Complaints

Search

Submission - Ratification of 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2008)

Legal

Ratification of 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible
Cultural Heritage



Australian Human Rights Commission
Submission to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

24 September 2008

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Level 8, 133 Castlereagh St

GPO Box 5218

Sydney NSW 2001

Ph. (02) 9284 9600

 

Table of
Contents


Introduction

  1. The Australian Human Rights and Commission (The Commission) makes this
    submission to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts in its
    Inquiry into the ratification of the 2003 UNESCO Convention Safeguarding
    Intangible Cultural Heritage.

  2. The submission is written in response to the letter from Mr Paul Salmond of
    the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) on 23 July
    2008, in which the Australian Human Rights Commission (formally the Human Rights
    and Equal Opportunity Commission, HREOC) was invited to submit comments on
    whether Australia should ratify the 2003 UNESCO Convention.

  3. The Commission wishes to acknowledge the expert advice of Professor
    Amareswar Galla, Convenor of the UNESCO Pacific Asia Observatory for Cultural
    Diversity in Human Development, in preparing this submission.

Recommendation

  1. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends that Australia ratify the
    Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Significance of
the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

  1. Standard setting national and international instruments often provide a
    benchmark for assessing and ensuring best practice that respects human rights of
    all people. While soft law instruments such as charters, declarations and
    recommendations provide frameworks for voluntary policy development and
    practice, hard law instruments such as conventions and treaties that are
    ratified, ensure implementation is mandatory. In several respects, all these
    are aspirational with the national policy and legislative frameworks providing
    for variation and adaptation customising agreed international standards within
    local and national contexts.

  2. The Australian Human Rights Commission, through it charter, aspires to
    ensure that Australians of all cultural backgrounds, irrespective of linguistic
    and cultural diversity, enjoy certain basic rights. Hence, the
    Commission’s interest in the 2003 UNESCO Convention for Safeguarding of
    Intangible Cultural Heritage.

  3. The Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage is often
    considered as the complementary instrument to the 1972 World Heritage
    Convention, which mainly focussed on immovable natural and cultural heritage.
    Inscriptions with mixed values of both natural and cultural, as applied for
    example to Uluru-Kata Tjuta, consider intangible heritage values to a certain
    extent under the criteria dealing with cultural landscapes.

  4. The Commission’s advocacy for Australia’s ratification of the
    Convention is with respect to all Australians. Often, intangible cultural
    heritage in Australia is focussed on Indigenous heritage only. While this is
    vital, as the unique intangible cultural heritage of Indigenous Australians is
    of global significance, the intangible cultural heritage of disappearing
    cultural landscapes of Australians of all other linguistic and culturally
    diverse backgrounds require different methodologies and approaches and are
    rarely given due attention.

The
Commission and its understanding of intangible cultural heritage; the
convention and its current status including the number of states that have
already ratified

  1. The Commission recognises intangible cultural heritage as described by the
    United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), that it
    is manifested through:

    • oral traditions (thus making the maintenance of languages a critical aspect
      of preserving intangible cultural heritage)

    • performing arts (such as theatre, dance and music)

    • rituals, festivals and social practices

    • traditional craftsmanship, and

    • knowledge concerning nature, the environment and the
      universe.

  2. Intangible cultural heritage is:

    • transmitted across generations

    • constantly being recreated by communities and groups, in response to their
      environment and interaction with the natural world – it is thus both
      traditional, living and evolving, all at the same time

    • provides groups with an identity and sense of continuity

    • compatible with values of human rights, cultural diversity, sustainable
      development and cross-cultural respect.

  3. As noted in the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity (2001),
    culture – and this includes intangible cultural heritage - is a shared
    heritage of all humanity; it is the mainspring of cultural maintenance and a
    guarantee for continuing human creativity. Understood as being a critical nexus
    between human and environmental ecologies, intangible cultural heritage is a
    glue that holds together humanity’s relationship with the physical world
    and between groups that make civil societies.

  4. At a time, therefore, of global concern about the effects of human-made
    climate change, this convention is an important international treaty that will
    complement Australia’s contribution to combating this most compelling of
    challenges for human survival in the 21st century.

