Consultation outcome

2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage - consultation response

Updated 12 April 2025

Foreword

This document is the response to the consultation on the process to establish inventories of living heritage in the UK as part of the UK implementing the UNESCO 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

The consultation consisted of 16 online roundtables attended by over 500 people, and over 1,100 survey responses submitted via the online portal and by email.

We have taken the approach to try to respond to as many of the points and questions raised during the consultation as possible. As a result, we are aware this is a long document. At the next stage of the inventory process, when we open the call for submissions, we will publish shorter, more concise and accessible guidance for engaging with the inventory.

Executive summary

We want the ratification of the 2003 Convention to start a conversation throughout the UK about our cultural heritage - the folklore, performance, customs and crafts that play an important role in the identity, pride, and cohesion of communities across the UK - and how we collectively safeguard this intangible cultural heritage, which we will refer to as ‘living heritage’.

This consultation has formed part of the beginning of the conversation around living heritage in the UK and we have worked closely with the Devolved Governments to agree this response.

Living heritage is a broad area that covers a number of different policy areas so there will often not be a one-size-fits all answer, but we will approach the inventories and wider implementation of the Convention with the principles of being community-based, inclusive, respectful and open.

Our overall approach has been to focus on the practicalities of establishing the inventories and we have agreed some key points about the purpose:

• The inventories will support the identification and recognition of living heritage in the UK via a ‘stock-taking’ process, and help raise awareness and support future safeguarding conversations

• The criteria for inclusion does not include a value judgement, assessment or categorisation of significance, importance, or any similar metric

• The benefits of inclusion in the inventories are likely to vary for each item and community, but may include greater awareness, recognition, as well as opportunities for greater engagement and collaboration

• The inventories will be iterative and there will be regular open calls for communities to submit their living heritage. They are not a mapping tool, register or record of living heritage in the UK and are not intended to be an encyclopaedia or archive

• An item being included in the inventories does not automatically mean there is any responsibility or obligation from any organisation, body or government to directly support that item

• The inventories are a domestic process which are separate to the lists held at UNESCO

We will continue to refer to the Convention text for the agreed definition of intangible cultural heritage or living heritage, whilst acknowledging that the definition is (perhaps deliberately) open to interpretation. But we will not be using terms such as ‘traditional’, ‘contemporary’, ‘authentic’ or ‘heritage’ when defining what is or is not living heritage or what should be included in the inventories.

We will adhere to the position adopted by the Convention and not accept submissions solely for organised religions and systems of belief as a whole, but welcome submissions of cultural practices relating to religion. We will welcome submissions that use language as a vehicle, and will support a number of local, indigenous languages with translation (as well as working bilingually in Welsh in line with statutory requirements), but we will not include languages in of themselves in the inventory.

Criteria

There was strong support in the survey responses to the proposed criteria with over three quarters of respondents in favour. Noting comments and suggestions, we have kept the proposed criteria, merged two for practicalities and added three more to provide additional clarity.

• Must be currently practised. To be considered for the inventories the item must have a living community who hold the knowledge or know-how of the item to be carried out, and who are able to pass on the item to future generations. Submissions should provide information on the current and future viability of the item, and will be able to indicate whether the community submitting the item considers it to be endangered, e.g. that it is in danger of dying out without significant change in the current level of transmission.

• Can originate from anywhere and be from anytime, but must include information about the history and transmission within the community concerned. The item does not need to have a minimum age or have been passed down a minimum number of times and it can originate from anywhere and anyone.

• Must be the living practice itself. A submission to the inventories should include information about the associated elements of the item where relevant, but the item of living heritage can not only be the associated tools, instruments, costumes, materials etc. nor only be the outcome, output, creation or result.

• Must be compatible with existing internationally agreed human rights standards. For example, with the rights of others to non-discrimination and equal treatment, privacy, freedom of thought and expression, and participation in social and cultural life.

• Must have free, prior and informed consent from the community. The submission must provide evidence that the practicing community has consented to the item of living heritage being submitted to the inventories.

• Any commercial benefit from the living heritage item, must be for the primary benefit of the community.

Code of ethics

We also heard a range of comments and suggestions in relation to other criteria, but there was a lack of consensus or objective basis to assess an item against the criteria, so we have instead compiled a code of ethics.

The code of ethics is for submitting communities to consider, and may help to inform future conversations around safeguarding, but will not form part of the criteria for inclusion in the inventories.

• Should respect animals, nature, and the environment

• Should respect existing, national legal frameworks and promote positive health, well-being, and safety for themselves and others

• Should build peace, respect, social cohesion and inclusivity, and avoid discrimination within their own living heritage practice(s), wider communities, and when collaborating with other living heritage practitioners

Categories

The key discussions in this subject involved finding a balance between retaining the UNESCO categories for ease of collaboration, and making the categories and wording as useful and accessible as possible for the UK context.

We will retain the five UNESCO categories and add two further ones on ‘Sports and Games’ and ‘Culinary Practices.’ We will also rename and simplify the wording for the categories, including adding explicit reference to Land and Beliefs.

• Oral Expressions Living heritage relating to both spoken-word and non-verbal communication that are used to pass on knowledge, cultural and social values and collective memory. Examples could include proverbs, riddles, songs, nursery rhymes, or storytelling.
• Performing Arts Living heritage relating to performance and human creativity. Examples could include different musical practices, dance, or drama.
• Social Practices Living heritage that is often shared and practised by a group. Examples could include calendar or seasonal customs, festivals, celebrations or rituals.
• Nature, Land, and Spirituality Living heritage relating to the environment and belief. Examples could include building techniques, land management systems, knowledge about certain animals and plants and ecologies.
• Crafts Living heritage relating to the skills, knowledge and making of things, either by hand or with assisted tools. Examples could include specific practices of weaving, wood carving, pottery, blacksmithing, or stonemasonry.
• Sports and Games Living heritage relating to games, competitions or activities needing physical effort and/or skill. Examples could include sporting events or recreational games.
• Culinary Practices Living heritage relating to the preparation and consumption of food and drink. Examples could include the making of specific dishes or the sharing of food and drink socially.

Introduction

1. We want the ratification of the 2003 Convention to start a conversation about what we value and how we collectively safeguard our living heritage.

2. The establishing of an inventory - or inventories as we will explain - of living heritage in the UK is a key obligation of the Convention and a first step in implementation. To introduce this response to the Consultation, we wanted to provide further information about the context and the scope of the Convention: noting both the opportunities and the limitations. We hope this will build a shared understanding and expectation of what ratifying the Convention means, as well as what it can - and can’t - achieve.

3. To begin, it is useful to examine how the UK manages cultural policy. When the UK ratifies a UNESCO Convention, a specific and relevant government department acts as ‘State Party’ to the Convention. For the 2003 Convention, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) acts as the ‘State Party’ because of its distinct policy responsibility for culture and heritage.

4. Within the UK, culture and heritage are devolved policy areas which means that the Governments of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have responsibility for their own culture and heritage policy. This policy is further spread across a number of internal teams and departments in each government. Whilst DCMS is the ‘State Party’ to the 2003 Convention, it looks to these different teams and departments across the four Governments for guidance and input.

5. Given this devolved nature, we will establish separate (online) inventories for each of the nations that will combine into a single inventory of living heritage in the UK. Where there are other distinct groups, including those in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities such as Cornish, we will support their inclusion and ensure the living heritage of these groups can be viewed together on the inventories, but will not establish separate inventories beyond the devolved governments.

6. The 2003 Convention is one of many Conventions at UNESCO and also one of many international treaties that the UK has signed up to. It is one piece of a wider jigsaw of overall international cultural and heritage policy. In theory, these jigsaw pieces fit together to create a coherent picture, but there are often gaps or overlaps. Living heritage is such a broad area that it also encompasses many other policy jigsaw pieces, such as: the environment, business and trade, education, and technology.

7. The ability to link, collaborate and influence other policy areas can be a strength of living heritage, but it is important to note that the Ministers and departments responsible for the living heritage jigsaw piece often do not have direct responsibility for all the other puzzle pieces.

8. This point also relates to broader, cross-cutting policy areas such as religion and language. Whilst it might be agreed that both are fundamental parts of our cultural heritages, responsibility for these predominantly sit outside the Ministers and departments responsible for culture and heritage. This means there are limitations to the scope or extent of how these areas can be influenced by the Convention.

9. However, the Convention does provide a framework to start a conversation spanning across the wider cultural and heritage policy jigsaw. The inventory process is just one specific focus of that conversation.

10. One key benefit of the inventories is that they contribute to the safeguarding of living heritage by raising awareness. This greater awareness for living heritage will help conversations within and between communities, areas, organisations, public bodies, nations, and countries.

