. Some stressed that the diversity of focus areaswas aweakness and that it posed the risk dispersing CRESPIAL’s limited resources. Therewas noagreement onwhat CRESPIAL’s rolewas or should be, for some considered that it should focus ontechnicalmattersandonfieldwork,whilethemajoritysaidthatitsprimaryrolewasoneof linkageandyetanothergroupfeltthatitshouldfocusontrainingandinstitutionbuilding.Furthermore,therewas no understanding of the obligations and commitments entailed in being a UNESCO category 2centre.Owing to the lackof clarityand thegenericnatureof theplans, countries’ specificdemandscouldnotbemetandadditionalfundscouldnotberaised,whiletheriskofdispersaloftheCentre’sactivities rose, available resourceswerebeingdiluted and theCentre’s category2 statuswasbeingjeopardized.

“Activitiesthisyearwereverydiscrete.ItfunctionslikeanNGOlookingforthingstodo;

itmustbemoreintegrative.”

The interviewees stressed that the quality of the working documents, such as the strategic plan,operationalplan,etc.,hadimproved.Theyconsidered,however,thattheworkingdocumentsmustbeimprovedandsimplifiedfurtherinordertostrengthentheirstrategiccharacter,stateobjectivesmorespecifically and reflect the link between CRESPIAL’s and UNESCO’s objectives more clearly, inaccordancewiththeAgreement.Theyalsostressedtheneedtoincludegreaterfinancialdetailsintheoperationalplan,bothintheforecast(budgets)andintheyear‐endreports.Several interviewees pointed out that the dates set for the programming exercises, normallyNovember of each year, were inconvenient, as the countries were making their end‐of‐yearpreparationsatthattime.Itwasthereforedifficultinsomecasesforthefocalpointtotakepartand,owingtotheadditionalworkload,thefocalpointsoftenlackedthenecessarytimetoanalysetheplansandmakeameaningfulcontribution.CRESPIAL,foritspart,founditselfinthepositionofbeingunderanobligationtodrawupaplanwithbudgetsthat insomecaseshadnotyetbeenformalizedandofreportingontheyearbeforeithadended.Itwasconcludedthat itwouldbemoreeffectivetomoveGoverningBoard and Executive Committeemeetings to January or February, preferablywith a gapbetweenthem,whichwouldallowtimetonegotiateandadjust theplansbeforesubmittingthemtotheGoverningBoardforapproval.CRESPIALfacedyetanotherchallengefor,initsworkwithnationalgovernments,processeswereslowin consonance with internal dynamics, which, moreover, did not necessarily coincide with othercountries’dynamics.Thatwasexacerbatedbytheneedtoadapttoleadtimeswithinthecommunities,whichhad theirowndynamicswhichwereoftendifficult tocoordinatewith thoseof civil servants.Another of CRESPIAL’s strengths was its flexibility and ability to adapt to those lead times thatcomplicateanddelayplanningbutwereanunavoidablereality.ThereviewconcludedthattheCentrewouldgaininefficiencybysharpeningitsfocus,streamliningitsareasofactionandsettingclearmeasurablegoalslinkeddirectlytoUNESCO’sstrategicobjectives.OversightAsmentionedabove,althoughPeruistheonlydonorandsignatorytotheAgreement,ithasonlyonevote with the sameweight as the other Member States. CRESPIAL is the only UNESCO category 2centre that is so highly independent of the donor country. Furthermore, CRESPIAL has legal

11

independenceandthusenjoysgreaterflexibilitytotheusemadeofitsfundsbecauseitisnotrequiredtocomplywithnationalregulations.Thisisanimportantfactor,asCRESPIALitisthusendowedwithahigh level of independence and neutrality, which has helped to boost theMember States’ sense ofbelonging.It was also found that CRESPIAL enjoyed a high level of autonomy in decision‐making and inadministrativeroutinesowingtoitsmanagementstructure,consistingofaGoverningBoardthatmetonceayearandanExecutiveCommitteethatmettwiceayear,andtheapprovalofrelativelygenericstrategicplansandbudgets.CRESPIAL reported annually to the Governing Board and Executive Committee, but only a biennialreportwasproduced;themostrecentreportcoveredthe2012‐2013bienniumandwassubmittedtothe Governing Board in November 2013. The report set out activities and results generally andgenerically. Furthermore, itwas found that some sections of the report had not been updated (forexample, page 26 contains a section that reads “Although this is the second yearof the2010‐2011StrategicPlanandconsiderableheadwayhasbeenmadeinachievingtheobjectivesaimedatpositioningCRESPIAL...”Moreover, the budget summarywas not sufficiently detailed to permit any analysis ofefficiency in theuse of resources and it, too, seemed tobeout of date; for example, the committedrather than the implemented budget for 2012 was shown. Lastly, there was no accountabilityreporting toUNESCOor to thedonor,which led somemembersof theGoverningBoard towonderwhethercontrolmechanismswereinplaceandwhowasmonitoringCRESPIAL.

"Complianceinanycountryisstrictmonitoredandcontrolled.WhomonitorsandcontrolsCRESPIAL?There’sambiguitythere."

Thereviewconcludedthatthelevelofoversightwasinsufficientforacategory2centrelinkedtoaninternational institution such as UNESCO and recommended that simple reports on progress andresultsbecompiledeverysixmonths(inlinewiththeconclusionsofthefirstMeetingofCategory2CentresinSozopol, in2013) forsubmissiontotheExecutiveCommitteeandUNESCO.InadditiontohelpingCRESPIALtocomplywithinternationalstandardsofgoodcooperation,inaccordancewiththeParisAccords, thiswouldhave the advantage of promoting communicationbetweenCRESPIAL andUNESCO, strengthening coordination and facilitating alignment, also in line with the Sozopolconclusions.CoordinationandinteractionwithUNESCOProceduresforcoordinationbetweenCRESPIALandUNESCOhadchangedovertime.Initially,itwasexercised through the UNESCO Office in Lima. Later, it was established that the route of dialoguewould be through the Director‐General’s representative in Havana and the focal point for LatinAmerica at the Secretariat in Paris. Lastly, at the Sozopolmeeting in July 2013, it was agreed thatcommunicationbetweenUNESCOandthecategory2centresmustbeimprovedanditwassuggestedthat centres should communicate informally “first, quickly and frequently” with UNESCO, alwaysthrough theDirectorGeneral’s representative. Inpractice, thathadnot yetbeendone atCRESPIAL.Communication was ad hoc and only occurred for specific matters, such as extending invitations,GoverningBodyandExecutiveCommitteemattersorthepostingofinformationonUNESCO’sregionalwebsite. Despite the difficulties mentioned, there was agreement that communication betweenCRESPIALandUNESCOhad improved inrecentyears.Nevertheless,during thereview,bothpartiescomplained about the lack of feedback and unclear procedures. It is therefore recommended thatcoordinationbetweenCRESPIALandUNESCObeformalizedandstandardizedthroughmoreregularreports(asrecommendedatSozopol),thatUNESCObekeptinformedregularlyandinformallyaboutthe Centre’s activities and more formal four‐monthly meetings be held between CRESPIAL andUNESCO,thuspromotingmorefluiddialogueandaspiritofcollaboration.