  5. However, intangible cultural heritage is under threat from many fronts:

    • globalisation

    • the uniformization of policies, and state polices within many nations

    • failures of inter-generational transference

    • technology

    • erosion of traditional lifestyles, urbanisation and mono-culturalism

    • climate change and other environmental factors

  6. In Australia, intangible cultural heritage can be loosely categorised into
    three broad groups:

    • Firstly, and most significantly, is the heritage of Australia’s
      Indigenous peoples. This heritage is recognised internationally as ancient,
      unique living cultures with a special relationship with the physical
      environment.

    • Secondly, Australia is in many regards an immigrant nation. Other than its
      First Peoples, all other Australians have been born here or arrived over the
      last 220 years. The cultural heritage of immigrant communities is a living link
      to their home countries, as well as being new and evolving diaspora
      cultures.

    • Thirdly, Australia has developed its own distinctive cultural practices, as
      is common in those countries with a strong rural, pioneering history, albeit a
      relatively short one. This heritage of largely European settlement and often
      still manifest in certain rural industries (for example, wool and wine
      production, or uniquely Australian Heritage Trades now addressed as a national
      priority through the Cobb & Co Museum in Toowoomba) is also worthy of
      recognition.

  7. For these reasons, let alone the important human rights factors, the
    Commission believes this convention is critical and should be supported by the
    Australian government.

  8. As of 12 September 2008 there were 102 state parties to the Convention
    representing more than half the member states of the United Nations having
    supported it, many of these are European countries as well as many of our
    Asia-Pacific neighbours.

Benefits to
Australia of ratification

  1. Ratification of the Convention will provide an important international
    statement about Australia’s commitment to its First Nations, its immigrant
    communities, and to its overall recognition of the importance of the physical
    environment, its preservation, and to human and cultural rights – it will
    be an historically progressive legacy of the Rudd government. Additional
    benefits are outlined below.

Preserving
intangible cultural heritage as an essential human right

  1. Australian ratification of the Convention will both preserve our varied and
    significant intangible cultural heritage, but will also do so as a cultural, and
    therefore, human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948
    (article 27) first articulates this basic right, which is then elaborated in
    more detail in later treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic,
    Social and Cultural Rights (which came into force in 1976).

  2. Subsequently, other treaties have recognised that various ethnic or other
    minorities within states have not adequately enjoyed their rights, and that
    rights to cultural practice and maintenance are particularly important. The
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which came into force in
    1976) and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or
    Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities (1993), for example, emphasize the
    importance of cultural practice and maintenance as basic human rights.

  3. However, it tends to be the daily, lived experience of culture that is most
    significant and real for the vast majority of humanity, not the tangible,
    immovable and iconic manifestations of culture (important though these are).
    Intangible cultural heritage is therefore a critical issue for all Australians,
    whether they be Indigenous, recent immigrant, or have a long family connection
    to the country.

  4. Australia’s commitment to intangible cultural heritage may also have
    impacts in the region, especially if it is linked to foreign aid. In many
    developing countries intangible cultural heritage is essential to the human
    development of its people, and can also be linked to environmental protection.
    By funding programs related to culture and development Australia will enhance
    its reputation internationally.

Supporting
the Australian economy

  1. Maintaining Australia’s cultural heritage, in all its many forms, has
    both a human capital and an economic capital dividend. Respecting, nurturing
    and supporting intangible cultural heritage has clear social benefits (happy,
    better functioning, more vibrant communities) as well as health benefits
    (freedom of cultural expression and to practice aspects of traditional life
    builds social and emotional well-being, which directly improves population-level
    health outcomes – an important economic saving to the health system).
  2. As well, the maintenance of intangible cultural heritage will have
    significant benefits of enriching Australian cultural life and, consequently,
    supporting cultural industries and heritage tourism by helping to keep them
    sustainable. As was noted by the Bureau of Tourism Research, cultural tourism
    provides significant economic benefit to Australia:

    “Australia is increasingly being recognised as an
    exciting, unique, diverse, and sophisticated tourist destination which has much
    to interest visitors beyond its world-renowned natural attractions. Australia
    has a wide range of cultural assets including museums, art galleries, historic
    and indigenous sites, performing arts and live concerts designed to enrich,
    educate and entertain visitors.