11. There were a number of comments in the consultation referring to the following statement in the consultation paper: ‘ratifying does not automatically place any additional burden, duty, or obligation on any policy-maker or funder’. The Convention was not ratified with a top-down or preset idea of what implementation should look like. We are at the start of the process and the consultation is the first step of this. We hope to continue the process with open, collaborative, and inclusive discussion.

12. We welcome positive and respectful debate. Discussion, disagreement and the sharing of views and opinions is an important element of implementation: both domestically and internationally. We want to raise the profile, understanding and appreciation of living heritage in the UK and we want the ratification of the Convention to start a conversation locally, regionally, nationally about what we value and how we can collectively safeguard it.

13. With such a diversity and breadth of living heritage in the UK there will never be a one-size fits all approach. We will continue to seek out and ensure all voices, whether the loudest or quietest, can be heard and can engage in the conversation.

14. We outlined the principles of our approach in the consultation document. These are based on some of UNESCO’s principles, taken from its definition. We would like to reiterate them here and reflect some comments.

Community-based, bottom up

Intangible Cultural Heritage can only be heritage when it is recognised as such by the communities, groups or individuals who create, maintain and transmit it – without their recognition, nobody else can decide for them that a given expression or practice is their heritage.

Inclusive and respectful

We share the view that an understanding of the intangible cultural heritage of others helps with intercultural dialogue, encourages mutual respect for other ways of life, and helps people to feel part of one or different communities and to feel part of society at large.

We may share expressions of intangible cultural heritage that are similar to those practised by others. Whether they are from the neighbouring village, from a city on the opposite side of the world, or have been adapted by peoples who have migrated and settled in a different region, they all are intangible cultural heritage: they have been passed from one generation to another, have evolved in response to their environments and they contribute to giving us a sense of identity and continuity, providing a link from our past, through the present, and into our future. 

Open and engaged

Because of the broad nature of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the broad spread of Intangible Cultural Heritage across all parts of the UK and our Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, implementing the Convention will require collaboration. There is no single government or organisation responsible for implementation across the UK, so open dialogue and discussion to ensure a diversity of voices and views will be fundamental.

15. We would like to build on these principles with something that may seem obvious but is nonetheless worth stating; our implementation of the Convention is open to all, irrespective of aspects like sex, gender, race, ethnicity, ability, background or belief.

16. We have stated our intentions for this approach to be bottom-up and community-led. However, we also acknowledge that UNESCO, the Convention and our implementation are, by their nature, government-coordinated processes.

17. Historically, many communities and groups have not willingly engaged in government processes and have viewed the actions of the government as not supporting or representing their interests. Further, we note that many folklore, traditions or customs have grown out of an anti-authority, protest-fuelled stance.

18. We acknowledge these inherent tensions of the process and will take steps to invite, welcome and accommodate all communities. We will respect those communities that may choose not to engage. We also underline that choosing not to participate does not in any way signal that that living heritage is less meaningful or valued.

19. Further to our principle of being open and engaged, as well as the point that we are at the beginning of the journey, we want to emphasise that this is an iterative process. Just as we will continue to invite submissions and updates for future iterations of the inventory, we expect the implementation to evolve and develop, mirroring the living nature of living heritage and the experiences of other States Parties to the convention.

20. We are committed to learning and improving as we iterate. We acknowledge there may be gaps, mistakes and oversights and we will endeavour to recognise, acknowledge and respond to these as we go.

21. This consultation is the first iteration of this implementation. We acknowledge the mistakes, lack of clarity and misunderstandings that were present in the initial consultation document below.

22. Some of these were careless mistakes such as not checking the option to allow respondents to associate themselves with more than one of the Convention’s domains. Others were a result of insufficient explanation or underestimating the powerful perceptions or associations of certain words or terms. We hope to have addressed all of these in this consultation response.

23. There will however always be times when different views cannot be reconciled and we note that not everyone will agree with the consensus view that we have taken at this stage. But we will continue to listen, to iterate and to support the discussion about living heritage that the ratification of the Convention provides.

24. We note that the Convention title ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’ may be unclear. Following many subsequent conversations, and noting that the Secretariat of the Convention refer to their team in UNESCO as the ‘Living Heritage’ unit, we will generally use the term ‘living heritage’, except when referring to the Convention text or where we are discussing other areas where Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) is the commonly used term. We note that the terms can be used interchangeably and have no practical difference between them.

Inventory

Taking-stock

25. There are a number of ways of considering or understanding an inventory. In our research, we looked at many countries who have taken different approaches to their national inventories. As part of the consultation, we listened to the ambitions and hopes for the inventories that people have shared with us.

26. We want to start by defining the inventory: both what it will and will not be.

27.The inventory fulfils a basic function of safeguarding in terms of the identification and recognition of living heritage in the UK, through a ‘stock-taking’ process. The primary focus of the Convention, as its name makes clear, is safeguarding. We explore the meanings of safeguarding in further detail later, but a basic explanation we use is to ‘ensure the ongoing viability’. In order to have a conversation about safeguarding, we first need to know what living heritage there is, where it is, who is doing it, etc. We also note that the information we gather must be available to everyone in order for that conversation to be inclusive.

28. We also want to be clear that the inventory is a live, ongoing process and not just a one-off exercise. We will have regular calls for submission and regularly update the inventories. This means that there is not just one opportunity for communities to submit items to the inventories and that new and evolving living heritage is able to be added. Equally, living heritage that is no longer practised will be removed from the inventories. We cover this below in the review section.

29. We are not planning to have a rolling process for submitting and publishing. We will have a fixed period for submissions, followed by the publication of the new iteration. We will learn from the initial call for submissions as to how frequently we run future calls for submissions and publications of the updated inventory, but we anticipate these could be annual.

Context

30. The inventory is not a mapping tool, register or record of living heritage in the UK and is not intended to be an encyclopaedia or archive. We will not be asking for an exhaustive, comprehensive description of each item because the inventory is not intended to replace, replicate or duplicate existing sources of information online. There are excellent comprehensive archives, encyclopaedias and similar that already exist; we intend for the inventories entries to sign-post these dedicated sites.

31. Keeping the level of information required to a manageable level will ensure the submission process is easy and accessible. This will encourage as many people as possible to engage with the process.

32. However, we are also aware that not all communities will want to - or be able to - submit their items of living heritage and that these items evolve over time. We therefore acknowledge that the inventories will never be a ‘complete’ or comprehensive record of living heritage in the UK. This is not the intention.

33. We also acknowledge that an inventory of living heritage in the UK is not a new idea and does not exist in a vacuum. There have been many instances of creating inventories of living heritage in the UK which have influenced this work. The Scottish wiki-inventory developed by Museums Galleries Scotland took an innovative open-access wiki approach and combined this with an easy to navigate information infrastructure. Similarly, Heritage Craft’s red-list of endangered crafts is an internationally acclaimed piece of work that has made a major safeguarding contribution through awareness-raising and information sharing. We intend to continue working closely with both organisations to align our work.

34. Furthermore, in addition to signposting and linking to other data sources, we acknowledge that the inventories will also become a dataset that can be useful to researchers, academics and more. We want the inventories to be as useful as possible and therefore be as accessible as possible. We will publish further information about this in the guidance at the call for submissions.

Domestic

35. The inventory is a domestic process which is separate to the lists held at UNESCO. The inventory is a primary obligation of the Convention, but it is for individual countries (or States Parties to the Convention) to establish and manage the inventories. Whilst we have followed guidance and best practice from UNESCO in most instances, the decisions set out below as to how we establish the inventories are not made by UNESCO (e.g. the Secretariat or Committee for the 2003 Convention) but have been proposed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. These decisions are informed by our public consultation, engagement with other countries, and developed with representatives from the Devolved Governments.

36. The Convention includes a List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding and the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. States Parties can submit one item of intangible cultural heritage per year to these lists, for evaluation by the Committee of the Convention. These are international lists held at UNESCO and are separate to the domestic inventories of living heritage in the UK.

37. As we set out in the consultation, the UK will focus on the inventories in the UK. We will not submit items to the international UNESCO Lists, at least for the first few years of ratification. This was a decision that was challenged during the consultation and we acknowledge that a number of stakeholders are keen for the UK to join in with submitting items to the international lists.

38. We also acknowledge that this approach to not submit to the lists goes against the norm of States Parties to the Convention. However, we remain of the view that the amount of time, effort and potential disputes in order to select a single item per year (which will result in few winners and many losers) is disproportionate to the value it would bring to the few chosen items.