12

Illustration1–CRESPIAL’sstakeholdersAlthoughCRESPIALwasestablishedunderanagreementbetweenPeruandUNESCO,itfunctionedastheresultof cooperationamong threestakeholdersandcouldnotcontinue tooperate if anyoneofthemwithdrew.During the review, the countries showed that they understood the key role played by UNESCO inguaranteeingCRESPIAL’sindependence.Inpractice,however,thathadnotledtogenuinecommitmentto UNESCO’s objectives under the Agreement. During the review exercise, certain causes wereidentifiedascontributingtothatlackofcommitment:

– generalandvagueresponsibilitiesundertheAgreement,whichdidnotspecificallyrequireanysuchcommitment;

– financing of CRESPIAL and its activities by Peru and the Member States, which putUNESCOinaweakposition;

– thecountries’perceptionofUNESCO, itsstrategiesandtoolsasbeingsomewhatgenericandcutofffromtheregionalreality;

– Governing Board members’ perception that UNESCO did not invest any resources inCRESPIAL,andsoanybenefitwasaboon;

– lackofclarityofwhat“category2centre”connoted;– amanagementstructureaccountableonlytotheMemberStates;– lackofUNESCO‐involvedaccountabilityoroversightmechanisms.

Thereviewconcludedthatthecurrentlackofcoordinationwasduelargelytoalackofunderstandingofthenatureofcategory2centres,whichentailedcommitmentonCRESPIAL’sparttocontributetothe furtheranceofUNESCO’sstrategicobjectives.Consequently,CRESPIALand thecountriesviewedUNESCO as merely another member, with a voting right, within a democratic structure. That wasreflectedintheArticle3oftheAgreement,inwhichCRESPIALwasdescribedasaninstitution“attheservice of Member States”. Likewise, the management and decision‐making structure, through theExecutiveCommitteeandtheGoverningBoard,gaveprioritytotheinterestsofthemajority,whetherornotthoseinterestswerealignedwithUNESCO’sstrategies.Furthermore, as mentioned above, there was no accountability mechanism. As no accountabilitymechanismorprocedureswasinplace,UNESCOwasregardedinpracticemerelyasanothermemberoftheGoverningBoardandtheonlyinformationthatitreceivedconsistedofthedocumentsthataresenttoGoverningBoardmembers,inadditiontoafewinvitationstoevents;UNESCOthereforecouldnotmakeanymeaningfulorstrategiccontribution.ThewordingoftheAgreementmustbeamendedtoreflectaccuratelyandexplicitlythenatureoftheAgreement between Peru and UNESCO. The management structure must operate within theparameters of a category 2 centre; therefore, democratic voting must rest on proposals that are

13

consistent with the Agreement and clearly promote UNESCO’s objectives. In practice, therefore,UNESCOmusthavetheopportunitytoreviewandcommentontheproposeddocumentssothattheywould be aligned with UNESCO’s requirement when submitted to the Governing Board/ExecutiveCommittee. It should be borne in mind, however, that failure to address the countries’ priorityconcernsduringthatprocesswouldcreateariskthattheywouldloseinterest,stopparticipatingandcontributingfunds,and,ultimately,withdrawfromCRESPIAL.SomeGoverningBoardmembersnoted that,while communicationbetweenCRESPIALandUNESCOhad improved in recent years, communication between CRESPIAL and the member countries hadworsened and, as a result, information sharing on the result of exchanges between UNESCO andCRESPIAL had also deteriorated. Mechanisms must be devised to guarantee a regular flow ofinformationonCRESPIAL’sactivitiestothemanagementbodies.The review concluded that information flowswithin CRESPIALwere insufficient. Such informationflows were crucial to efficient management. Therefore, it is recommended that communicationchannelsandproceduresthatguaranteeregularinformationflowsbestrengthenedandstandardized,andnotbelimitedtofunctionalcommunication.Emphasismustlaidonmoreinformativeinformationflows,suchasquarterlyemailsprovidingupdatesondecisions,activities,resultsandplans,orthehalf‐yearlyreportproposedinthisdocumentandintheSozopolrecommendations.ImprovedinformationflowswouldstrengthenoneofCRESPIAL’smainobjectives–thepromotionofcoordination,whilealsoimprovingoversightby themanagementbodies and empowering theGoverningBodybyprovidingmoredetailedinformationtoitregularly.AttheprogrammaticlevelAlignmentbetweenthethematicareasandthecommitmentssetoutintheAgreementwillbeanalysedbrieflyinthissection,inwhichreviewfindings,too,arereported.Attheprogrammaticlevel,CRESPIALidentifiedfourfocusareasthatcoincidedwiththeobjectivessetin the Agreement. One of those focus areas, networking and training, is wholly consistent withUNESCO’sstrategicpriorities.The focus areas were: (1) multinational projects; (2) ICH promotion and awareness‐raising; (3)networking and training for institution building; (4) strategic alliances for ICH institutionalsustainability.Area1–Multinationalprojects