    Many tourists are keen to learn about and experience the culture of the
    places they visit. Some plan attendance at cultural events, others seek to meet
    the local people. Understanding the phenomenon of cultural tourism is
    increasingly necessary as more and more tourists seek authentic, high quality,
    interactive tourism experiences... On average, visitors who went to cultural
    attractions spent more in Australia than did other inbound visitors. Further,
    (as)...17 per cent of all inbound visitors to Australia had formed a specific
    desire to visit a particular cultural attraction during their stay it could be
    argued, that had these opportunities not been available, some of these visitors
    may have chosen to visit other countries that better satisfy their travel goals     “

    Source: Cultural Tourism in Australia, Occasional paper no.27


  1. As noted on the Australia Council website, the following table that
    describes the share of cultural and heritage visitors by activity in 2006,
    indicates the potential of intangible cultural heritage as an economically
    valuable asset to the tourism industry.
Cultural and heritage tourism activity
International visitors
Domestic overnight visitors
Domestic day visitors
(%)


Attend theatre, concerts or other performing arts
26
21
19
Visit museums or art galleries
56
43
36
Visit art and craft workshops or studios
19
9
12
Attend festivals and fairs or cultural events
17
17
17
Experience Indigenous art and craft and cultural displays
25
6
3
Visit an Indigenous site or community
13
3
np
Visit historical or heritage building sites or monuments
61
31
27


Source: Tourism Research Australia, Snapshot: Cultural and Heritage
Tourism in Australia, 2006


  1. The average number of cultural and heritage activities per international
    visitor was 2.2. For domestic overnight visitors it was 1.3 and for domestic day
    visitors, 1.1. Between 1999 and 2006 cultural and heritage tourism for
    international visitors had an average annual growth of 4 per cent, increasing to
    2.6 million visitors. For domestic overnight tourists, there was an increase to
    9.8 million visitors in the same period.

  2. The Commission notes that the Convention states that not more than 1% of
    member states’ annual contributions to UNESCO may be required to cover the
    costs associated with ratification. In Australia’s case, this is likely
    to be in the order of only $70,000 per year and although there are also costs
    associated with ratification including attendance at various international fora,
    these are very marginal.

  3. Of greater cost will be other compulsory activities, most notably,
    designating or establishing a body to co-ordinate and maintain intangible
    cultural heritage inventories, as well as policy and program development.
    Whatever costs are associated with these tasks they will only represent a
    fraction of the financial benefits which accrued from maintaining
    Australia’s heritage from cultural, tourism, arts and other industries.
    As noted above, there are also likely cost savings, especially in the health and
    other social policy areas, from preserving cultural identities of Australia
    citizens.

Assisting
the government’s social inclusion agenda

  1. A socially inclusive community is one in which the cultural practices,
    ethnicities, faiths, traditions and mores are freely practiced and respected by
    members of that community. All governments are committed to maintaining social
    cohesion, harmony, security and commitment to Australia. This is partly
    achieved through civics education, citizenship and multicultural programs.
    However, it is best achieved by nurturing a national civic culture where all
    members of the community feel that they are respected and they can freely enjoy
    their own languages, heritage and related cultural practices.

  2. As part of a wider process of cross-cultural communication to maintain
    social harmony and cohesion, ratification of the Convention would complement
    other UN statements such as the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, and
    associated activities such as developing cultural indicators for human
    development.

Complementing
other areas of activity


  1. Ratification of the Convention will complement a range of important
    initiatives in the area both national international.

  2. For example, one such is the recent establishment of a new institute liked
    to the United Nations University (UNU). UNU studies the way human activities
    are altering the world; it was established by the United Nations
    General Assembly     in 1972 to be an international community of scholars
    engaged in research, advanced training, and the dissemination of knowledge
    related to global problems of human survival and development. The University
    mainly focuses on peace and governance, environment and sustainable development,
    and science and technology.

  3. Since 2004, UNU explored the feasibility of establishing a research and
    training centre of traditional knowledge (or a traditional knowledge institute)
    which would play an important role investigating threats, methods to maintain,
    and the resilience of indigenous traditional knowledge systems.

