unesco - background to developing the overall … · web viewwas identified as a ‘thinking...

UNIT 58

RESULTS-BASED MONITORING AND THE OVERALL RESULTS FRAMEWORKPublished in 2019 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France

© UNESCO 2019

This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en).

The images of this publication do not fall under the CC-BY-SA licence and may not be used, reproduced, or commercialized without the prior permission of the copyright holders.

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.

http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/

2 Unit 58: Results-based monitoring and the overall results framework Participant’s text

PARTICIPANT TEXT

1. BACKGROUND TO DEVELOPING THE OVERALL RESULTS FRAMEWORK

As mentioned in Unit B, as part of its evaluation of the standard-setting work of UNESCO’s Culture Sector, UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Service (IOS) reported in 2013 that the absence of any objectives, indicators and benchmarks for monitoring the implementation of the Convention made it difficult to draw conclusions about the progress and accomplishments of Parties and challenges they faced.1 They recommended that an overall results framework be developed for the Convention with objectives, time-frames, quantitative and qualitative indicators, and benchmarks. IOS also proposed a Theory of Change (see below) for the Convention as a basis for the results framework.

The Committee agreed at its eighth session in 2013 that an overall results framework was necessary for States Parties (and the Committee) to evaluate, on an on-going basis, how far implementing the Convention is achieving its main purposes. It therefore decided to ‘develop an overall results framework for the Convention including clear objectives, time-frames, indicators and benchmarks’, insisting also that the process of should be driven by States Parties (Decision 8.COM 5.c.1).

The ninth session of the Committee (2014) considered the process and timetable for developing a results framework for the Convention. The Committee also called for initial consideration of preliminary recommendations for new Operational Directives. It emphasized the need for ‘an inclusive process of consultation and discussion in the development of such a framework’ (Decision 9.COM 13.e).

In 2016, the National Commission of the People’s Republic of China for UNESCO supported an expert meeting to elaborate a preliminary framework for submission to a subsequent intergovernmental working group. This also allowed for the perspectives and experience of a diverse and geographically representative group of experts to be shared, ensuring from the beginning that the framework reflected an ‘inclusive process of consultation and discussion.’ The Committee accepted this at its tenth session in 2016 (Decision 10.COM 9). This meeting (held in Beijing in September 2016) brought together 23 experts from different UNESCO Member States and Associate Members, working in governmental and non-governmental institutions, in communities or practitioner groups, as well as seven members of UNESCO’s Secretariat. The discussions were co-facilitated by one expert experienced in designing results frameworks and one expert familiar with the Convention and its implementation. The results of this expert meeting were reported to the eleventh session of the Committee in 2016. On the basis of the outcomes of that meeting and debates held during the eleventh session of the Committee (2016), a preliminary overall results framework was developed.

The preliminary overall results framework was then presented to representatives of States Parties meeting as an open-ended intergovernmental working group in June 2017 in Chengdu (China). This open-ended working group also considered how the process of adopting an overall results framework could provide a unique opportunity to review the periodic reporting mechanism (Document ITH/17/12.COM WG/5). Such a reform was understood to be necessary for periodic reporting to be more useful for States Parties and for the overall operation of the Convention, both at the national and international levels (Document ITH/17/12.COM WG/7). This was adopted by the Committee at its twelfth session in December 2017, and subsequently endorsed by the General Assembly of States Parties in Paris in June 2018.

1 . ‘Evaluation of UNESCO’s Standard‐setting Work of the Culture Sector: Part I – 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage’ available in English|French|Spanish|Arabic.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN

https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/ITH-17-12.COM_WG-7-EN.doc

https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/ITH-17-12.COM_WG-5-EN.doc

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/Decisions/10.COM/9

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/Decisions/9.COM/13.e

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/Decisions/8.COM/5.c.1

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223095a.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223095s.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223095f.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223095e.pdf


The most common form of results framework used in UNESCO is a log-frame (or logical frame, also called ‘log-frame matrixes’). Log-frames take diverse forms but will typically involve concise statements of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, results and impacts (see the UNESCO RBM Glossary provided in the Participants notes) and cover a defined period of time. If we wish to represent this in a visual form, it can be represented as follows:

This model expresses a framework of causal relationships whereby inputs (financial, human, material, technological and information resources) are used to undertake interventions (actions taken or work performed) leading to outputs which contribute to results or impacts (desired changes in state or condition). 2

However, the log-frame is a limited tool and is particularly well-suited to a relatively linear theory of causality. Hence, as a result of the complexity of what is to be evaluated with regard to the 2003 Convention (e.g. multiple actors, measures operating on different levels, etc.), it is not very well-suited to monitoring and evaluating the Convention. It was necessary to seek a tool that could encompass the broader range of actors involved in implementing the Convention and reflect their aspirations and perspectives.

For this reason, the Theory of Change approach was identified as a ‘thinking tool’ that can help to facilitate creative discussion and consensus-making in developing a results-based approach for monitoring the Convention. This allowed for the ideas and hypotheses that various actors and stakeholders - local communities and actors, other stakeholders, national authorities, the intergovernmental processes and UNESCO - have about how change happens to be identified and tested.3 In this way, the measures taken that lead to various stages of change can be formulated as a series of ‘if-then’ statements that make explicit these assumptions. These can then be tested and challenged if necessary. If they are represented graphically, Theories of Change serve to highlight the roles of different actors, their respective responsibilities and actions, and how those actions enable or contribute to subsequent or parallel actions, outcomes and impacts. This process can help in developing appropriate indicators for a monitoring and evaluation process and is obviously very necessary in the framework of the Convention, which places a high emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation.