39. This approach does not signal our disinterest in international connection and collaboration and does not prevent communities in the UK from connecting and collaborating with international partners. We note that many already do so. We will look to support these existing and new connections as part of the safeguarding conversations.

40. Our view is that it is more in keeping with our inclusive approach to avoid top-down selections and to raise awareness of the inventories and all of the living heritage in the UK. We use the phrase ‘lift not list’ to describe this approach.

Status

41. The criteria for inclusion does not include a value judgement, assessment or categorisation of significance, importance or any similar metric. The inventories are not being compiled in order to arrive at an approved or official record or list of living heritage in the UK. This means that inclusion of an item in the inventory does not give it a particular status of being approved or endorsed. Its status is its recognition within the inventories of living heritage in the UK.

42. As the Ethical Principles for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage include:

Each community, group or individual should assess the value of its own intangible cultural heritage and this intangible cultural heritage should not be subject to external judgements of value or worth.

43. We fully appreciate that many people will believe that some items have greater or less significance, importance or value and those judgements may correlate with age, size, or notions of authenticity. We have heard the arguments that having lower barriers to entry will result in a larger number of items in the inventories and therefore may reduce the uniqueness or reward of being included.

44. But we want to start the conversation about how, collectively, we safeguard living heritage in the UK. These conversations are likely to include questions of prioritisation, but to start those conversations we want to include as many items as possible by taking an open, inclusive approach.

45. We go into detail about the panel process further below, but the principle of inclusion is well phrased by one of the consultation responses:

If a practice is to be ‘community defined’ there might well be concerns such an approvals process serves to act as a barrier for practices being listed. It would perhaps be more effective and in-keeping with the spirit of the idea of living cultural heritage as something ‘community defined’ for there to be a presumption that a practice will be listed. A review panel could then examine if good reasons exist for not listing a particular practice.

46. This makes a key point about self-determination which fits with our approach to be community-led and bottom-up, whilst noting and making clear where there are necessary practical parameters or limitations of the approach of the Convention.

47. We are fully aware that this approach will result in a much larger inventory than the inventories of most (although not all) of the other ratified countries. However, we believe that this is more in keeping with the spirit of the Convention:

Article 15 of the 2003 Convention discusses the participation of communities, groups and individuals: ‘each State Party shall endeavour to ensure the widest possible participation of communities, groups and, where appropriate, individuals that create, maintain and transmit such heritage, and to involve them actively in its management.’

48. We believe a large inventory will also demonstrate the rich breadth and diversity of living heritage in the UK and involve many more people and communities. We feel it is important to take an approach that builds a greater public awareness and understanding, given that this Convention is newly ratified in the UK and that living heritage is not as widely understood or familiar as tangible, built heritage.

49. We note that having a larger number of items will require a good level of navigation on the website in order to easily find and discover items. This is an area we have been exploring in detail and will provide more information when we open the call for submissions.

Benefits

50. The benefits of inclusion in the inventories are likely to vary for each item. One clear point we heard repeatedly through the consultation was that we needed to demonstrate the benefit or value of the inventory in order for people to want to engage in the process. We acknowledge that this was largely absent in the consultation document, but having heard from a range of stakeholders during the consultation roundtables we are better able to set out what we believe can be gained from the process.

51. As we state above, the core aim of the inventory is to support safeguarding: both as a means to enable a conversation about how we are collectively safeguarding our living heritage and as a key first step for identifying, recognising and raising awareness of the range of living heritage in the UK.

52. Safeguarding is a broad term that covers a number of areas. The text of the Convention states:

3. ‘Safeguarding’ means measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage.’

53. Each item of living heritage will face different challenges to ensuring its viability, so each item is likely to require different forms of safeguarding.

54. As such, the benefits of inclusion in the inventories are likely to vary for each item, but are centred around starting conversations - whether within a community, or with those nearby or far away. Some benefits from coordinating a submission could include:

• Engagement within the community through the discussion and collaboration of practitioners to agree the submission content, building a greater awareness, understanding or appreciation of the item

• Engagement and discussion with other similar, separate communities to understand and define similarities and differences, building greater links and networks.

Whilst benefits from being included on the published inventory could include:

• Recognition as part of a UK-wide platform and process

• Raising awareness of the item outside of the community submitting the item

• Opportunity to connect with other previously unknown items in the inventories

• Visibility of the item for any researchers or similar interested parties

Drawbacks

55. An item being included in the inventories does not automatically mean there is any responsibility or obligation from any organisation, body or government to directly support that item. All of the potential benefits above can help towards ensuring the viability of the item and can be considered a form of safeguarding in themselves, but also provide a focus to start the conversation about further safeguarding actions. However, it is important to note that the discussion about future safeguarding is separate to the inventory process. We will explore the potential approaches and processes for safeguarding as part of the Convention in guidance when we open the call for submissions.

56. We also heard many points about the potential negative implications and drawbacks of inclusion in the inventories and how they might be mitigated. The key ones noted were over-tourism or unwanted tourism, the commercial exploitation or cultural appropriation of an item, as well as that some communities might not wish to see their living heritage branded as ‘UK’ living heritage.

57. We acknowledge the latter may remain a concern despite our position. Following UNESCO and other countries, the inventories are to be of any living heritage in the UK, as opposed to being from the UK, recognising the migration and development of culture and living heritage.

58. We also acknowledge that increased tourism can be an outcome of raising awareness and promoting knowledge of an item. For some, tourism can be an opportunity to increase participation and grow audiences and, by doing so, increase awareness, knowledge or income to sustain the item, as well as potentially providing side benefits to the community or group.

59. But there were many stories of over-tourism - of too many tourists from outside the community impacting on the item or practice - particularly for large public rituals, events, festivals, etc.

60. We acknowledge this potential drawback and would encourage those with a strong concern about potential over-tourism as a result of inclusion in the inventory to consider whether the benefits of inclusion in the inventories outweigh the drawbacks. In the same way we state above that inclusion in the inventory does not provide a particular status or a seal of approval, non-inclusion in the inventory does not devalue or invalidate an item of living heritage.

61. We also note the role of the inventories to encourage good practice in this area, and include reference to sustainable tourism in the criteria below.

62. Going forward, this is an area where greater links and knowledge-sharing between items of living heritage within the UK, or with other countries signed up to this Convention who have faced similar challenges, could be a useful area of focus and can form part of the ongoing safeguarding discussion.

Defining terms

63. There was a considerable amount of lively discussion about definitions during the consultation, particularly in the roundtables. We would therefore like to clarify our position regarding the definitions of some of the key concepts.

64. Firstly, there are a number of terms, such as ‘heritage’, ‘traditional’, ‘contemporary’ and ‘authentic’, that are frequently used in relation to heritage. However, despite a common understanding of each term, there were many differences of opinion when applied to living heritage. In particular, we note that terms such as ‘authentic’ have been problematic when used in discussion by members at Convention meetings.

65. For example, if ‘heritage’ is understood to mean that which is inherited, then how should inherited be defined? From generation to generation, within a family, within a community (whether a local, place-based community or other types); how much can it evolve or change to still be considered inherited; how many times should it be inherited? These questions and others produced a range of different views, opinions, and conversations.

66. As we noted in the introduction, we welcome the conversations around these nuances. We believe it is important for a consideration of the living heritage in the whole of the UK to recognise and celebrate the differences and distinctions, as well as the similarities and overlaps.

67. We are also reluctant to impose definitions of terms such as ‘heritage’, ‘traditional’ or ‘contemporary’ as this would be top-down and against the spirit of the Convention. We do not believe that these definitions are necessary for the process of establishing the inventories. By having specific definitions for terms, it would inevitably mean that some communities’ interpretations or understanding would not align and may be unnecessarily excluded.

68. We have aimed to make the criteria for an item to be included in the inventories as neutral as possible, in order to build consensus and establish a common understanding. We will therefore not be using terms such as ‘traditional’, ‘contemporary’, ‘authentic’, or ‘heritage’ when defining what is or is not living heritage or what should be included in the inventories.

69. To be clear, this is not to suggest that we want to discourage or prevent the use of these terms and acknowledge that we will still be using ‘heritage’ when referring to ‘living heritage’ or ‘intangible cultural heritage’. For the process of establishing criteria for the inventory, we believe it will be easier to avoid the use of these terms and the need to create a glossary of living heritage terms.

Parameters of living heritage

Definition

70. The Convention articles include the definition:

The ‘intangible cultural heritage’ means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.’

71. However, the question of ‘what is intangible cultural heritage?’ informed many of the responses to the criteria questions - e.g. ‘this particular criterion should be framed in such a way to exclude x, because we don’t consider x to be intangible cultural heritage’.