  4. The University’s first pilot research program on traditional knowledge
    was established in December 2007 with funding from the Christensen Fund (a
    US-based foundation active in the areas of cultural and biological diversity)
    and the Northern Territory
    Government     at the Charles Darwin University School of Australian Indigenous
    Knowledge Systems. This is regarded as an important international step in the
    process towards the establishment of a permanent traditional knowledge
    institute.

  5. Ratification of the Convention will also reinforce the requirements of the
    current legislative framework, including the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and the
    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986, to
    strengthen the recognition and protection provided for intangible cultural
    heritage held by Indigenous Australians. This is also becoming increasingly
    important in the development of a national response to climate change and a
    national emissions trading scheme.

Responses to
the questions raised in DEWHA’s letter

Does the Commission support ratification of the
UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage?
Why?

  1. The Australian Human Rights Commission considers the intangible cultural
    heritage of all Australians as an integral part of the set of standards that
    constitute cultural rights under various international instruments.

  2. In the 1970s, the Piggot Committee of Inquiry dealt with tangible movable
    cultural property while the Hope Committee of Inquiry focused on immovable
    heritage. Unfortunately, intangible cultural heritage was then considered as
    ‘folk-life’ and the respective inquiry never received the same
    attention or follow-up as the other two inquiries.

  3. This lack of appreciation of intangible cultural heritage was largely due to
    the global concern with movable and immovable heritage that is tangible, and the
    broader relegation of intangible cultural heritage to the domain of folk-lore or
    folk-life.

  4. However, Australia has had a more enlightened approach to the intangible
    cultural heritage of its Indigenous Australians. When the Australian Institute
    of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) was established in
    1962, it was an emergency response to fast disappearing Indigenous living
    cultures as, at that time, they were considered destined for demise or
    assimilation into the wider Australian values informed by the colonial paradigm
    of culture and heritage. This was radically revised when the Board of AIATSIS
    from early 1970s began to ensure and support the continuity of Indigenous
    intangible cultural heritage.

  5. It is widely argued by peak advocacy bodies such as the Federation of Ethnic
    Communities Councils’ of Australia (FECCA) that we are yet to
    systematically address living heritage of immigrants.

  6. The Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage provides
    an opportunity for Australia to reconsider its practice of heritage and
    rethinking focusing on the non-duality of both the tangible and intangible
    cultural inheritances.

Would ratification change the current activities
you undertake for the protection of Australia’s intangible cultural
heritage and the way in which you perform these activities?


  1. Ratification of the intangible cultural heritage convention would enhance
    the capacity of the Commission in the way it engages with the safeguarding of
    the human rights of all Australians.

  2. In particular, the rights of Indigenous Australians would be better
    understood and ensured. For instance, the 2007 United Nations Declaration on
    the Rights of Indigenous Peoples emphasizes in several places the importance of
    indigenous heritage in all aspects, and the importance of living heritage for
    the continuity of cultures. Australia is at present considering its recognition
    of this Declaration, being only one of four nations which did not last year, if
    so, this would have significant monitoring and reporting responsibilities for
    the Commission.

  3. The Commission is also concerned with inter-faith dialogue and awareness
    about religious diversity of all Australians. It is involved in a significant
    way with monitoring and ensuring the rights of all Australian with regard to
    religious diversity, for example, we are currently undertaking the largest
    report into freedom of religion and belief ever conducted in Australia and which
    should be finalized by early 2010.

  4. Intangible cultural heritage informs this religious diversity and, at
    present, the lack of appropriate research and understanding is a major concern
    – not solely for cultural purposes but also for community harmony, social
    inclusion, and security. Australia, by becoming a state party to the
    convention, would assist in many ways the roles of responsibilities of the
    Commission in addressing religious diversity.

  5. Religious diversity, religious vilification and religious freedom are all
    relevant and connected. The existing legislation focuses on ‘race’,
    but this is a contentious term and the concept of the
    ‘ethno-religious’ category (previously applied solely to Jews) is
    contested, especially with the rise of what is now described as Islamophobia.
    Increasingly, therefore, the intangible cultural heritage aspects of faith will
    require protecting and maintaining and will fall under the mandate of the
    Commission.