ThestrongpointofCRESPIAL’sworkonmultinationalprojectsisthatitmakesitpossibletogrounddialogueinconcreteagreements,suchasthedevelopmentofcommoncriteriafortheestablishmentofan inventory that acknowledges each country’s specific features but also feeds into a commondatabase. These exchanges help to promote technical criteria and alignments for common publicpolicies,whichareparticularlyimportantinICHthatinvolvesseveralmembercountries.Asacategory2centre,CRESPIALisinauniquepositiontoplaythisorganizationalrolebysupportingthealignmentofstrategies,criteria,activitiesandpublicpolicies,whichoftenhelpstoleverageresourcesandensurecommitmentswithinthecountries,overandaboveCRESPIAL’swork.Atthesametime,itisacrucialplatformforensuringalignmentwith theUNESCOConvention.This function ishighlyvaluedby themembercountriesandisconsideredakeyaspectofCRESPIAL’swork.Themainweaknessesidentifiedinthisareawerethelackofmeaningfulcommunityparticipationandemphasisonregisteringratherthansafeguarding.The majority of the interviewees regarded the documentation process as a necessary first step tosafeguarding, rather than as an end in itself. Some conceded that there was greater emphasis onenhancing visibility, but they viewed that as a need to build awareness of the importance ofsafeguarding ICH and of promoting supportwithin the country concerned, in linewith CRESPIAL’sawareness‐raising objectives. However, some recognized the need to achieve more thandocumentationandtoreviewthecontinuingchallengefacedinthatregardbysomecountries.

14

Moreover, some interviewees considered that CRESPIAL was not working appropriately or in asufficiently inclusive manner with the communities. One of the main barriers to its work withcommunitieswas its intergovernmental status, requiring access to communities to bemediated bygovernments.In the 2014 strategic plan, both safeguarding for development and greater participation bycommunities had been identified by CRESPIAL as strategic objectives. Implementation had alreadybegun tosomeextentas supportwasprovided for safeguardingplansdesigned topromotea socialagreement to ensure that all major institutions participated and that specific commitments weremade.Several participants nonetheless stressed that safeguarding activities and work with communitieswerebothresponsibilitiestobebornethecountriesandnotbyCRESPIAL.

“Safeguardingcannotbeguaranteedbyaregionalcentre,itmustbeaddressedbyeachcountryinitsownpublicpolicy.

CRESPIAListheretosupportthoseendeavours.”

Itwasconcludedinthereviewthat,insteadofseekingtoworkdirectlywithcommunities,itwouldbemoreefficientforCRESPIAL,onaccountofitsintergovernmentalnatureandlimitedresources(humanand financial), to focus on promoting understanding of the importance of substantively includingcommunities in ICH‐safeguarding endeavours and to provide inclusive tools andmethodologies forusebycountries.Lastly, it is noteworthy that some interviewees considered multinational projects to be crucial tosecuringsomecountries’continuedmembershipandparticipation.Area2–Promotionandawareness‐raising

Emphasisinpromotionalandawareness‐raisingeffortshadbeenlaidonorganizingphotographyandvideocompetitionsandvirtualworkshopsonparticipatorymethodologiesofregisteringtheintangiblecultural heritage (ICH), in which 50 participants had been trained, and on disbursing competitivefunds to develop 13 ICH‐safeguarding projects in nine CRESPIAL Member States and six projects(three for safeguarding and three for research) for which funds were to be granted at the end of2013.13OtheractionincludedthecoordinationandconductofactivitiestomarkthetenthanniversaryoftheUNESCOConvention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible CulturalHeritage in Cuzco inNovember2013(includinganopeningevent,an internationalsymposium, fivespecializedICHworkshops, twoexhibitions of photographs and an ICH video series). In addition tomaintaining CRESPIAL’s onlineplatformbyupdatingcontentandawareness‐raisingvideos,otherwebapplicationsontheCRESPIALwebsitecomprisedthelaunchofaYouTubechannel,TwitterfeedandISSUUpublications.14The challenges identified by the team included the need to formulate a communication strategy totarget CRESPIAL’s varied audiences more clearly. Efforts in that regard were acknowledged by itsMember States and had been made to meet to the Cuzco Region’s to raise CRESPIAL’s profile.Nevertheless, the impact of initiatives such as competitions and competitive fundingwas not clear.Other critics suggested that someof theactivitiesduplicatedUNESCO’seffortsandoverlappedwiththeConventionitself,underwhichafundandcriteriaforaccesstothefundhadbeenestablished.Itwas considered in the review, however, that as long as Convention‐specific criteria and guidelineswerefollowed,theywouldnotbeexclusionary,sinceCRESPIALhandledmattersonadifferentscalefromUNESCO.

“ThosewhohaveaccesstoCRESPIALfundsmaynothaveaccesstoUNESCOfunds.Onlylanguageisstillabarrierand,asarule,governments,notinstitutions,

mayapproachUNESCO.UNESCOandCRESPIALoperateatdifferentlevels.CRESPIALoperatesatthemicrolevel”

13 Source:2012‐2013CRESPIALBiennialReport.14 Source:2012‐2013CRESPIALBiennialReport.

15

It was therefore concluded in the review that those activities furthered CRESPIAL’s objectives ofraisingawarenessandpromotingtheConvention.Itwasrecommended,however,aboveallinviewofthe sheer scaleof theeffortsmadeand theneeds identified, thatemphasisbe laidmore sharplyonobjectivesandexpectedresults,ratherthanonproducts,sothatCRESPIALwouldnotdiluteresourceswithoutachievinganyclearresults.Area3‐Networkingandtraining