72. In terms of the definition of intangible cultural heritage or living heritage, we would like to recognise and acknowledge that the Convention’s definition is quite flexible. We are not seeking to tighten that definition, but we are seeking to clarify what may go in the inventory. The reasons for this follow from the inventory not being intended as an official or approved list of living heritage in the UK and also acknowledges the community nature of living heritage, rather than a top-down approach. For the implementation of the Convention, we believe it preferable to keep a loose definition rather than set strict boundaries due to our open and inclusive approach. Again, we would note that a more open and inclusive approach does not indicate a value judgement, and still allows for differences of views and opinions.

73. One particular response summarised this very well:

…important heritage is not defined in a restrictive way / the concept can mean different things to different people / we respect what people feel heritage means to them and what they value from the past that they want to pass on.

74. We would emphasise that we consider the breadth and diversity of living heritage in the UK a strength. There will be differences of opinion, different concerns, different benefits, different needs, different opportunities and different levels of engagement with the Convention. We want to embrace and include these differences in the conversations about living heritage in the UK.

75. We will continue to refer to the Convention text for the agreed definition of intangible cultural heritage or living heritage, whilst acknowledging that the definition is (perhaps deliberately) open to interpretation.

Practice

76. We would also like to reflect on the way we described living heritage in the Consultation text. We used the analogy of a verb and ‘practice’ as a way to distinguish living heritage from the more widely understood tangible, built, fixed heritage.

77. Whilst this is still a useful way of looking at heritage, we acknowledge that this is a simplistic view and see the term ‘living heritage’ as more appropriate.

78. Living heritage includes items that are ‘practised’ and that evolve. Importantly, though, something doesn’t have to be practised in order to be alive; the knowledge of how to do a practice and the values associated with it are equally important.

79. At the same time, we would emphasise that living heritage is something that exists in as much as it can be passed on or transmitted to future generations. It is the skills, knowledge and understanding of meaning and value that makes up living heritage and can be passed on from one person to another. At the same time, we would emphasise that living heritage needs to be passed on or transmitted to future generations. It is therefore these elements that can be passed on from one person to another - e.g. the skills, knowledge and understanding of meaning and value - that form the living heritage.

80. In order to describe how an item of living heritage is ‘carried out’, ‘enacted’, ‘transmitted’ or any similar expression, we will continue to use ‘practised’ but note that when we use this we are implicitly including the knowledge and values (or ‘know-how’) associated with the item.

81. Similarly, we will also use ‘practitioner’ and note that this implicitly includes other ways of describing the carrying out of living heritage, such as enacting or performing.

Tangible heritage

82. We acknowledge that drawing a line between tangible heritage and living heritage or intangible cultural heritage is at best simplistic and at worst risks pigeon-holing or excluding items or areas of heritage. We recognise that there are many areas where there is not a clear line between the two.

83. One example is how many types of living heritage produce tangible items or artefacts or require tangible tools, instruments, etc, to produce them. Similarly, many tangible heritage sites have unique, associated living heritage practises. The role of tangible heritage is clearly a vital part of living heritage and we fully acknowledge both this and the role that organisations such as museums can play in covering the spectrum of heritage. We include further information about the distinction between living heritage and objects and products in the criteria below.

84. We also acknowledge the responses regarding the community element of tangible heritage and the close links, memories, associations and related knowledge. As was remarked during a roundtable - ‘all tangible heritage was (and is) created using intangible cultural heritage’ - and we acknowledge the importance of community engagement and value in both tangible and intangible cultural heritage (living heritage).

85. More broadly, we recognise that heritage in the UK encompasses a wide range of elements and areas with many overlaps, connections and often no clear boundaries or distinctions between them.

86. Going forward, we do not wish to try to define tangible heritage, any more than aiming to have a comprehensive definition of intangible cultural heritage (living heritage). We will look to avoid a false dichotomy between tangible and intangible heritage when talking about living heritage and items for inclusion in the inventories.

Wider heritage

87. There were a number of questions or comments in the consultation responses about broader interpretations or personal experiences of heritage. For example: the feeling or experience of a cultural or heritage place (also described as the ‘spirit of place’), activity or event; the setting of an historic place or building; being in an audience; the act of visiting a heritage site; scents or ‘olfactory heritage’; memories associated with objects; natural features which currently fall outside existing built heritage and scientific natural designations; natural heritage - importance of native breeds to our identity / culture; history of politics and ownership of land; and vernacular architecture and landscapes.

88. We acknowledge that all of these exist under a broad understanding of ‘heritage’ and may fall outside traditional definitions of heritage or be less represented in current heritage engagement. They may also have an element of the intangible or be intangible in their nature.

89. However, the Convention is not designed to cover every type of heritage, and has a particular focus, with transmission being a key point for considering the safeguarding of living heritage. In implementing the Convention we intend to stay within the parameters of how the Convention defines living heritage and to focus only on living heritage that can be practised, passed on, or ‘transmitted’. We believe this key distinction means that the examples above of experiences or feelings associated with places, etc, would not be included. We also note that many of these examples would still be associated with items of living heritage we would expect to see included in the inventories - e.g. the practices, skills and knowledge to build architecture and work with nature etc. When we open the call for submissions for the inventories we will include clear guidance on these areas.

90. This is not to diminish or undermine the specific value and importance of the above examples, nor do we want to say that none of these are part of our cultural heritage. As above, we are not seeking to produce the comprehensive definition of living heritage, but we are aiming to agree the criteria for what is in scope in terms of the implementation of the Convention.

91. We acknowledge that this will not be the hoped-for answer by those suggesting the above examples, who feel these areas should be better represented in current heritage engagement and see the Convention as a way to do this.

92. We do acknowledge these arguments and hope that the increased conversation about living heritage could also lead to further conversations about other areas of heritage that people feel are overlooked.

Language

93. There were many responses in support of the inclusion of language in the inventory process. We agree that language is part of our cultural heritage, but we consider the inclusion of language in of itself as outside the scope of the inventories.

94. The scope of what might be considered living heritage is already very broad, crossing conventional groupings of heritage, arts, culture, creative industries, communities and sports. We outlined some areas of heritage that we consider outside of the scope of the inventories and our approach to the Convention above. Similarly, as we outline in our response to Question 1d below, our focus is on the practice and know-how rather than the products or tools used to carry out the living heritage.

95. Our approach will follow the position of the Convention for Oral traditions and expressions:

Although language underpins the intangible heritage of many communities, the protection and preservation of individual languages is beyond the scope of the 2003 Convention, though they are included in Article 2 as a means of transmitting intangible cultural heritage. Different languages shape how stories, poems and songs are told, as well as affecting their content. The death of a language inevitably leads to the permanent loss of oral traditions and expressions. However, it is these oral expressions themselves and their performance in public that best help to safeguard a language rather than dictionaries, grammars and databases. Languages live in songs and stories, riddles and rhymes and so the protection of languages and the transmission of oral traditions and expressions are very closely linked.’

96. Language is a vehicle for many forms of living heritage (see Article 2,2. We warmly invite submissions of living heritage expressed in any language, language variety, or dialect, or in a combination of these. We anticipate that languages used will include English, indigenous, local and/or minority languages of the UK, and other relevant languages, including community languages brought to the UK through migration. For example, the industrial heritage of coal miners or lace workers is expressed, in part, in the vocabulary they use to talk about their work. Children’s rhymes and games could include a mix of standard English, local dialect, and other migrant languages spoken by children.

97. Including an instance of living heritage in the inventories does not mean that the language that said element is expressed in is safeguarded by the Convention. This means that we will not include a specific language, dialect or lexicon as an item of living heritage in the inventories. Language itself is protected in other ways. For example, the UK’s commitment to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages covers formally recognised minority languages such as Ulster Scots, Cornish, and British Sign Language. Welsh is an official language alongside English in Wales, as is Irish in Northern Ireland and Gaelic in Scotland, where there is also a language policy supporting Scots.

98. We note that language is often a fundamental part of the transmission of living heritage from generation to generation, and so recognise the importance of language as a critical part of the safeguarding approach.

99. We will strongly encourage the submission of items of living heritage in languages other than English for inclusion in the inventories. To this extent, we have carefully considered the use of different languages through the stages of the inventory process and will look to make the whole process as accessible as possible for multiple minority and non-English languages. We will publish further information and guidance when we open the call for submissions later this year.

Religion

100. We also note that as explained by UNESCO in its Frequently Asked Questions:

…organized religions cannot be nominated specifically as elements for inscription, although a lot of intangible heritage has spiritual aspects.’