  6. The question of inventories is a significant one. Listing the intangible
    cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples, especially secret and sacred knowledge
    (while important from the point of safeguarding) may pose serious issues of
    privacy and access. Moreover, the responsibility for such inventories could be
    exclusively custodial to the host communities and need appropriate measures to
    ensure that the listing does not violate traditional rights. It must be
    emphasized that any responsibilities of cultural institutions dealing with
    intangible cultural heritage is different from the way they have dealt with
    tangible heritage where safekeeping has been a practice.

  7. Listing could also have serious implications for protecting the intellectual
    and cultural property rights of Australian Indigenous peoples. This is an area
    that is inadequately addressed in both the Convention and its operational
    directives (the guiding text for the implementation of the Convention).
    However, Australia, with its significant knowledge and practice in this area
    could make a major contribution to the State Parties of the Convention.
    Moreover, through such engagement, the Australian Human Rights Commission, which
    works closely with the similar institutions in the Asia Pacific (for example,
    through the Asia Pacific Forum) could make a difference for other Indigenous
    people in the region.

  8. The World Intellectual and Cultural Property Organisation has been
    consulting in the region on intangible cultural heritage and indigenous
    knowledge systems. It has initiated pilot studies in countries such as Kenya.
    It is also engaging with Pacific countries such as Vanuatu in safeguarding
    traditional knowledge systems. Some of the outcomes of these studies could have
    implications in the way the Commission interprets its obligations both within
    Australia and at a broader regional level.

  9. Linguistic diversity and multi-lingualism are a concern as language is
    critical for the carriers of intangible cultural heritage. The capacity of
    cultural institutions in dealing with the diversity of languages could be an
    issue. Intangible cultural heritage, a significant but oft neglected dimension
    of cultural diversity, would become critical in the way the Commission addresses
    State-of-the-Nation reporting on social justice issues.

  10. In particular, the Commission notes that, among all the standard-setting
    conventions dealing with culture, the intangible cultural heritage convention is
    the first one that expressly states the role of communities as the carriers of
    knowledge.

  11. It further provides for non-government organizations at the national level
    but also those accredited at an international level. Some of our Pacific
    neighbours such as Vanuatu are in the process of becoming State Parties to the
    convention. Others, such as Papua New Guinea, have within recent weeks. For
    the first time it will bring a different dimension to the intangible cultural
    heritage of Australian South Sea Islanders in who have re-established their
    cultural connections to their countries and communities of origin.

  12. In several ways, Australia’s ratification of the Convention would
    facilitate the Commission’s role to bring together the carriers of
    intangible cultural heritage, individuals and communities and the relevant
    research agencies, cultural institutions and government authorities in ensuring
    the safeguarding of Australia’s unique and highly diverse intangible
    cultural heritage.

  13. It is noted that given the rich cultural diversity of Australia and the
    origin of our populations and their descendents, there are implications for the
    intangible cultural heritage of our immigrant communities. It should also be
    noted that the greater majority of countries from which immigrant Australians
    come from are already state parties to the convention. Australia becoming a
    State Party to the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
    Heritage could add a significant dimension to the way we safeguard the cultural
    diversity of our immigrant heritage.

What resource implications would ratification be
likely to have for your work in this area?


  1. This would depend on how the government chooses to meet its commitments
    under the convention. There could, if not should, be a role for both the
    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Unit (as noted above with
    reference to existing legislation) and for the Race Discrimination Unit to
    monitor Australia’s adherence to the convention given that it is an
    important human rights treaty. While it is not possible to accurately assess
    the resource implications at this time, the Commission may require funding of
    between one and two ASL to undertake effectively this monitoring
    role.

What existing activities of your organisation
support the protection of Australia’s intangible cultural heritage? How
would these activities sit within Australia’s obligations under the
Convention if the Government were to ratify?

  1. The Australian Human Rights Commission is not a cultural heritage
    institution, however, it has an active concern in the culture and heritage of
    all Australians from a human rights perspective, given that the rights to
    practice or use languages, traditions, cultures and religions must be permitted
    and freely enjoyed unless they involve coercion or harm. If Australia was to
    ratify the Convention, the Commission would be an appropriate agency to monitor
    national adherence to the operation directives as well as its overall impact
    from the human rights perspective.