The above-mentioned Beijing expert meeting (2016) prepared an initial draft for developing the overall results framework for the Convention called the ‘Results Map’. This served as an extremely valuable thinking tool (based on a theory of change) for reaching the final Overall Results Framework adopted in 2018. It should be noted that the elements in this Results Map were presented working from the

2 .Results-based programming, management and monitoring (RBM) approach as applied at UNESCO: Guiding Principles (BSP/RBM/2008/1.REV.6), September 2015.

3 . Policy Brief: Hivos and Theory of Change 2014. http://www.theoryofchange.nl/resource/hivos-policy-brief-theory-change.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN

http://www.theoryofchange.nl/resource/hivos-policy-brief-theory-change

http://www.theoryofchange.nl/resource/hivos-policy-brief-theory-change



lowest to the highest levels, while the ORF operates in the opposite direction. Importantly, this Results Map gave the sources for the activities, outputs and long-term outcomes in terms of the relevant parts of the Convention.

The Results Map developed at the Beijing expert meeting (2016)

Inputs Resources needed to safeguard intangible cultural heritage identified and agreed by relevant stakeholders

Activities(cf. Article 2.3)

Actions to safeguard intangible cultural heritage identified and agreed by relevant stakeholders such as:

identification documentation research preservation protection promotion enhancement transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education revitalization …

Outputs(cf. Articles 11-18; 23)

Identified and agreed actions implemented by relevant stakeholders such as:

inventories policies institutional frameworks scientific, technical and artistic studies educational, training, awareness-raising and information programmes capacity-building programmes participation in the international mechanisms of the Convention …

Short-term Outcomes

Improved capacities to support the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in general

Improved capacities to implement safeguarding measures or plans for specific elements of intangible cultural heritage

Mid-term Outcomes

Effective relationships built among a diversity of communities, groups and individuals and other stakeholders for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage

Dynamic development and implementation of safeguarding measures or plans for specific elements of intangible cultural heritage led by a diversity of communities, groups and individuals

Long-term Outcomes(cf. Article 1)

Continued practice and transmission of intangible cultural heritage ensured

Diversity of intangible cultural heritage respected

Recognition and awareness of the importance of intangible cultural heritage and its safeguarding ensured

Engagement and international cooperation for safeguarding enhanced among all stakeholders and at all levels

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


Impacts Intangible cultural heritage is safeguarded by communities, groups and individuals who exercise active and ongoing stewardship over it, thereby contributing to sustainable development for human well-being, dignity and creativity in peaceful and inclusive societies

The different levels can be read as follows:

Inputs: These are the various inputs (financial, human resources, etc.) required to undertake the activities.

Activities: These represent the different activities that are set out in the definition of ‘safeguarding’ (Article 2.3) and so are those different activities that will ultimately result in achieving the desired impact of safeguarding being achieved.

Outputs: Based on the content of Articles 11-18 and 23 of the Convention, these comprise the various actions agreed and implemented by the different stakeholders (States Parties, communities, and others). They have some measurable output (e.g. an inventory, a policy instrument, an artistic study, etc.)

Short-term Outcomes: In the short-term, we expect that the capacities of the various stakeholders for safeguarding ICH (in general and specific elements) are built and/or enhanced by undertaking the activities leading to the outputs.

Mid-term Outcomes: Over the medium-term, we expect that the experience of agreeing and implementing the various actions for safeguarding (with involvement from a number of different stakeholders) will lead to them establishing ongoing relationships; greater experience of designing and managing safeguarding measures and plans for specific elements will also lead to more dynamic development and implementation of these.

Long-term Outcomes: Over the long-term, all of the above should culminate in achieving the four main purposes of the Convention set out in Article 1.

Impacts: This reflects that implementation of the Convention ultimately supports the over-arching principles of participation in and ownership of the process of safeguarding (by communities, groups and individuals) and sustainable development for human well-being, dignity and creativity in peaceful and inclusive societies.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


2. INDICATORS

The outputs, outcomes, results and/or impacts in the results framework typically include explicitly defined indicators to allow effectiveness to be measured. Such targets are often expressed in terms of changes (increases or decreases) as compared to a benchmark.

The indicators chosen represent an agreed consensus about what information can be considered to be a sign of the success or progress of a programme. Performance indicators serve to support effective programme planning, management, monitoring and reporting as signposts of change that enable us to verify whether the changes we seek has been achieved and by what degree. Performance indicators make it possible to demonstrate results by providing a reference point for monitoring, decision-making, stakeholder consultations, taking corrective action, and evaluation.4 Ultimately, they allow for baselines to be set against which future progress can be measured.

Indicators must therefore be clear and legible so that they can be easily understood by those who monitor and report outputs, outcomes and results (phase 2 of the RBM cycle) and by those evaluate current actions and make decisions about future efforts (phase 3). There are a number of tests that can be used to determine the effectiveness of a proposed indicator. The following criteria can be used to test the relevance and effectiveness of indicators:

Is the performance indicator reliable: is it a consistent measure over time?