101. We intend to follow this approach of our implementation of the Convention, with organised religions and systems of belief as such being outside the scope for the inventories in the UK.

102. Again, we acknowledge that many consider these as fundamental parts of their cultural heritage, and we do not wish to disagree. But in the parameters of implementing this Convention, with a view on establishing the inventories in order to support a discussion about safeguarding, we will adhere to the Convention’s position and will not accept submissions solely for organised religions and systems of belief as a whole.

103. We will, however, welcome practices relating to organised religions and beliefs where they meet the criteria. We also note that a lot of living heritage is inherently bound up or relates to the spiritual values, and we also welcome information about the historical context as part of the submission of any living heritage to the inventories.

Intellectual property

104. Intellectual property and cultural rights in relation to intangible cultural heritage or living heritage is a complex area that has had considerable discussion and debate. However, our implementation of the Convention, including the process of establishing inventories, does not affect the UK’s existing position on Intellectual Property (IP) and cultural rights.

105. In relation to the inventory process, Intellectual Property is outside the scope of the inventory, meaning being included in the inventory does not provide any Intellectual Property protection for an item.

106. We recognise that using Intellectual Property may be a technique for safeguarding living heritage in terms of making the practice of a living heritage financially sustainable, however the living heritage itself remains outside the scope of IP.

107. This was a subject that was discussed at many of the roundtables, with concern being expressed by stakeholders that the public, potentially high-profile nature of the inventories may increase the risk of exploitation or appropriation of associated creations of intangible cultural heritage in the inventories without community consent.

108. Our view is that the profile and visibility of the inventories can affirm the links between communities and their living heritage, which can support communities, groups and individuals concerned to safeguard their living heritage.

109. We will ensure that part of the ensuing conversation about safeguarding includes discussion about the issues of commercial exploitation, or cultural appropriation of intangible cultural heritage without community consent.

Skill

110. The last point to respond to in this section is the subject of skill. This was another area where there were strong opinions, particularly when it came to living heritage relating to craft, with references made to practitioners demonstrating skill, or expertise being required.

111. We acknowledge that many crafts or living heritage requires skill to carry out and that the passing on of these skills is an important element of safeguarding.

112. Whilst we have acknowledged the value of establishing the inventories and the benefits of inclusion, we have noted that inclusion in the inventories is not intended as recognition of the relative importance. In the same way, we do not intend inclusion to be a signal or recognition of the quality or expertise of the living heritage.

113. One response noted: “High craft and everyday craft differ wildly and have differing support needs”. This is a useful consideration and may point to different types of living heritage relating to craft. But the distinctions between any types of living heritage should relate to the practice and not between a master and an amateur or hobbyist practitioner. Further, we agree that different communities of practitioners may have differing support needs, but note that this will be part of the safeguarding discussion rather than for discussion at the inventories stage.

114. Our position is that any item of living heritage submitted to the inventories is welcome to reference the skill or expertise of practitioners, and if appropriate, reference different levels of competency. However, we are taking an inclusive approach and will not exclude any community based on the level of skill or quality of the item of living heritage. This is similar to Heritage Crafts, who speak about the many different types of practice, from casual pastimes, to serious amateur practice, to commercial businesses, that are necessary to maintain the ecosystem as a whole and to sustain the next generation of practitioners. We explore the issues of commercialisation further below.

Criteria

115. The criteria for inclusion in the inventories are designed to be as objective or neutral as possible. This is to provide a set of organisational principles and clear parameters for inclusion to the inventories, so that there is a clear understanding of what living heritage may be included.

116. Through the discussion and comments, it was clear some stakeholders have specific views on standards or approaches that areas including respect for nature, sustainability, and safety should meet. These areas were more subjective and did not always have full agreement or consensus across wider stakeholders and communities. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that these can be useful to note and we believe that the areas we have identified are ones that practitioners should consider.

117. We have called these a code of ethics. The code of ethics will not form part of the criteria for inclusion in the inventory. Further information is in the section below following the criteria section.

118. The criteria will remain a guide as to what an item of living heritage will need to demonstrate in order to be included in the inventories and it will be the role of the submissions panels to check whether an item meets the criteria. In the sections below we set out our responses to the criteria that were proposed in the consultation, as well as outlining three additional criteria that will be used.

Question 1a

Proposed criteria

Must be currently practised.

Survey response: 78.2% agree, 6.4% are neutral, 14.5% disagree

119. We had a number of questions in the roundtables and consultation responses about living heritage that is on the edge of dying out or has been recently revived, with the overwhelming ask for a wider, more inclusive definition.

120. In the same way the inventory is not intended as a historical record or archive, we do not believe that including living heritage which is no longer being passed on fits within the idea of ‘living’ heritage or the definition of safeguarding as ‘ensuring the viability’.

121. However, we acknowledge that something does not have to be actively practised in order to be alive; the knowledge of how to do something and the values associated with the practice are equally important.

122. We also acknowledge the role that archives and similar play in documenting living heritage and the way that this documentation can support safeguarding efforts, but note that the inventories are not intended to be archives and can sit alongside, and sign-post to, existing resources.

123. We also acknowledge that for many oral histories, in particular stories, the actual story is an important element of the living heritage. However, the inventories are intended to identify the living heritage of oral traditions and stories still being told, rather than become a list or repository of historical stories.

124. It is not our intention to use the Convention to revive historical living heritage, even if the knowledge of that living heritage is held in historical documents. But if an item of living heritage had died out and has been revived that would not be a barrier to its inclusion in the inventories.

125. We will not specify a minimum or maximum number of people practising or with the knowledge to practise the item of living heritage. Those with fewer practitioners are likely to be in greater need of safeguarding, but endangerment is not a criteria for inclusion in the inventories. However, given that we are approaching establishing the inventories as a step towards the conversation about safeguarding, we will welcome information on the inventory entry as to the current and future viability of the item. Further information and discussion about safeguarding will follow in future guidance.

126. On the basis that there was overwhelming support from the online survey responses and the clarifications set out above, we will retain the criteria without change but will request further detail on the viability of the item.

Agreed criteria

Must be currently practised.

To be considered for the inventories the item must have a living community who hold the knowledge or know-how of the item to be carried out and who are able to pass on the item to future generations.

Submissions should provide information on the current and future viability of the item, and should indicate whether the community submitting the item considers it to be endangered, e.g. that it is in danger of dying out without significant change in the current level of transmission.

Question 1b

Proposed criteria

Can be from any time.

Survey Response: 88.2% agree, 4.7% are neutral, 5.2% disagree

127. This was one of the more hotly contested areas in the roundtable discussions, with some supporting an older, historical definition and others supporting a more contemporary approach. There were also a number of points raised about what ‘anytime’ meant.

128. We acknowledge that a basic definition of ‘heritage’ is something that is inherited, which would mean an item would need to have been passed down from previous generations, often (but not always) understood to mostly be within a family.

129. We also acknowledge that in relation to the Convention it is usually considered that an item of living heritage should be passed on 3-4 times, although this is not a clear rule or an agreed criteria.

130. However, in the roundtable discussions and survey responses, there was no clear consensus on the rationale or justification for setting a particular age or number of times something be passed on, nor a clear understanding of how to define how something is passed on, whether it was only between a generation, or whether between different types or locations of communities would count as being passed on.

131. It was also pointed out that no living heritage starts in a vacuum and that all items have roots and influences in other living heritage. In this sense, all living heritage could be said to have evolved from the living heritage that came before.

132. Similarly, examples were given of practices considered traditional that have arisen within living memory, such as Boxing Day Fancy Dress in Wigan. It was also noted that by its very nature, ‘all practice is contemporary’, and that ‘Traditional skills can be used in very contemporary practice and vice versa.’

133. We also note, as covered in previous sections, that implementing the Convention is not intended to deliver a fixed definition of terms such as traditional or heritage and that our principles are to take an open, inclusive, representative approach, within the parameters of what we consider practical to include.

134. We therefore acknowledge that an open criterion on age will see a mix of very old living heritage and much newer living heritage included in the inventories. We see this as a positive for the inventories, demonstrating the rich diversity of the living heritage in the UK.

135. However, as also outlined earlier, we note our purpose of the inventories to identify the widest range of living heritage in the UK, without placing judgement on questions of importance and value. We acknowledge that aspects such as significance and value need to be considered in safeguarding conversations, when considering what is safeguarded, how, and by who, and that the relative age of the item is likely to be a factor.

136. We would also expect that any item of living heritage that is more recent or has been practised for a shorter period of time should demonstrate that it is expected to continue and be passed on. To this extent we will ask for information in the submission about how long the item has been practised and how it is expected to be transmitted to future generations.