ThepurposeofthisthematicareawastobuildthetechnicalcapacitiesofCRESPIALMemberStatesinorder to improveor consolidate their ICH‐safeguarding activities throughvirtual,15on‐siteorpartlyon‐site16courses, workshops and training events consistent, at least in principle, with UNESCO’sstrategic objectives. This was, however, one of the points of greatest divergence between the twoinstitutions,bothintermsofcontentandform.In terms of content, the main criticism was that CRESPIAL courses did not cover the Conventionproperlyandthattheirmainstrength,ashighlighted,wasthattheyhadbeentailoredtotheregion’sneedsandspecificcharacteristics.Intermsofform,severalintervieweesstressedthatthesituationinLatinAmericancountrieswassuchthatpublicofficialshadgreateraccesstovirtualcoursesbecauseofvariouscountry‐specificinternalpoliciesthathinderedon‐siteandextensiveparticipation.17Owingtothescopeofthereview,thereviewerscouldnotappraisethequalityofthecoursesorthemeritsofthecriticisms,butanevaluationof thevirtualcourseonICHregistrationandinventorying18hasthrownlightonstrengthssuchastheacademicqualityanddemand‐drivennatureofthecourseinmeetingtheneed to formalize knowledge and experiential exchange, improve methods and clarify concepts. Amore structural criticism concerned the lack of a training strategy, as training seemed designed tomeet temporaryneedsrather thanguidedbypre‐setobjectives.Lastly, itwasstressed that trainingprovidedbyCRESPIALwashighlyprizedbythecountriesanddemandforthecourseswashigh;forexample,3,200applicationswerereceivedforthe200placesofferedonBrazil’svirtualcourseonICHconcepts and legislation and on the 2003 Convention and its implementation. Nevertheless, it wasnoted that the emphasis in many courses offered during the last biennium was more on ICHregistrationthanonsafeguarding.Theneed to tailor training tomeet the requirements of threedifferent groups, namely governmentofficials, cultural mangers and ICH custodians, was identified in the strategic plan for 2014. Thisshowedthatastrategycomprisinggoalsandprioritieswasalreadybeingformulated.Itwas concluded in the review that one of CRESPIAL’s key roleswas institution building, achievedlargelybysupportingmultinationalprojectsandbyconductingtrainingcourses.Thoseeffortsmustbestrengthened, however, by formulating a well‐defined training strategy in which priorities,methodologiesandobjectiveshadbeensetasguides to thedesignofmethodologicallymorerobustcoursesconsistentwithUNESCO’sobjectives.Area4‐Strategicalliances

Thegoalofthefourththematicareawastoestablishandstrengthenstrategicalliances.Accordingtothe latestCRESPIALbiennialreport, themain focus inthatregardwasto“strengthenrelationswithUNESCO”, but strategic or programmatic collaboration consisted merely of formal meetings of theGoverningBoardandoccasionalinvitationstoparticipateinevents.Conversely, activities were carried out with institutions such as Venezuela’s Centre for CulturalDiversity,Brazil’sLucioCostaRegionalHeritageManagementTrainingCentreandColombia’sRadioandTelevisioncorporation, although theobjectivewasnot always clearandalliances,moreakin tocircumstantialalliances,werenotguidedbyanyclearstrategy.Countries reported that theyhadno

15 ThecoursesweredesignedafterCRESPIALhaddevelopeditsvirtualcourses.16 Source:2012‐2013CRESPIALBiennialReport.17 Thisviewwassharedbysomeintervieweeswhospokeofaspecificbarriertoaccesstotrainingandtheneedtocontinueworkingat

atechnicallevelwithinCRESPIALinordertocontinuetoparticipate.18 EvaluationofthevirtualcourseonICHrecordingandinventorying,MiguelCalderónRivera,19November2012.

16

knowledgeofthestatedobjectiveofthethematicareaandsomestressedthatithadbeensetwithoutconsultingthecountry’sfocalpoint,whichraisedproblems.Themainachievementsincluded:

– accessionofsevencountries,thusdoublingthenumberofCRESPIALMemberStates;– increasedfundingofCRESPIALbytheGovernmentofPeruuntil2020;– aneardoublingofthebudgetowingtothedirectfundingofactivities.

Other achievements highlighted in the review were the level of Member States’ commitment andgenuineICHconsiderationatthegovernmentallevel.ItwasconcludedinthereviewthatstrategicallianceswereakeypartofCRESPIAL’sobjective,butnostrategywithclearobjectiveshadcurrentlybeenformulated.Objectivesmustthereforebesetmoreclearly in order to give direction to the strategy, as recommended for the other thematic areas.

17

RecommendationsRecommendationsbaseddirectlyonthefindingsoutlinedintheprevioussectionaresetoutbelow.Inaccordancewiththetermsofreference,fourtypesofrecommendationsweremade:

(1) a general recommendation on whether renewal of the Centre’s status as a category 2centreiswarrantedandwouldconformtotheIntegratedComprehensiveStrategy;

(2) specificrecommendationstotheCentreforimprovingtheeffectivenessofitsoperations;(3) specificrecommendationstoUNESCOfor improvingtheeffectivenessof itscoordination

andinteractionwiththeCentre;(4) specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement, should it be

renewed.1. GeneralrecommendationsontherenewaloftheAgreement

ItwasconcludedinthereviewthatCRESPIALcompliedwiththeobjectivesandfunctionsestablishedundertheAgreementandwasparticularlyeffectiveinthatregardinachievingthefollowingthreeofthefourobjectives:

– organizing, discussing and disseminating ICH‐safeguarding activities in the MemberStates;

– promotingtheimplementationoftheUNESCOConvention;– promoting and strengthening cooperation among countries in the region and building

nationalcapacitiesinthatfield.AlthoughCRESPIALhadalsomadeprogressinraisingMemberStates’awarenessoftheimportanceofinvolvingcommunitiesinICH‐safeguardingactivities,thatgoalwasperceivedtohavebeenachievedtoasmallerextent.ItwasalsoconcludedinthereviewthatCRESPIALhadmadesignificantprogressinallofthefunctionsidentifiedundertheAgreement,particularlyincreatingopportunitiesfordiscussionandexchangeandinpromotingregionalawareness‐raisingactivities,inparticular.Lastly,itwasconcludedinthereviewthatCRESPIALhadbecomeanimportantpointofreferenceforthe promotion of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,advocating – through linkage and democratic dialogue – a consistent and coordinated response byMemberStates,encouraginggreaterefficiencyintheuseofavailableICH‐safeguardingresourcesandcontributingtoadditionalfund‐raising.ItisthereforerecommendedthattheAgreementberenewed.

2. Recommendationsforimprovingtheeffectivenessofitsoperations2.1 Strategically,CRESPIAL’srole,missionandobjectivesmustbedefinedmoreclearly in

line with its resources and commitments as a category 2 centre. In that regard, it isrecommended that the Centre reduce the number of areas of action and types ofactivities and clarify the objectives and the strategies so that they can be achieved. Achange‐management policy must therefore be developed, specifying CRESPIAL’s role,expected results and the ways in which the latter would support UNESCO’s strategicobjectives.