Is it simple: will it be easy to collect and analyse the information?

Is it affordable: is it cost-effective; is it within your foreseen budget? (Costs include the method and technique you want to use to collect certain data and analyse them, etc.)

Is the performance indicator valid: does it measure what is intended? (Including identifying the proper frequency to collect data).

Is the performance indicator sensitive: when the situation changes will it be sensitive to these changes?

Utility of the performance indicator: Will the information be useful for decision-making and learning?5

Indicators are most often expressed in quantitative terms, but qualitative indicators are also possible and may often be preferable for measuring performance under the Convention. This is because they can capture information concerning the ‘how’ – the quality of the process – that is often of particular interest in evaluating the success of interventions under the Convention. Distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative indicators presents a challenge for anyone seeking to develop indicators for evaluating interventions for ICH safeguarding under the Convention.

These two types of indicators are often complementary and their primary characteristics are as follows:

Quantitative indicators: based on statistical measures, numbers, percentages, frequency, ratios. (Examples for data disaggregation: sex, age, rights-holders/duty-bearers, those left behind or at risk of being left behind, profile, type geographical location/area).

4 . UNESCO, Guiding Principles, p. 27.5 . Ibid., p. 28.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


Qualitative indicators: which seek to measure quality and are often based on judgment, perception, opinion and level of satisfaction. Usually defined through 2-3 specific criteria which allows for quality to be assessed.

UNESCO had already been using a number of very basic quantitative indicators to track progress of interventions within the Convention and to assess the effectiveness of these. For example, the number of capacity-building workshops conducted or the existence of policies dealing with ICH or inventories may be measured. However, there might not be a direct link between the frequency, presence or absence of these kinds of interventions and the broader purpose of safeguarding ICH, because much depends on:

The quality of the process (how such interventions are designed and implemented and the context in which they are delivered)

Whether they are sustained after by participants or institutions

So, it may also be important to be able to measure the number of participants who are community representatives or who can work with communities, groups and individuals concerned to support safeguarding (and this may be difficult to define).

Moreover, while some indicators might be relatively easy to measure, they may not be good proxies for the outcomes and impacts sought. We may need to apply further indicators – which may be qualitative in nature – to assess whether a training workshop actually contributed in some way to stronger capacities at a broader level than the individual level. Moreover, the causal links between actions taken under the umbrella of the Convention are both complex and non-linear.

Quantitative and qualitative indicators may operate best in relation to different levels of the results-based framework. For instance, an output indicator may be expressed as ‘X additional workshops organized’ (a quantitative indicator), while a related result indicator may be expressed as ‘trainees effectively influence policy process in X additional provinces’ (a qualitative indicator). In reality, a mixture of quantitative and qualitative indicators is used as, without quantitative data, we cannot know the scale and extent and without qualitative data we do not have the context through which to interpret quantitative data.

The above example illustrates two challenges posed by formulating qualitative indicators: (1) they are generally more difficult to identify and formulate than quantitative ones; and (2) while it is relatively easy to measure the number of additional workshops and the data is normally readily available, measuring the extent to which ‘trainees effectively influence policy process’ is more challenging as this also involves a degree of subjective judgment. This demonstrates that it is crucial, when selecting indicators, to consider how easy it will be to collect verifiable data and the sources required.

The definition of assessment measures or factors for measuring specific indicators can be important to specify the scope and qualitative dimensions of change implicit in the performance indicator, thereby ensuring clarity and consistency of measure. Performance indicators and their associated information are like snapshots as they reflect only one dimension of the problem. Combining all performance indicators and their associated information allow us to capture the essence of the result, and monitor progress towards its achievement. It is recommended to have up to three performance indicators per output or outcome. In the ORF, there are 86 assessment factors for measuring the 26 core indicators.

There are literally hundreds of hypothetical indicators of greater or lesser scope that could be elaborated for the Convention, each with predefined scales for measurements and complex calculation methods. At the same time, few (if any) of the assessment factors can be answered with a

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


categorical ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. Different observers may disagree about whether or not the actual achievements and conditions reported are sufficient to justify a particular conclusion.

Given these difficulties, the ORF seeks to provide a manageable and feasible set of indicators, consistent with the approach taken elsewhere in UNESCO and among UN agencies.

As noted above, there are a number of other key actors, such as the media, universities, research institutes, museums, libraries, etc. (which may be public or private, according to the country) as well as civil society entities such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), voluntary associations, guilds or troupes, independent experts, and so on whose efforts complement those of governmental bodies. Attaining a particular result may not, therefore, depend directly on a governmental office, but instead on the common effort of several or many actors. It is thus essential that the factors measured here include both those initiatives that arise within the communities or groups themselves and those interventions that come from outside of communities or groups (including those that originate with the State). It should be noted in this regard that the core indicators are generally formulated in terms of ‘Extent to which [a given situation exists or change has been achieved]’. It is not accidental that they do not say ‘Extent to which the State(s) Party(ies) have [done X or implemented Y]’, as there may be a large number of actors contributing to the results.