137. On the basis that this position was supported in the survey results, where this proposed ‘anytime’ criteria received a higher percentage of support than the other 3 proposed criteria at 88.2%, we will retain this criteria.

138. However, noting the slight confusion with the term ‘anytime’, we will make the wording clearer and refer to the length of time the item has been practised.

139. Also, noting that this is not strictly a criterion, but in effect a ‘non-criterion’, we will merge this with the other ‘non-criterion’ below.

Question 1c

Proposed criteria

Can originate from anywhere.

Survey Response: 83.7% agree, 7.7% are neutral, 7.2% disagree

140. We want to celebrate the diversity of the UK: from the living heritage that has been around in various forms for hundreds of years to that most recently present in the UK.

141. As we have noted in the criteria above, living heritage is often influenced and affected by the movement of people and ideas. These can be both within the UK from other countries.

142. Whilst there were concerns raised about what might constitute unique or historical UK living heritage we refer again to the role of the inventories as a form of stock-taking in order to inform future safeguarding discussions about what we, collectively, value and safeguard, rather than to place any judgement about the comparative value or significance of what is included.

143. There were a number of discussions and comments during the consultation about cultural appropriation, where an item of living heritage is adopted by another community, particularly when it is being adopted from a minority culture in a way that is considered disrespectful or exploitative.

144. Our view is that, in relation to the inventory process, Intellectual Property is outside the scope of the inventory, meaning being included in the inventory does not provide any Intellectual Property recognition or protection for an item.

145. Inclusion of an item in the inventories will not provide any formal protection against cultural appropriation, and as noted above, we understand that there will be communities who may not wish to see their item included in a public inventories for this and other reasons. However, whilst wider awareness of a community’s living heritage and the history and origins of that living heritage through inclusion in the inventories may not prevent cultural appropriation, it could support the identification and efforts to address instances where it does take place. The profile and visibility of the inventory can also affirm the links between communities and their living heritage, which can support communities, groups and individuals concerned to safeguard their living heritage.

146. We therefore encourage communities to include information about the origins or evolution of the item, in the same way we would expect submissions to the inventories to include information about the age and history of the items, as an important aspect of that item of living heritage.

147. We will also look to include the issue of cultural appropriation in future safeguarding conversations.

148. On the basis that this criterion was well supported in the online survey responses we will retain it. We have also decided to merge it with the criteria above, and due to the high level of interest in these areas, include the requirement that the submission provide information of both when and where the living heritage has originated from.

149. We also note a suggestion that when we are referring to living heritage in the UK originating from anywhere, we make it clear that it can also originate from anyone. This was implicit in our wording but we welcome the suggestion to make this explicit and reinforce the inclusive nature of living heritage and will amend the wording to reflect this.

Agreed criteria

Can originate from anywhere and be from anytime, but must include information about the history and transmission within the community concerned.

The item does not need to have a minimum age or have been passed down a minimum number of times and it can originate from anywhere and anyone.

Question 1d

Proposed criteria

Must be a living practice and can not be a material product or object.

Survey response: 76.7% agree, 7.7% are neutral, 13.4% disagree

150. This was another area that received a lot of attention and comments in the consultation. We should first clarify that this criteria was not intended to diminish or dismiss the value or importance of the products and objects relating to and created from living heritage. In many areas of living heritage, particularly craft, what is created by the living heritage is very easy to identify and understand as a piece of culture or heritage and there can be significant value or importance attached to them.

151. However, in the way we talk about the inventories as a means to have the conversation about safeguarding, the focus for the implementation of the Convention is about ensuring the viability of living heritage in the UK - that the knowledge and skill can be passed onto future generations. We recognise that it can be important that tools, costumes, instruments, etc, are also passed on to future generations and that, for example, a craft object can be a demonstration of the knowledge and skills of the craftsperson. However, we are approaching the inventories and discussions of safeguarding by starting with the practice and the knowledge and skills to carry out the living heritage.

152. The Convention text refers to ‘the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith’ and we would certainly expect these aspects to be clearly referenced in any relevant submissions to the inventories. We also expect them to be critical to conversations about safeguarding and viability. But it is important to note that they need to be associated with the item of living heritage - by themselves we are not considering them as items of living heritage that should have their own entry in the inventories.

153. The aim of this criteria is to underline that the item of living heritage must be living - it must be the practice, expression, knowledge or skill - not the outcome, output, creation or result.

154. This criteria extends to food and drink products. The living heritage is all the knowledge and skill to create a type or style of food and drink, not the final product.

155. Two recent additions to the Convention’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity are the art of the Neapolitan ‘Pizzaiuolo’ and the Artisanal know-how and culture of baguette bread. The point is that it is the living heritage that is being recognised - the art and the know-how and culture, rather than the actual product (e.g. the Neapolitan pizza or the baguette).

156. Under the UK government’s Geographical Indication schemes, the name of food, drink and agricultural products with a geographical connection or that are made using traditional methods can be registered and protected. However, it should be noted that it is the name of the product and not the practice, knowledge or skill that is being protected. We would not consider the products listed under these schemes) to be eligible for the living heritage inventories.

157. In summary, there are a range of objects or products that can be associated with an item of living heritage and that are vital and integral to its practice or expression either through their use or their production.

158. Whilst we would welcome reference to these associated elements in relation to items of living heritage, we will not include these as standalone items of living heritage in the inventories. We will only include the living heritage itself - the practice, expression, knowledge or skill, that can be passed on to future generations.

Agreed criteria

Must be the living practice itself.

A submission to the inventories should include information about the associated elements of the item where relevant, but the item of living heritage can not only be the associated tools, instruments, costumes, materials, etc, nor only be the outcome, output, creation or result.

Question 2

Human Rights

159. A number of responses to the consultation referred to the importance of human rights and mutual respect, noting that this is explicit in the Convention text:

For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.’

160. We fully support the fundamental importance of human rights and note that the Convention text also refers to specific human rights instruments, which we will take as the objective basis for the criteria:

Referring to existing international human rights instruments, in particular to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966,’

161. Within the criteria for the inclusion of an item in the inventories, we will use the qualified right to freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act, Article 10 as the basis for defining this area, thereby excluding any item of living heritage that in particular is deemed to not respect the rights of others.

Agreed criteria

Must be compatible with existing internationally agreed human rights standards. For example, with the rights of others to non-discrimination and equal treatment, privacy, freedom of thought and expression, and participation in social and cultural life.

Commercialisation

162. Another area of debate and discussion during the roundtables, with many responses via the survey, was around commercialisation.

163. There was a strong feeling that forms of commercial exploitation or commercialisation were not compatible with the community basis or nature of living heritage.

164. However, drawing a line purely between commercial and non-commercial living heritage was not a helpful distinction given that many practitioners of living heritage make a living from it and seek to make profit. There was broad agreement on the importance of some forms of living heritage being seen as a profession and the practitioners as professionals and the ongoing viability of the item being dependent on the financial or commercial sustainability.

165. In trying to draw the line between what might be acceptable forms of commercialisation and those considered exploitative and not acceptable, there were also discussions about intent and ownership. For example, if the intent or aim of the practitioner (whether an individual or as an organisation) is primarily led by the demonstration of the living heritage, rather than by commercial aims, would that be sufficient? And if the organisation is majority owned or controlled by the community practising the living heritage, is that a way of defining the boundary of acceptable commercialism?

166. Historic Environment Scotland’s Policy Statement paragraph on Community Benefit was suggested as an approach:

We recognise that ICH is first and foremost about the communities and groups that create, maintain, and transmit it. We are committed to empowering and strengthening Scotland’s communities to secure the benefits ICH can bring for both present and future generations, and to collaborating with communities to help them understand and share their ICH. If our work with communities results in income-generating opportunities, we will ensure that the communities themselves benefit from this.’

167. We believe the focus on the communities being the beneficiaries encapsulates the questions of intent and ownership well and is more able to be clearly understood. Whilst there will be variance in the different commercial contexts of individual practitioners and / or in the use of automated tools and machinery across a community (e.g. some craftspersons will be more commercial than others and some will use more machinery than others), overall, being of primary commercial benefit to the practitioner is a useful perspective.

168. We also heard about issues of over-tourism, particularly for large public events and festivals. Whilst many acknowledged the positive impact of tourism in terms of raising wider awareness of the living heritage and increasing the financial sustainability of the item, there were concerns that too much tourism could dilute the local, community nature of some living heritage and create other problems for the local communities such as overcrowding, congestion, disturbance etc.