2.2 Programmatically, clear objectives and expected resultsmust be set for all thematicareas,asmustgoalsandmeasurable indicatorsthatreflectprogressandachievements(see details for each thematic area in the text). It is therefore recommended thatCRESPIALfocusonstrengtheningconceptualknowledge,ontoolsavailabletocountriestoensuresubstantive inclusionofcivilsociety in ICH‐safeguardingprojectsandontheimportanceoflinkingintangibleculturalheritagetodevelopmentinordertoguaranteesustainability(safeguardingasopposedtodocumentation).

18

2.3 Inviewofthenatureofcategory2centresandinaccordancewiththeconclusionsofthefirst Sozopol meeting of active ICH category 2 centres, CRESPIAL must establish acoordination mechanism to ensure that UNESCO participates regularly andsubstantively inCRESPIAL’swork.To that end, it is recommended that CRESPIALandUNESCOmeet regularly (every three or four months) and that UNESCO (through therepresentative of the Director‐General) be informed of all plans and activities at thedevelopmentstage,before theyaresubmitted to themembersof theGoverningBoardandbeforecommitmentsaremade.Suchmeetingscouldbeon‐siteoronline.

2.4 At the management level, mechanisms should be devised to secure countries’substantive, active and informed participation in decision‐making. It is thereforerecommendedthat: theflowofinformationbetweenCRESPIALanditsMemberStatesbestrengthened

through,forexample,internalnewslettersreportingonactivities,plansandotherrelevantdevelopments;

meetings of the Governing Board and Executive Committee be deferred toJanuary/Februarytoensureavailabilityofallofthenecessaryinformationandtofacilitateparticipationbyall focalpoints. ItwouldbemoreefficientforExecutiveCommitteeandGoverningBoardmeetingstobestaggeredasmuchaspossibleinordertoallowsufficient timefortherecommendationsadoptedbytheExecutiveCommitteetobeintegratedintothetexts;

all Governing Board and Executive Committee documents be provided toparticipantsat least twoweeksbefore themeetingsso that theycanbeanalysedproperlyandmoreparticipantscanbeinvolved.

2.5 Oversightmeasures Promoteresults‐basedmanagement(RBM)byintroducingSMART19indicatorsto

updateUNESCO’sindicatorsystem.20 Submit summary reports every sixmonths, giving the latest update of activities,

achievements, progress and budget, to be sharedwith the Executive CommitteeandUNESCO,inaccordancewiththeSozopolconclusions.

Promote civil‐society involvement as far as possible in technical discussions andmeetings.

2.6 Strengtheningofhumanresources In order to strengthen the provision of technical support to countries, it is

recommendedthattheUNESCOdatabaseofspecialistsinvariousICH‐safeguardingfieldsbeusedandupdated.Thedatabasecouldincludebothhumanresourcesandavailabletools.

ItisrecommendedthattheCRESPIALteambestrengthenedinthefollowingareas:results‐based management (RBM); monitoring and evaluation (M&E); and thegenderapproach(humanrights‐basedapproachtoprogramming–HRBAP).

3. RecommendationsforimprovingtheeffectivenessofcoordinationandinteractionwithCRESPIAL3.1 Itisrecommendedthatclearproceduresbeestablishedtomaintainregularinteraction

betweenCRESPIALandUNESCOstrategicallyandprogrammaticallyandbeannexedtotheAgreement(seeRecommendation4.5).Toavoidrenewaldelays,insteadofanannextotheAgreement,abilateralagreementcouldbeconcludedbetweenthesecretariatof

19 SMARTistheacronymforSpecific,Measurable,Achievable,Results‐orientedandTime‐bound.20 Toachievethisgoal,theCRESPIALteamrecommendsthattrainingbeprovidedbyaplanningexpertfromUNESCOHeadquarters.

19

theConventionandtheDirectorofCRESPIAL.Clarityandagreementisoftheessence,asisameasureofspecificityanddetail.

3.2 The CRESPIAL team must be trained in UNESCO procedures, particularly in trainingstrategiesandproceduressuchastheOperationalGuidelines,forexample,includingthecriteriaforaccesstothefunds,asthatwouldenhanceCRESPIAL’sroleinsupportingitsMemberStatesandwouldbuildtheCentre’scapacitytomeettheirrequests.

3.3 It is recommended thatUNESCOparticipatemore regularly inCRESPIAL’s activities, ifpossible.Giventheconstraints, thenecessaryfundscouldbeprovidedbyCRESPIALorits Member States in order to bring UNESCO closer to the specific challenges of theregion and to ensure alignmentwith theConvention. It is also recommended that theUNESCOfocalpoint’sresponsibilitiesformonitoringCRESPIALandtheproposedreportsbe formalized. In addition to being consistentwith the Agreement, such actionwouldhavetheadvantageofpromotingadirect,concrete lineofdialoguebetweenCRESPIALand UNESCO, thus strengthening communication, in accordance with the Sozopolconclusions.

4. RecommendationsforpossibleamendmentstotheAgreement4.1 It isrecommendedthatArticle3(whichdidnotexist intheoriginalmodelagreement)

be amended. The current text defines CRESPIAL as an “international autonomousinstitutionat theserviceofMemberStates”andmakesnoreferenceto itsconnectionsandcommitmentwithUNESCO.SpecificreferenceshouldbemadetoitsconnectionwithUNESCO and the commitment to contribute to UNESCO’s strategic objectives andprogrammeprioritiesinaccordancewiththeguidelinesgoverningtheAgreement21andtheamendmentsproposedindocument37C/18PartI.22

4.2 ItisrecommendedthatArticle6,paragraph2(f),beamendedtoincludespecificallytheneedtoaligntrainingandcapacity‐buildingactivitieswithUNESCO’strainingstrategy.

4.3 ItisrecommendedthatArticle7,paragraphs1(b)and(c),beamendedtoincludecivil‐societyrepresentativesintheGoverningBoard.

4.4 ItisrecommendedthatArticle7,paragraph2(c),beextendedtoinclude“biennialself‐assessments of the Centre’s contribution to UNESCO’s programme objectives” inaccordancewiththemodelagreement.