It should also be noted that the ORF was not developed solely with the aim of revising the periodic reporting mechanism. It is also intended to provide States Parties with a tool for more effectively monitoring and evaluating their safeguarding interventions to inform the policy-making cycle. Some States Parties may wish to reformulate some of the current assessment factors as indicators at a later stage to give them greater precision or support sub-national reporting, which they are free to do for their own purposes.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


3. SETTING BASELINES AND TARGETS

A major purpose of results-based management such as the overall results framework, is to enable States Parties (and other relevant stakeholders) to identify baselines according to the performance measured and to set targets for the future.

A baseline provides a clearly-defined starting point or the status of the performance indicator at the beginning of a programme or project, and acts as a reference point against which progress or achievements can be assessed.6 A baseline shows the point from which implementation begins, improvement is judged or a comparison is made. Hence, having a good baseline model for performance allows a State Party to know where it is situated at a given point in time, and to identify any improvement (or fall-back), as well as for comparisons across countries or regions. Baselines also allow countries to set targets to measure performance with regard to a specific indicator to be attained during a designated period with the available resources.7 The assessment of baseline and target values of performance indicators allow for monitoring progress towards the achievement of results. If we consider the RBM cycle (shown below), we see that the baselines form part of the evaluation phase (based on information gathered during the monitoring phase) and, so, directly feed into the next planning phase. In this way, baselines are an essential planning element in the RBM method and allow us to forecast future targets and base programmes on experience gained in the previous cycle.

In addition, targets can help identify any funding gaps or amount remaining to be mobilised. Performance indicators and their associated information are like snapshots as they reflect one dimension of the problem. Combining all performance indicators and their associated information help capture the essence of the result, as well as monitor progress towards its achievement and either ensure it is achieved or understand the reasons why it is not.

4. DEVELOPING ASSESSMENT FACTORS

Article 13 – Other measures for safeguarding

6 . UNESCO. Guiding Principles, p. 26.7 . Ibid., p. 26.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


To ensure the safeguarding, development and promotion of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory, each State Party shall endeavour to: […]

(c) foster scientific, technical and artistic studies, as well as research methodologies, with a view to effective safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage, in particular the intangible cultural heritage in danger;

Corresponding thematic area, indicator and assessment factor in the ORF:

Thematic Area III: Inventorying and research

10. Extent to which research findings and documentation are accessible and are utilized to strengthen policy-making and improve safeguarding

10.3 The results of research, documentation, and scientific, technical and artistic studies on ICH are utilized to improve safeguarding.

Article 14 – Education, awareness-raising and capacity-building

Each State Party shall endeavour, by all appropriate means, to:

(a) ensure recognition of, respect for, and enhancement of the intangible cultural heritage in society, in particular through:

(iii) capacity-building activities for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage, in particular management and scientific research; and

Corresponding thematic area, indicator and assessment factor in the ORF:

Thematic Area II: Transmission and education

6. Extent to which post-secondary education supports the practice and transmission of ICH as well as study of its social, cultural and other dimensions

6.1 Post-secondary education institutions offer curricula and degrees (in fields such as music, arts, crafts, technical and vocational education and training, etc.) that strengthen the practice and transmission of ICH.

Related questions:

• What is the purpose of monitoring and evaluating this indicator?

• Can the implementation be monitored using quantitative and/or qualitative indicators (or both)?

• How consistent can this information be over time?

• What are the roles of various actors, in particular community and group members and individual bearers/exponents of ICH?

• Can they disaggregate their data according to gender, age, and other things?

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


5. UNESCO GLOSSARY FOR RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT8

Benchmark Reference point or standard, including norms, against which progress or achievements can be assessed.

Evaluation ‘An assessment, as systematic and impartial as possible, of an activity, project, programme, strategy, policy, topic, theme, sector, operational area, institutional performance, etc. It focuses on expected and achieved accomplishments, examining the results chain, processes, contextual factors and causality, in order to understand achievements or the lack thereof. It aims at determining the relevance, impact, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the interventions and contributions of the organizations of the United Nations system. An evaluation should provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful, enabling the timely incorporation of findings, recommendations and lessons into the decision-making processes of the organizations of the United Nations system and its members.’ (Norms for evaluation in the United Nations System were endorsed by the UNEG in 2005).

Impact Impact implies changes in people’s lives. This might include changes in knowledge, skill, behaviour, health, income, or living conditions. Such changes are positive or negative long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. These effects can be economic, socio-cultural, institutional, environmental, technological or of other types. Impacts should have some relationship to the internationally-agreed development goals, national development goals, and national commitments to international conventions and treaties.

Input The financial, human, material, technological and information resources used for development interventions.

Outcomes Outcomes represent changes in the institutional and behavioural capacities or development conditions. At the planning stage, these are articulated as expected results.

Outputs Outputs are the products, goods and services which result from a development intervention. They are within the control of the Organization and attributable to it. Outputs may include changes resulting from the intervention which are relevant to the achievement of the expected results. They can be tangible or intangible.

Performance indicator

A performance indicator is a unit of measurement along a specified scale or dimension. Performance indicators are a qualitative or quantitative means of measuring an output or result/outcome, with the intention of gauging the performance of a programme or investment.Performance indicators of expected results refer to what the direct beneficiaries are to do differently after the intervention. Performance indicators will assist you in ensuring that the expected result is measurable. They allow to identify to what extent direct beneficiaries/target groups have been reached and hence provide indications of the change (or level of attainment) allowing to assess the level/degree of the achievement.