169. We note however that there are often differing views on tourism amongst communities, which makes finding an objective or neutral criteria to achieve consensus very difficult. We are therefore including sustainable tourism as part of our code of ethics.

170. On commercialism, our view is that it is essential that the practice is being carried out for the primary benefit of the community and practitioner and that this can be objectively determined. We will therefore include an additional criteria on this point.

Agreed criteria

Any commercial benefit from the living heritage item, must be for the primary benefit of the community.

Community

Question 3

Are you supportive of the concept of community representation? If not, why not? What suggestions do you have for obtaining support for a community for a submission to the Inventory?

Survey response: 91.3% agree, 5.9% are neutral, 2.8% disagree

171. There was high, significant support for this area in principle and a lot of discussion and comments around the detail and implementation of community representation.

172. Fundamentally, we acknowledge that it is the community who identifies the living heritage, and that it must be the community that submits it to the inventories as UNESCO state:

…intangible cultural heritage can only be heritage when it is recognized as such by the communities, groups or individuals that create, maintain and transmit it – without their recognition, nobody else can decide for them that a given expression or practice is their heritage.

173. What is important is how this is understood, carried out and demonstrated, as well as processes to resolve issues or disagreements. There was a lot of support for the government to ensure that there was clear guidance and support for communities on the process.

174. We set out some key policy principles below, and will provide further guidance and information when we open the call for submissions to the inventories.

Definition of Community

175. It was noted in a survey response that the UNESCO Institute for Statistics define ‘community’ as a:

group of people sharing common characteristics or interests. A community can be either a geographically based group of persons or a group with shared interests or common demographic composition irrespective of their physical location within a country.

176. Although this definition is from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics in relation to classification, it underscores an important point that a community can be geographic, but also one with shared interests. These could be thematic or belief-based, or based on a personal characteristic or other groupings. We will include all definitions of community in this respect.

177. Further, the Convention refers to ‘Communities, groups and individuals’.  Whilst there is no definition within the Convention, an expert meeting in 2006 concluded there was an inherent hierarchy between the three and defined them as:

Communities are networks of people whose sense of identity or connectedness emerges from a shared historical relationship that is rooted in the practice and transmission of, or engagement with, their ICH;

Groups comprise people within or across communities who share characteristics such as skills, experience and special knowledge, and thus perform specific roles in the present and future practice, re‐creation and/or transmission of their intangible cultural heritage as, for example, cultural custodians, practitioners or apprentices.

Individuals are those within or across communities who have distinct skills, knowledge, experience or other characteristics, and thus perform specific roles in the present and future practice, re‐creation and/or transmission of their intangible cultural heritage as, for example, cultural custodians, practitioners and, where appropriate, apprentices.

178. We will use these definitions. When we use the term ‘communities’ on its own, it is implicitly including groups and individuals, and we will accept submissions from any of the three (further information below under ‘Who Submits’) without requiring the submitter to categorise or self-define themselves.

179. There was also discussion and comments about ‘ownership’ of living heritage. The definition of communities above does not include reference to ownership and we agree that just by submitting an item to the inventory does not confer a sense of ownership on that item. We also acknowledge that the term ‘permission’ implies ownership and propose to use the term ‘consent’ instead.

Representation / consent

180. A clearer way of defining ‘consent’ from a community is ‘free, prior and informed consent’.  This is a phrase that has been defined by the UN for use in relation to development or use of resources in Indigenous People’s territory and means the community should be freely able to make a decision in advance of the activity and with sufficient information.

181. It also means that consent is a collective decision, e.g. through consensus or majority reached through the customary decision-making processes of the community.

182. We will use the phrase ‘free, prior and informed consent’ to better clarify how we expect the community to give their support to an item being submitted to the inventories. We will aim to provide facilitation and guidance on how a community group or individual should obtain free, prior and informed consent to submit the item of living heritage and what to do when it can not be obtained for examples where this might be difficult, such as children’s games or when the practising community is too large (e.g. for commonly practised living heritage such as carolling).

Understanding and support

183. We note the comments and discussion about the need to provide support in order to enable and empower communities, groups and individuals to identify or recognise their living heritage, as well as to obtain consent and submit an item to the inventory, particularly for communities who have had less engagement with formal processes such as this.

184. When we open the call for submissions for the inventories we plan to deliver, drawing on sector stakeholders and supporters, an outreach and engagement programme to ensure as many communities as possible can hear about and engage with the inventories process.

185. This programme will aim to raise awareness and includes helping communities that might not have considered it, to identify their living heritage as such, as well as providing clarity on the purpose and value of the inventory, and support for the submission process.

Demonstration

186. We will ask those submitting an item to make a self-declaration that they fully understand, have obtained free, prior and informed consent from the community to submit the item, and to provide evidence of how they have engaged the community in the submission process.

187. We will provide further guidance on ways to obtain free, prior and informed consent, but we will follow our general principles of approach, in that it should be community-led, open, engaged, transparent and inclusive.

188. In the same way that it is for communities themselves to identify living heritage, it is for the communities themselves to reach consensus about consent. The emphasis here is to demonstrate and evidence consent (through the submission form) and we note that this is likely to be different for the different types of communities groups and individuals that might submit.

Who submits?

189. When submitting an item of living heritage, the form will require a point of contact in case of any follow-up.

190. Whilst anyone can submit an item, subject to securing the community’s free, prior and informed consent, we would expect that in many situations the submission will be coordinated by a governing, trade or membership club, society, organisation or guild, where a body like that exists. Further information will be provided as part of the community outreach and engagement, including where it is not clear who should submit.

Distinctiveness / overlaps

191. There was also extensive discussion about the level of granularity that the inventory should take regarding how specific or distinctive an item in the inventories should be. Should there be lots of separate entries for items of living heritage that are similar, or should there be fewer entries that take a wider view of a genre or type of living heritage?

192. We do not think there is a definitive answer to this question and would like to find a balance between the two approaches. We want to ensure that communities are able to sufficiently represent their heritage if it is distinct from other forms, but we also want to ensure that the inventories are practical for people to engage with and useful as a guide for safeguarding conversations, so having too many items that are very similar may impact those aims.

193. Whilst the website for the inventories has not yet been designed, we will ensure there is a structure to enable connections between similar items of living heritage so that users are able to easily find them based on particular attributes (e.g. location / type etc.) and to understand the links and connections between them.

194. We will publish further guidance in this area when we open the call for submissions.

Disagreements

195. There was also debate and comment about disagreements, with many noting that there are differences of opinion around ‘ownership’, distinctiveness or an item speaking on behalf of a wider community. We will provide further guidance and information on this when we open the call for entries.

Question 3 response

196. We will focus on the processes for deciding who submits an item to the inventory and how they obtain consent from the community as part of an outreach and engagement programme that will accompany the open of the call for submissions.

197. We will introduce a criteria that all submissions must have the consent of the community.

Agreed criteria

Must have free, prior and informed consent from the community.

The submission must provide evidence that the practicing community has consented to the item of living heritage being submitted to the inventories.

Code of ethics

198. As we introduced above, there were a number of suggestions of criteria for the inventories in addition to those proposed in the Consultation text. Apart from the criteria for human rights and commercialisation we felt there would be insufficient consensus for any further criteria with an objective basis – meaning a criteria which could be judged to be clearly or indisputably met.

199. However, we agree there is value in highlighting additional suggested areas through the inventory process. The Operational Directives encourage States Parties to develop and adopt codes of ethics. We will use the term for the areas we wish to highlight. Our code of ethics is intended to be considered by submissions to the inventories and meeting this code of ethics is not an essential requirement.

200. If an item does not meet the code of ethics, this does not mean they will be excluded from the inventories. An item will only be refused if it does not meet the criteria.

201. We are taking this approach to ensure that where there is a lack of consensus about aspects of the practice, those items of living heritage can still be included. These are areas where judgements are mostly subjective and where there is unlikely to be consensus. Nevertheless, following our open, inclusive approach, we believe it is important to include the items, whilst acknowledging differences of opinion.

202. Further information on the submissions panels are included below, and will provide further clarification on this area as part of the guidance when we open the call for submissions.

Should respect animals, nature, and the environment

203. Discussions during the consultation period promoting a criteria in support of animals, nature and the environment prompted further research into this area.

204. Whilst no explicit mention to animals, nature and the environment is made within the Convention text, there are a number of international conventions and national legal frameworks, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Animal Welfare Act.

205. In terms of respect for animals, we will include within the code of ethics that living heritage should not place animals at risk of hunger, thirst and malnutrition; fear and distress; physical and thermal discomfort; pain, injury and disease; death, or in a situation that will encourage non-normative patterns of behaviour.