4.5 ItisrecommendedthatArticle8berevisedandthatconsiderationbegiventoincludingthepointscontainedinthemodelagreement23inasmuchasanysustainablesupportbyexpertsorthroughtemporarystaffexchangesand/ortemporarysecondmentofUNESCOstaff to CRESPIAL would contribute technically to the strengthening of CRESPIAL,improvecommunicationbetweenCRESPIALandUNESCOandfacilitateinclusionoftheuseof results‐basedmanagement, inaccordancewith theconclusionscontained in thereportonthefirstmeetinginSozopolofactiveICHcategory2centres.

4.6 It isrecommendedthatguidelinesoncommunicationandjointworkbeincludedinanannex covering: the importanceof sharing strategicplansduring thedesign stageandbeforebeingsubmittedtotheExecutiveCommitteeandtheGoverningBody;theneedtoreporthalf‐yearlyonprogress inrelation to theUNESCOProgrammeandBudget (C/5document)andtoreporttotheUNESCOfocalpoint(specificallytotherepresentativeof

21 Implementationoftheguidelinesandcriteriaforcategory2institutesandcentresadoptedin33C/Resolution90.Document35/C

22,B.2,Annex1,page2.22 “Eachcategory2entityshallcontributetotheachievementofUNESCO’sstrategicprogrammeobjectivesandglobalprioritiesofthe

Organization,aswellassectoralorintersectoralprogrammeprioritiesandthemes,definedintheC/5document.”Document37/C18PartI,Annex.page2.

23 “(a)providingtheassistanceofitsexpertsinthespecializedfieldsoftheInstitute/Centre;(and/or);(b)engagingintemporarystaffexchangeswhenappropriate,wherebythestaffconcernedwillremainonthepayrollofthedispatchingorganizations;(and/or);(c)secondingmembersof its staff temporarily,asmaybedecidedby theDirector‐Generalonanexceptionalbasis”,document35/C,Annex2,page11.

20

the Director‐General) “first, early and often”24in accordance with the conclusionscontainedinthereportoftheSozopolfirstmeetingofactiveICHcategory2centres(seeRecommendation3.1).Toavoidrenewaldelays,insteadofannexingtheguidelinestotheAgreement, a bilateral agreement could be concluded between the secretary of theConventionandtheDirectorofCRESPIAL.Clarityandagreementareoftheessence,asisameasureofspecificityanddetail.

24 ReportonthefirstmeetingofactiveICHcategory2centresinSozopol.

21

AnnexesI. ListofInterviewees

Duvelle,Cécile SecretaryoftheConventionfortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritage,ChiefofSection,UNESCOIntangibleCulturalHeritageSection

Proschan,Frank ProgrammeSpecialist,UNESCOIntangibleCulturalHeritageSectionBrugman,Fernando Culture Team Coordinator and Programme Specialist at the UNESCO

Regional Bureau for Culture in Latin America and the Caribbean andUNESCO Office in Havana, Representative of the Director‐General ofUNESCOontheGoverningBoardofCRESPIAL

DeSancristóbal,Berta Assistant Programme Specialist, Focal Point for Latin America, UNESCOIntangibleCulturalHeritageSection

PazmiñoGavilanes,Ines Ecuador’s Former Focal Point and Director of Municipal and RegionalDevelopment,NationalCouncilforCultureandtheArts.

Mújica,Soledad Director of the Department of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of theMinistryofCulture,Peru

RoelMendizabal,PedroEnrique

Researcherat the IntangibleCulturalHeritageDepartmentof theMinistryofCulture,Peru

VillafuerteMedina,Fernando

Director, Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible CulturalHeritageofLatinAmerica(CRESPIAL)

MartínezJimenez,SilviaR

ExecutiveDirector,CRESPIAL

MarcelaGarcía‐BlásquezBendezú

LegalAdviser,CRESPIAL

CharalayMayorga,Dolores

Bolivia’sFocalPoint,IntangibleCulturalHeritageUnit

CeliaCorsino Brazil’s Focal Point , Director, Department of the Intangible CulturalHeritage

CollazoUsalian,GladysMaría

Cuba’s Focal Point, Vice‐Chairperson of the CRESPIAL Governing Board,PresidentoftheCubanNationalCulturalHeritageCouncil

AdrianaMolanoArenas Culture Team Coordinator, Intangible Cultural Heritage Department,Colombia’sFocalPoint.

PabloRojasDurán Chile’sFocalPoint,HeadoftheDepartmentofCitizenshipandCultureChristianAlejandroBaezAllende

HeadoftheCulturalHeritageSectionofChile’sNationalCouncilofCultureandtheArts.

DavidUgarteVegaCenteno

Anthropologist and Director of Cuzco’s Decentralized Department forCulture,MinistryofCulture

22

II. CRESPIALOrganizationalChart25

25 Source:CRESPIALmanagementteam.

DIRECTORFernando Villafuerte

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORSilvia Martínez

Administration and Finance

Katy Guzman

Treasury Consultant Armando Yturriaga

Multinational Projects

Consultant Pablo del Valle

CommunicationGabriela Valenzuela

Networks, Training and Information Management

IT Consultant Pedro Ramos

Secretary Fanny Rubio

Legal AdviserMarcela García‐

Blásquez

23

III.QuestionguideforthebilateralinterviewsQuestionguideforUNESCOFocalPoints–CRESPIALReview

1. With regard to the objectives and functions, what would you consider to be the most significantachievementsofCRESPIAL?

2. InwhichofthefollowingfourobjectivesdoyouconsiderthatCRESPIALhasbeenmostsuccessful?“TheobjectivesoftheCentreare:(i)toorganize,discussanddisseminateICH‐safeguardingactivities intheMember States; (ii) to promote the implementation and follow‐upof theUNESCOConvention for theSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritageandotherinternationallegalinstrumentsinforceinthisfield;(iii)topromoteandstrengthencooperationamongthecountriesintheregionandbuildnationalcapacitiesinthatfield;(iv)toraiseawarenessintheMemberStatesinordertoinvolvethecommunitiesinactivitiestosafeguardtheirintangibleculturalheritage”.