Results Results are changes in a state or condition that derive from a cause-and-effect relationship. They can be intended or unintended, positive and/or negative.An expected result expresses the "desired" change which is expected to be induced by the implementation of programmes, activities or projects carried out in the context of the Programme and Budget (C/5 document).It should convey how a specific situation is expected to be different from the current situation. For this reason, it should articulate what is to be different rather

8 The document gathers a selection of the terms defined in Results-based programming, management and monitoring (RBM) approach as applied at UNESCO: guiding principles (BSP/RBM/2008/1.REV.6), September 2015.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



than what is to be done. It often relates to the use of outputs by the intended direct beneficiaries.Performance in achieving results will be measured by both quantitative indicators and qualitative indicators.

Result Framework

Results Framework is designed to guide the planning/programming, monitoring, reporting and evaluation at all levels of the Organization. A Results Framework is defined for all C/5 expected results as well as all programmes, activities or projects. It provides the internal logic, ensures that it is consistent in itself thereby favouring the quality of the programme, activity or project by linking the outputs to the results that are to be achieved through its implementation. For both of these it presents performance indicators and associated information such as baseline as well as quantitative and/or qualitative targets allowing to measure both achievements towards results: or impact and to measure outputs produced: or performance.

Result-Based Budgeting (RBB)

RBB is the budgeting component of the RBM framework of UNESCO. It refers to a budget process that directly connects resource allocation to specific, measurable results. It provides the framework for costing (inputs) and the basis for prioritizing the budgets for expected results during the programme planning phase, as well as for managing financial resources during the implementation phase to ensure the efficient use of resources.

Results-based management

Results-based management reflects the way an organization applies processes and resources to undertake interventions to achieve desired results.It is a participatory and team-based management approach to programme planning that focuses on performance and achieving results and impacts. It is designed to improve delivery and strengthen management effectiveness, efficiency and accountability.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


6. CORE INDICATORS AND ASSESSMENT FACTORS9

Thematic Areas Core Indicators Assessment According to the Following Citations10

Institutional and human capacities

1. Extent to which competent bodies and institutions and consultative mechanisms support the continued practice and transmission of ICH

1.1 One or more competent bodies for ICH safeguarding have been designated or established.

Article 13(b)

OD 154(a)

1.2 Competent bodies exist for safeguarding specific elements of ICH, whether or not inscribed.11

Article 13(b)

OD 158(a), OD 162(d)

1.3 Broad and inclusive12 involvement in ICH safeguarding and management, particularly by the communities, groups and individuals concerned, is fostered through consultative bodies or other coordination mechanisms

OD 80

1.4 Institutions, organizations and/or initiatives for ICH documentation are fostered, and their materials are utilized to support continued practice and transmission of ICH.

Article 13(d)(iii)

1.5 Cultural centres, centres of expertise, research institutions, museums, archives, libraries, etc., contribute to ICH safeguarding and management.

OD 79, OD 109

6. Extent to which programmes support the strengthening of

2.1 Tertiary education institutions offer curricula and degrees in ICH safeguarding and management, on an inclusive basis.

Article 14(a)(iii)

OD 107(k)

9 Adopted by the General Assembly of States Parties at its 7th session held in Paris, 4-6 June 2018. Doc. ITH/18/7.GA/9.10 This column presents a partial list of some relevant provisions of the Convention, Operational Directives, and Ethical Principles. It is proposed that this column not be adopted formally as

a part of the results framework; however, the citations would be integrated into the respective guidance notes.11 References to ‘whether or not inscribed’ should be understood to mean ‘inscribed on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding or the Representative List of

the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity’.12 References to ‘inclusive’, ‘inclusively’ or ‘on an inclusive basis’ should be understood to mean ‘inclusive of all sectors and strata of society, including indigenous peoples, migrants,

immigrants and refugees, people of different ages and genders, persons with disabilities and members of vulnerable groups’ (cf. Operational Directives 174 and 194). When these actions and outcomes are reported, States Parties will be encouraged to provide disaggregated data or to explain how such inclusiveness is ensured.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN


Thematic Areas Core Indicators Assessment According to the Following Citations

human capacities to promote safeguarding and management of ICH

2.2 Governmental institutions, centres and other bodies provide training in ICH safeguarding and management, on an inclusive basis.

2.3 Community-based or NGO-based initiatives provide training in ICH safeguarding and management, on an inclusive basis.

9. Extent to which training is operated by or addressed to communities, groups and individuals, as well as to those working in the fields of culture and heritage

3.1 Training programmes, including those operated by communities themselves, provide capacity building in ICH addressed on an inclusive basis to communities, groups and individuals.

Article 14(a)(ii)

OD 82, OD 153(b), OD 155(b)

3.2 Training programmes provide capacity building in ICH addressed on an inclusive basis to those working in the fields of culture and heritage.

Article 14(a)(iii)

OD 153(b)

Transmission and education

11. Extent to which both formal and non-formal education strengthen the transmission of ICH and promote respect for ICH

4.1 Practitioners and bearers13 are involved inclusively in the design and development of ICH education programmes and/or in actively presenting and transmitting their heritage.

OD 107(e)

4.2 Modes and methods of transmitting ICH that are recognized by communities, groups and individuals are learned and/or strengthened, and included in educational programmes, both formal and non-formal.

Article 14(a)(i); Article 14(a)(ii)

OD 180(a)(iii)

4.3 Educational programmes and/or extra-curricular activities concerning ICH and strengthening its transmission, undertaken by communities, groups, NGOs or heritage institutions, are available and supported.

OD 109

4.4 Teacher training programmes and programmes for training providers of non-formal education include approaches to integrating ICH and its safeguarding into education.

12. Extent to which ICH and its safeguarding are integrated into primary and secondary

5.1. ICH, in its diversity, is included in the content of relevant disciplines, as a contribution in its own right and/or as a means of explaining or demonstrating other subjects.

Article 14(a)(i)

OD 107, OD 180(a)(ii)

13 . Although the Convention consistently utilizes the expression, ‘communities, groups and individuals’, several assessment factors, like some Operational Directives, choose to refer to ‘practitioners and bearers’ to better identify certain of their members who play a specific role with regards to their ICH.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



education, included in the content of relevant disciplines, and used to strengthen teaching and learning about and with ICH and respect for one’s own and others’ ICH

5.2. School students learn to respect and reflect on the ICH of their own community or group as well as the ICH of others through educational programmes and curricula.

Article 14(a)(i)

OD 105, OD 180(a)(i)

EP 11

5.3. The diversity of learners’ ICH is reflected through mother tongue or multilingual education and/or the inclusion of ‘local content’ within the educational curriculum.

OD 107

5.4. Educational programmes teach about the protection of natural and cultural spaces and places of memory whose existence is necessary for expressing ICH.

Article 14(c)

OD 155(e), OD 180(d)

EP 5

16. Extent to which post-secondary education supports the practice and transmission of ICH as well as study of its social, cultural and other dimensions

6.1 Post-secondary education institutions offer curricula and degrees (in fields such as music, arts, crafts, technical and vocational education and training, etc.) that strengthen the practice and transmission of ICH.

6.2 Post-secondary education institutions offer curricula and degrees for the study of ICH and its social, cultural and other dimensions.

Inventorying and research

18. Extent to which inventories reflect the diversity of ICH and contribute to safeguarding

7.1 One or more inventorying systems oriented towards safeguarding and reflecting the diversity of ICH have been established or revised since ratification.

Articles 11 and 12

OD 1, OD 2

7.2 Specialized inventories and/or inventories of various scopes reflect diversity and contribute to safeguarding.

7.3 Existing inventory or inventories have been updated during the reporting period, in particular to reflect the current viability of elements included.

Article 12

OD 1, OD 2

7.4 Access to ICH inventories is facilitated, while respecting customary practices governing access to specific aspects of ICH, and they are utilized to strengthen safeguarding.

Article 13(d)(ii)

OD 85

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



22. Extent to which the inventorying process is inclusive, respects the diversity of ICH and its practitioners, and supports safeguarding by communities, groups and individuals concerned

8.1 Communities, groups and relevant NGOs participate inclusively in inventorying which informs and strengthens their safeguarding efforts.

Article 11

OD 1, OD 2

EP 1, EP 6, EP 8, EP 10

8.2 Inventorying process respects the diversity of ICH and its practitioners, including the practices and expressions of all sectors of society, all genders and all regions.

24. Extent to which research and documentation, including scientific, technical and artistic studies, contribute to safeguarding

9.1 Financial and other forms of support foster research, scientific, technical and artistic studies, documentation and archiving, oriented towards safeguarding and carried out in conformity with relevant ethical principles.

OD 173, OD 175

9.2 Research is fostered concerning approaches towards, and impacts of, safeguarding ICH in general and specific elements of ICH, whether or not inscribed.

OD 162

9.3 Practitioners and bearers of ICH participate in the management, implementation and dissemination of research findings and scientific, technical and artistic studies, all done with their free, prior, sustained and informed consent.

OD 109(a), OD 109(e), OD 153(b)(ii), OD 175

EP 1, EP 7

27. Extent to which research findings and documentation are accessible and are utilized to strengthen policy-making and improve safeguarding

10.1 Documentation and research findings are accessible to communities, groups and individuals, while respecting customary practices governing access to specific aspects of ICH.

Article 13(d)(ii)

OD 85, OD 101(c), OD 153(b)(iii)

EP 5

10.2 The results of research, documentation, and scientific, technical and artistic studies on ICH are utilized to strengthen policy-making across sectors.

OD 153(b)(ii)

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



10.3 The results of research, documentation, and scientific, technical and artistic studies on ICH are utilized to improve safeguarding.

Policies as well as legal and administrative measures 30. Extent to which policies as

well as legal and administrative measures in the field of culture reflect the diversity of ICH and the importance of its safeguarding and are implemented

11.1 Cultural policies and/or legal and administrative measures integrating ICH and its safeguarding, and reflecting its diversity, have been established or revised and are being implemented.

Article 13(a)

OD 153(b)(i), OD 171(d)

11.2 National or sub-national strategies and/or action plans for ICH safeguarding are established or revised and are being implemented, including safeguarding plans for specific elements, whether or not inscribed.

OD 1, OD 2

11.3 Public financial and/or technical support for the safeguarding of ICH elements, whether or not inscribed, is provided on an equitable basis, in relation to the overall support for culture and heritage at large, while bearing in mind the priority for those identified as in need of urgent safeguarding.

11.4 Cultural policies and/or legal and administrative measures integrating ICH and its safeguarding are informed by the active participation of communities, groups and individuals.