3. Inyouropinion,whatisthereasonforthis?4. WhatistheaddedvalueofCRESPIALforyourcountry?AndofUNESCOinthiscontext?5. Whatdoyouconsider tobeCRESPIAL’ strengthss (directives, strategiesandso forth) in successfully

achievingitsobjectives?6. Whatdoyouconsidertobethemainbarriers?7. Communication

(a) HowiscommunicationmaintainedwithHeadquarters?Doyouthinkthisissufficient?Doyouhavesuggestionsonhowitcouldbestrengthened?

(b) Whatistherelationshipwiththeintergovernmentalcommittee?Isthisrelationshipsufficient?(c) What is communication like with other entities (donors, UNESCO country teams, national

committeesandsoforth)?8. Doyouhaveanyrecommendationsonhowtoimprovecommunication?9. WhatbenefitscouldbegainedbybettercommunicationwithUNESCO?10. What are the incentives for CRESPIAL to remain under the auspices of UNESCO?Why should it not

simplybearegionalorPeruvianorganization,andthushavemoreleeway?11. How does CRESPIAL support the promotion of UNESCO’s strategic objectives? How does UNESCO

benefitfromthiscollaboration?Howcouldthisbeimproved?12. DoyouthinkthatCRESPIALworksefficiently?Why?Howcouldthisbeimproved?

Questionguideforvalidation

1. WhatdoyouconsidertobethemainstrengthofCRESPIAL?2. WhatistheaddedvalueofCRESPIALforyourcountry?3. Whatdoyouconsidertobethemainchallenges/risksfacedbyCRESPIAL?

UNESCO4. WhatroledoesUNESCOplayinCRESPIAL?5. CouldCRESPIALexistwithoutUNESCO?6. How does CRESPIAL support UNESCO’s strategic objectives? How does UNESCO benefit from this

collaboration?Howcouldthisbeimproved?Communication

7. HowiscommunicationbetweenCRESPIALandyourcountry?8. HowiscommunicationbetweenUNESCOandyourcountry/theExecutiveCommittee/GoverningBoard?9. Doyouhaveanyrecommendationsonhowtoimprovecommunication?

Management10. Do you think that the Executive Committee and Governing Board work efficiently? What

recommendationswouldyoumake?

24

11. Howaredecisionsmade?(Providedetailsofhowtimeandmoneyare invested inCRESPIALoncethestrategicplanisapproved)

12. Doyouthinkthisisefficient?13. Whomonitorsqualitycontrolandhow?

– Do you think that the Executive Committee and Governing Board are sufficient mechanisms forqualitycontrol?

– AsamemberoftheExecutiveCommittee,doyouknowthedetailsoftheworkplans?14. DoyouconsiderthatCRESPIAL’sresources(humanandmaterial)aresufficientandadequate?15. Whoarethemembersoftheteamandhowweretheyselected?

Civilsociety16. DoyouconsiderthatCRESPIALisworkingwithcivilsocietyinaccordancewiththeConvention?17. DoyouconsiderthatcivilsocietyshouldbeincludedintheGoverningBoard?18. Doyouthinkthat it isaproblemforCRESPIALtoworkwithcivil societybecause it ispredominantly

intergovernmentalpresentsachallengewhen?Theprogramme

19. WhatistheaddedvalueofCRESPIALandUNESCOtomultinationalprojects?20. Doyouconsiderthatthereisacleartrainingstrategy?21. Whatisthestrategicobjectiveofthe“strategicalliances”thematicarea?22. What do you think of the criticism that CRESPIAL is working on documentation and not on the

promotionofthesafeguardingoftheintangibleheritage?23. Isthereanythingthatyouwouldliketoadd?RecommendationsdesignedtoimproveCRESPIALorbringitclosertoUNESCOundertheagreement.

25

IV.AgendaofthetenthmeetingoftheExecutiveCommitteeAGENDA

Wednesday,6November2013

(Matterstobediscussedatthemeeting)1. InvitationtothereviewerofCRESPIALtothemeetingoftheExecutiveCommittee.2. ReportonthemanagementofCRESPIAL.Generalmatters.263. Reportonthe2014‐2017StrategicPlan.4. Reporton“RenewaloftheAgreementestablishingCRESPIAL”.5. Analysis of the proposals submitted by UNESCO for the next meeting of the Intergovernmental

Committee.6. ProgrammeforthecelebrationofthetenthanniversaryoftheConventionfortheSafeguardingof

theIntangibleCulturalHeritage.7. PreparationoftheagendaofthemeetingoftheGoverningBoard.8. ReportonthemeetingsoftheExecutiveCommitteein2013.

From8.30a.m. Registrationofparticipants.9.00a.m. WelcomingaddressbytheChairpersonoftheExecutiveCommittee9:10a.m. StatementbytheDirectorofCRESPIAL

1. ReadingoftheRulesofProcedureoftheExecutiveCommittee Verificationofthequorum

9:30a.m. 2. Adoptionoftheagenda9:45a.m. 3. ReadingoftherecordoftheninthExecutiveCommitteemeeting10:00a.m. 4. 2012‐2013AnnualReport11.15–11.40a.m. Coffeebreak

11.40a.m. 2013‐2017StrategicPlanforsubmissiontotheGoverningBoard1.00–3.00p.m. Lunch

3.00p.m. ReportontherenewaloftheAgreementestablishingCRESPIAL3.10p.m. Analysis of theproposals submittedbyUNESCO for thenextmeetingof theIntergovernmentalCommittee4.30p.m. ProgrammeforthecelebrationofthetenthanniversaryoftheConventionfortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritage4.40p.m. PreparationoftheagendafortheeighthmeetingoftheGoverningBoard5.00p.m. Document“ReportonthemeetingsoftheExecutiveCommitteein2013”,tobesubmittedtotheGoverningBoard5.10–17:30p.m. Coffeebreak

5.30p.m. AdoptionofthefinalactofthetwelfthmeetingoftheExecutiveCommittee6.00p.m. ClosingofthetenthmeetingoftheExecutiveCommittee

26 ReviewbeforethemeetingoftheGoverningBoard.

26

V. AgendaoftheeighthmeetingoftheGoverningBoard

Thursday,7November2013

From8.30a.m. Registrationofparticipants.9.00a.m. WelcomingaddressbytheDirectorofCRESPIAL9.05a.m. StatementbytheChairpersonoftheGoverningBoard