32. Extent to which policies as well as legal and administrative measures in the field of education reflect the diversity of ICH and the importance of its safeguarding and are implemented

12.1 Policies and/or legal and administrative measures for education are established or revised and implemented to ensure recognition of, respect for and enhancement of intangible cultural heritage.

Article 14(a)(ii)

12.2 Policies and/or legal and administrative measures for education are established or revised and implemented to strengthen transmission and practice of ICH.

Article 14(a)(ii)

12.3 Policies and/or legal and administrative measures promote mother tongue instruction and multilingual education.

Article 14(a)(ii)

OD 107

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



35. Extent to which policies as well as legal and administrative measures in fields other than culture and education reflect the diversity of ICH and the importance of its safeguarding and are implemented

13.1 The Ethical Principles for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage are respected in development plans, policies and programmes.

OD 171(c)

EP

13.2 Policies and/or legal and administrative measures for inclusive social development14 and environmental sustainability are established or revised to consider ICH and its safeguarding.

OD 171(d), OD 178, OD 179, OD 181, OD 182, OD 188-190, OD 191

13.3 Policies and/or legal and administrative measures to respond to situations of natural disaster or armed conflict are established or revised to include the ICH affected and to recognize its importance for the resilience of the affected populations.

13.4 Policies and/or legal and administrative measures for inclusive economic development are established or revised to consider ICH and its safeguarding.15

OD 171(d), OD 183-186

13.5 Favourable financial or fiscal measures or incentives are established or revised to facilitate and/or encourage practice and transmission of ICH and increase availability of natural and other resources required for its practice.

OD 78, OD 186(b)

40. Extent to which policies as well as legal and administrative measures respect customary rights,

14.1 Forms of legal protection, such as intellectual property rights and privacy rights, are provided to ICH practitioners, bearers and their communities when their ICH is exploited by others for commercial or other purposes.

OD 104, OD 173

14 . In conformity with Chapter VI of the Operational Directives, ‘inclusive social development’ comprises food security, health care, gender equality, access to clean and safe water and sustainable water use; quality education is included within indicator 12.

15 . In conformity with Chapter VI of the Operational Directives, ‘inclusive economic development’ comprises income generation and sustainable livelihoods, productive employment and decent work, and impact of tourism on the safeguarding of ICH and vice versa.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



practices and expressions, particularly as regards the practice and transmission of ICH

14.2 The importance of customary rights of communities and groups to land, sea and forest ecosystems necessary for the practice and transmission of ICH is recognized in policies and/or legal and administrative measures.

OD 178(c)

14.3 Policies and/or legal and administrative measures recognize expressions, practices and representations of intangible cultural heritage that contribute to dispute prevention and peaceful conflict resolution.

OD 194, OD 195

Role of intangible cultural heritage and its safeguarding in society

43. Extent to which the importance of ICH and its safeguarding in society is recognized, both by the communities, groups and individuals concerned and by society at large

15.1 Communities, groups and individuals use their ICH for their well-being, including in the context of sustainable development programmes.

15.2 Communities, groups and individuals use their ICH for dialogue promoting mutual respect, conflict resolution and peace-building.

15.3 Development interventions recognize the importance of ICH in society as a source of identity and continuity, and as a source of knowledge and skills, and strengthen its role as a resource to enable sustainable development.

OD 170, OD 173

46. Extent to which the importance of safeguarding ICH is recognized through inclusive plans and programmes that foster self-respect and mutual respect

16.1 ICH safeguarding plans and programmes are inclusive of all sectors and strata of society, including but not limited to: indigenous peoples; groups with different ethnic identities; migrants, immigrants and refugees; people of different ages; people of different genders; persons with disabilities; members of vulnerable groups.

OD 100, OD 102, OD 174, OD 194

EP 1, EP 2, EP 4, EP 9, EP 10

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



16.2 Self-respect and mutual respect are fostered among communities, groups and individuals through safeguarding plans and programmes for ICH in general and/or for specific elements of ICH, whether or not inscribed.

Article 1, Article 2, Article 14(a)

OD 100, OD 107, OD 155

Awareness raising

48. Extent to which communities, groups and individuals participate widely in raising awareness about the importance of ICH and its safeguarding

17.1 Awareness-raising actions reflect the inclusive and widest possible participation of communities, groups and individuals concerned.

OD 101

17.2 The free, prior, sustained and informed consent of communities, groups and individuals concerned is secured for conducting awareness-raising activities concerning specific elements of their intangible cultural heritage.

OD 101

17.3 The rights of communities, groups and individuals and their moral and material interests are duly protected when raising awareness about their ICH.

OD 101(b), OD 101(d), OD 104, OD 171

EP 7

17.4 Youth are actively engaged in awareness-raising activities, including collecting and disseminating information about the intangible cultural heritage of their communities or groups.

Article 14(a)(i)

OD 107(f)

17.5 Communities, groups and individuals use information and communication technologies and all forms of media, in particular new media, for raising awareness of the importance of ICH and its safeguarding.

52. Extent to which media are involved in raising awareness about the importance of ICH and its safeguarding and in promoting understanding and mutual respect

18.1 Media coverage raises awareness of the importance of ICH and its safeguarding and promotes mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals.

OD 111, OD 112, OD 113

18.2 Specific cooperation activities or programmes concerning ICH are established and implemented between various ICH stakeholders and media organizations, including capacity-building activities.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



18.3 Media programming on ICH is inclusive, utilizes the languages of the communities and groups concerned, and/or addresses different target groups.

OD 112, OD 113

18.4 Media coverage of intangible cultural heritage and its safeguarding is in line with the concepts and terminology of the Convention.

55. Extent to which public information measures raise awareness about the importance of ICH and its safeguarding and promote understanding and mutual respect

19.1 Practitioners and bearers of ICH are acknowledged publicly, on an inclusive basis, through policies and programmes.

OD 105(d)

19.2 Public events concerning ICH, its importance and safeguarding, and the Convention, are organized for communities, groups and individuals, the general public, researchers, the media and other stakeholders.

OD 105(b)

19.3 Programmes for promotion and dissemination of good safeguarding practices are fostered and supported.

OD 106

19.4 Public information on ICH promotes mutual respect and appreciation within and between communities and groups.

59. Extent to which programmes raising awareness of ICH respect the relevant ethical principles

20.1 The Ethical Principles for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage are respected in awareness-raising activities.

EP

20.2 Ethical principles, particularly as embodied in relevant professional codes or standards, are respected in awareness-raising activities.

OD 103

Engagement of communities, groups and individuals as well as other stakeholders

61. Extent to which engagement for safeguarding ICH is enhanced among stakeholders

21.1 Communities, groups and individuals participate, on an inclusive basis and to the widest possible extent, in the safeguarding of ICH in general and of specific elements of ICH, whether or not inscribed.

Article 15

OD 1, OD 2, OD 7, OD 79,OD 101(b), OD 171(a)

EP 1, EP 2, EP 9

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



21.2 NGOs and other civil society actors participate in the safeguarding of ICH in general, and of specific elements of ICH, whether or not inscribed.

OD 90,OD 108,OD 157(e), OD 158(b), OD 162(d), OD 163(b)

21.3 Private sector entities participate in the safeguarding of ICH, and of specific elements of ICH, whether or not inscribed, respecting the Ethical Principles for Safeguarding ICH.

OD 187

64. Extent to which civil society contributes to monitoring of ICH safeguarding

22.1 An enabling environment exists for communities, groups and individuals concerned to monitor and undertake scientific, technical and artistic studies on ICH safeguarding programmes and measures.

22.2 An enabling environment exists for NGOs, and other civil society bodies to monitor and undertake scientific, technical and artistic studies on ICH safeguarding programmes and measures.

OD 83, OD 151, OD 153(b)(ii)

22.3 An enabling environment exists for scholars, experts, research institutions and centres of expertise to monitor and undertake scientific, technical and artistic studies on ICH safeguarding programmes and measures.

International engagement

67. Number and geographic distribution of NGOs, public and private bodies, and private persons involved by the Committee in an advisory or consultative capacity16

23.1 Number of NGOs accredited to provide advisory services, their geographic distribution and their representation of different domains.

Article 9

OD 93

23.2 Percentage of accredited NGOs that participate in the sessions and working groups of the Convention’s governing bodies, and their geographic distribution.

23.3 Number of occasions and activities in which accredited NGOs are involved by the Committee for consultative purposes, beyond the evaluation mechanisms.

Article 8

16 . This indicator is monitored and reported only at the global level.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



68. Percentage of States Parties actively engaged with other States Parties in cooperation for safeguarding

24.1 Bilateral, multilateral, regional or international cooperation is undertaken to implement safeguarding measures for ICH in general

Article 19

OD 86

24.2 Bilateral, multilateral, regional or international cooperation is undertaken to implement safeguarding measures for specific elements of ICH, in particular those in danger, those present in the territories of more than one State, and cross-border elements.

24.3 Information and experience about ICH and its safeguarding, including good safeguarding practices, is exchanged with other States Parties.

Article 19

OD 156, OD 193

24.4 Documentation concerning an element of ICH present on the territory of another State Party is shared with it.

Article 19

OD 87

70. Percentage of States Parties actively engaged in international networking and institutional cooperation

25.1 State Party engages, as host or beneficiary, in the activities of category 2 centres for ICH.

OD 88

25.2 International networking is fostered among communities, groups and individuals, NGOs, experts, centres of expertise and research institutes, active in the field of ICH.

OD 86

25.3 State Party participates in the ICH-related activities of international and regional bodies other than UNESCO.

71. ICH Fund effectively supports safeguarding and international engagement17

26.1 States Parties seek financial or technical assistance from the ICH Fund and implement safeguarding programmes resulting from such assistance.

Article 19, Article 21

26.2 States Parties or other entities provide voluntary supplementary contributions to the ICH Fund, for general or specific purposes, in particular the global capacity-building programme.

Article 25.5, Article 27

ODs 68-71

17 . This indicator is monitored and reported only at the global level.

U058-v1.0-PT-EN



26.3 The ICH Fund is utilized to support costs of participation in the meetings of the governing bodies of the Convention by a wide range of stakeholders, including ICH experts and accredited NGOs from developing countries, public and private bodies, as well as members of communities and groups, invited to those meetings to act in an advisory capacity.

Article 8, Article 9

OD 67

U058-v1.0-PT-EN

unesco - background to developing the overall … · web viewwas identified as a ‘thinking...

Documents