9.15a.m. OpeningofthemeetingbytheChairpersonoftheGoverningBoard Verificationofthequorum1 Adoptionoftheagenda

9.30a.m. 2 ReadingoftherecordoftheseventhmeetingoftheGoverningBoard9.40a.m. 3 ReportonthemeetingsoftheExecutiveCommittee(2013)9.50a.m. 4 Managementreport:OperatingPlanforthe2012‐2013biennium11.15–11.40a.m. Coffeebreak

11:40a.m. Review and adoption of the document: 2014‐2017 Strategic Plan (based on the documentdrawnupbythemembersoftheExecutiveCommittee)

1.00–3.00p.m. Lunch

3.00p.m. 2014‐2015OperatingPlan(WorkPlan)5.00–17.25p.m. Coffeebreak

5.25p.m. Discussionandconclusions6.30p.m. EndofthesessionFriday,8November2013

9.00a.m. 2014‐2017 Strategic Plan and 2014‐2015 Operating Plan (Work Plan) Discussion andconclusions11.00–11:20a.m. Coffeebreak

11.20a.m. DiscussionoftheproposalsubmittedbyPeru’sFocalPoint11.40a.m. ReportontherenewaloftheAgreementestablishingCRESPIAL12.10p.m.

Programme for the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the Convention for theSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritage

27

VI.Listofkeydocumentsperused 2012‐2013CRESPIALBiennialReport,November2013 UNESCOMedium‐TermStrategy(document34C/4) CRESPIALForward‐lookingStrategicPlanto2020 2014‐2017DraftOperationalPlan 37C/18Part I,Revisionof the integratedcomprehensive strategy for category2 institutes

andcentresundertheauspicesofUNESCO. 35C/22 implementationof theguidelinesandcriteria forcategory2 institutesandcentres

approvedin33/CResolution90 RecordoftheGoverningBoardandannexes,November2011 RecordoftheGoverningBoard,November2010 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Peru and the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the establishment andoperationoftheRegionalCentre fortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritageofLatinAmerica(CRESPIAL)inCusco,Peru

ConventionfortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritage(2003) ProgrammeObjectives,Sectoralandintersectoralprioritiesandthemes(UNESCO) M22 Programmesectorreport(MLA)C/3 CRESPIALRegulations CRESPIALFactSheet(UNESCO) 2010‐2015StrategicPlan ReflectiononeffortstosafeguardICHandprospectsforthefuture(September2013,Korea) EvaluationoftheVirtualCourse CultureSectorstrategyforcategory2institutesandcentres ImprovingUNESCO’sCategory2CentresNetworks,July2012 Approachestogovernance‐PowerPointpresentationbyFrankProschan Report on the first annual meeting of category 2 centres active in the field of intangible

culturalheritage.Sozopol,Bulgaria.24‐26July2013 Mission report, first annual meeting of category 2 centres active in the field of intangible

culturalheritage.Sozopol,Bulgaria.24‐26July2013,FernandoBrugman, ReviewoftheManagementFrameworkforUNESCOCategory2Institutes/Centres Reportonthefullcostofcategory2institutesandcentres,UNESCO,4March2013 GlobalStrategy forStrengtheningNationalCapacities for theSafeguardingof the Intangible

CulturalHeritage:LatinAmericaandtheCaribbeanReviewMeeting.17/19‐09‐2013.Cuzco(Peru)

29

VII. TermsofReferenceCallforexpressionofinterestforthereviewoftheRegionalCentrefortheSafeguarding

oftheIntangibleCulturalHeritageofLatinAmerica(CRESPIAL)

TERMSOFREFERENCE

Background

Category2institutesandcentresundertheauspicesofUNESCOformanimportantpartofUNESCO’snetworkandasageneralrulerepresentaneffectivepartnershipmodelforUNESCO’sprogrammedelivery,significantlycontributingtopriorityareasinUNESCO’sfieldsofcompetence.Category2institutesandcentresareintendedto contribute to the achievement of UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoralprogrammeprioritiesandthemesandtotheattainmentofprogrammeresultsattheMainLinesofAction(MLA)levelof theUNESCOprogrammeandbudget (C/5),whether through individual action, joint actionwithothercategory2institutesandcentresorthroughjointimplementationwiththeSecretariat.Category2institutesandcentrescanalsoplayaconsiderablerole inhelping theOrganizationachieveprogrammeobjectives forwhichsectoralexpertiseorresourcesarenotsufficient.InordertoenhancetheoperationandeffectivenessofindividualUNESCOcategory2institutes/centres,aswellastheeffectivenessoftheirnetwork,anIntegratedComprehensiveStrategyforInstitutesandCentresundertheAuspices of UNESCO, as contained in document 35 C/22 and Corr.,was approved by the 35th Session of theGeneralConference(35C/Resolution103).Thisstrategy,amongotherelements,providesguidelinesforreviewofcategory2institutes/centres(seealso190EX/INF.16).Those guidelines provide that an agreement for the establishment of an institute or centre as a category 2institute/centreistypicallyconcludedforadefinitetimeperiod,notexceedingsixyears.Theagreementmayberenewed by the Director‐General, with the approval of the Executive Board, in the light of a review of theactivities of the institute/centre and of its contribution to the Strategic Programme Objectives of theOrganizationandtheaforementionedIntegratedComprehensiveStrategyforcategory2institutesandcentres.The 33rd session of the General Conference, in its 33C/Resolution 46, approved the establishment of theRegionalCentrefortheSafeguardingoftheIntangibleCulturalHeritageofLatinAmerica(CRESPIAL)inCusco,Peru(hereafter, “theCentre”).Theobjectivesof theCentreare:(i)to link,exchangeanddisseminateactivitiessafeguardingtheintangibleculturalheritageoftheparticipatingStates;(ii)topromotetheimplementationandfollow‐up of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and otherinternational legal instruments in force in this field; (iii) topromoteand strengthencooperationbetween thecountriesoftheregionandsupportnationalcapacitiesinthisfield;(iv)toraiseawarenessintheparticipatingStatesinordertoinvolvethecommunitiesinactivitiestosafeguardtheirintangibleculturalheritage.In order to achieve those objectives, the functions of the Centre are: (i) to create

Documents

Review of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the ......Review of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America (CRESPIAL) 20