206. Regarding nature and the environment, we recognise UNESCO’s calls for environmental sustainability and climate change adaptation and mitigation, noting that there are direct and indirect impacts of living heritage practices and safeguarding activities that can affect both those involved in the living heritage as well as the wider community.

Should build peace, respect, social cohesion and inclusivity, and avoid discrimination within their own living heritage practice(s), wider communities, and when collaborating with other living heritage practitioners

207. A number of consultation responses and discussions focussed on respect between communities and their practices being inclusive.  This is not an area we had explicitly included in the criteria for the Consultation text, but had included as part of our principles for implementation (“inclusive and respectful”).

208. The Convention emphasises the importance of peace, social cohesion, and inclusivity in the Convention text and accompanying guidance.  The Operational Directives, for example, encourage practices, representations and expressions of Intangible Cultural Heritage ‘that have peace-making and peace-building at their core’.  They state that States Parties should recognise and promote the contribution of Intangible Cultural Heritage ‘to social cohesion, overcoming all forms of discrimination and strengthening the social fabric of communities and groups in an inclusive way’ - one that helps to ‘transcend and address differences’ amongst practitioners.

209. We also note that this ethical code of building peace, respect, social cohesion and inclusivity, and avoiding discrimination indirectly incorporates the aspiration of sustainable tourism. We are supportive of tourism where it contributes to the safeguarding or ongoing viability of the living heritage, through raising awareness and ensuring financial sustainability. However, these benefits of tourism must be considered alongside what is considered over-tourism, which impacts on the social cohesion of the community and brings negative impacts. We support sustainable tourism for living heritage that respects the wider local community.

210. We therefore will expand on the agreed criteria of ‘must be compatible with existing human rights instruments’ and include in the code of ethics for all communities to build peace, respect, social cohesion, and inclusivity within their own living heritage practice(s), the wider community, and when collaborating with other living heritage practitioners.

Should respect existing, national legal frameworks, and promote positive health, well-being, and safety for themselves and others

211. A point that was made in the consultation was that many living heritage practices have stemmed from protest. It was also noted that many communities' living heritage had historically been outlawed and forbidden.

212. Whilst we expect all current living heritage to be lawful and note that is unlikely to be sustainable or effectively safeguarded if it is not lawful, we do not want to require the submissions panels to make legal judgements about submitted items. We are therefore including within our code of ethics the expectation that items of living heritage should respect existing, national legal frameworks.

213. Further, we do not wish to encourage any living heritage that could be harmful to people, whether participants, audiences, bystanders or those indirectly affected. But as mentioned, we will not exclude an item of living heritage submitted to the inventories on this basis of these codes of ethics (the items must meet the criteria, which include being compatible with existing internationally agreed human rights standards).

214. We note that health care practices are diverse; communities, groups and individuals may have differing ideas of their own health and well-being needs. We will therefore include in the code of ethics that living heritage should promote positive health, well-being and safety for both the practitioners and others.

Summary of criteria and code of ethics

215. This section includes the final set of criteria and the code of ethics for the inclusion of items of living heritage on the proposed inventories. An item must meet all the criteria to be included in the inventories and a submissions panel will check all the submissions to ensure this. The code of ethics should be considered by submissions but are not criteria that the item will be checked against.

216. Criteria

• Must be currently practised. To be considered for the inventories the item must have a living community who hold the knowledge or know-how of the item to be carried out, and who are able to pass on the item to future generations. Submissions should provide information on the current and future viability of the item, and will be able to indicate whether the community submitting the item considers it to be endangered, e.g. that it is in danger of dying out without significant change in the current level of transmission.
• Can originate from anywhere and be from anytime, but must include information about the history and transmission within the community concerned. The item does not need to have a minimum age or have been passed down a minimum number of times and it can originate from anywhere and anyone.
• Must be the living practice itself. A submission to the inventories should include information about the associated elements of the item where relevant, but the item of living heritage can not only be the associated tools, instruments, costumes, materials etc. nor only be the outcome, output, creation or result.
• Must be compatible with existing internationally agreed human rights standards. For example, with the rights of others to non-discrimination and equal treatment, privacy, freedom of thought and expression, and participation in social and cultural life.
• Must have free, prior and informed consent from the community. The submission must provide evidence that the practicing community has consented to the item of living heritage being submitted to the inventories.
• Any commercial benefit from the living heritage item, must be for the primary benefit of the community.

217. Code of ethics

• Should respect animals, nature, and the environment
• Should respect existing, national legal frameworks and promote positive health, well-being, and safety for themselves and others
• Should build peace, respect, social cohesion and inclusivity, and avoid discrimination within their own living heritage practice(s), wider communities, and when collaborating with other living heritage practitioners

Categories

Questions 4-7

Q4 - What are your views on the 5 categories?

Survey response:

• oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage: 93.7% agree, 3.9% are neutral, 1.3% disagree

• performing arts: 90.7% agree, 5.6% are neutral, 1.4% disagree

• social practices, rituals and festive events: 94.1% agree, 3.6% are neutral, 0.7% disagree

• knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe: 88.1% agree, 8.3% are neutral, 1.9% disagree

• traditional craftsmanship: 95.6% agree, 1.7% are neutral, 0.9% disagree

Q5 - What are your views on the additional category of traditional games and sports?

Survey response: 85.1% agree, 9.7% are neutral, 5.2% disagree

Q6 - What are your views on the additional category of culinary traditions / knowledge?

Survey response: 79.9% agree, 13.3% are neutral, 6.8% disagree

Q7 - In your view, should there be any additional categories? If so, what categories would you want included?

218. There was considerable discussion and comment as part of the consultation process around the categories, with a variety of views expressed about whether or not we should deviate from the standardised UNESCO categories (or ‘domains’ as UNESCO calls them) and descriptions.

219. As we noted in the consultation, other countries have deviated from the standard five categories, so the UK would not be an outlier in making changes, but we do want to ensure there are clear rationales for any changes.

220. The main reason for keeping the categories as similar as possible to the existing UNESCO five categories is that it aids discussion with other countries when there is a common understanding. We acknowledge and support this, and recognise that the development of the UNESCO five categories and the naming would have taken a lot of discussion and consideration.

221. However, we also heard on a number of occasions during the consultation that it was important to reflect on the language used to implement the inventories in order for it to be publicly accessible. We recognise this accessibility in two parts - using simple, plain language, and being aware of the connotations and associations of particular words (see section above about defining terms).

222. We have therefore approached the amending and renaming of categories with these considerations in mind and aim to retain a strong similarity to the existing five categories, whilst finding language that is as accessible as possible to contemporary UK communities.

223. In discussion at one roundtable, we questioned the basic need to have any categories at all. There was general agreement that having some was better than none, so that there could be a sense of grouping in order to help navigate or make sense of the different types of living heritage.

224. We are taking this purpose ‘to help navigate the types of living heritage’ as the rationale behind the decision-making around the categories and the four questions proposed in the consultation.

225. It is also important to state that these categories are not exclusive. We acknowledge that this should have been made clearer in the consultation, and that respondents should have been able to tick more than one category when asked the question as to which they identified with. An item of living heritage is hardly likely to fit solely into one category only and can be in multiple categories if relevant. Further, the categorisation of items is carried out by the community submitting the item - e.g. it is for the community’s decision as to which categories they would like to be in. Whilst the approval panels may make suggestions, the final decision remains with the community. We will provide further detail and guidance on this when we open the call for submissions later this year.

226. Overall, the survey responses were very supportive of the 5 categories and the 2 additional proposed ones, although the roundtable discussions were more balanced between sticking to the existing 5 or adding the 2 additional proposed ones..

227. On the basis that the purpose of the categories is to help navigate the types of living heritage, the rationale for including the additional proposed categories (Traditional Sports and Games, Culinary Traditions) is that they would aid this navigation. Whilst Culinary Traditions would sit within UNESCO’s ‘Social Practices, Rituals and Festive Events’ category, we have seen from other countries that the knowledge and skills in preparing food and drink are some of the most numerous items on inventories. Noting the diversity of food and drink in the UK we would expect to have a similar high number of items submitted to the inventories in the UK. Separating out this category would help to group these items and to give a clearer identity to the Social Practices, Rituals and Festive Events category.

228. The rationale for Traditional Sports and Games was similar, but based on the expectation that the UK may have more than many other countries, given our history in this area. Again, whilst these would sit within UNESCO’s ‘Social Practices, Rituals and Festive Events’ category, we think it would be helpful to separate them out.

229. There were other areas of discussion and comment in relation to categories. In particular, whether to separate Performing Arts out into smaller subcategories (e.g. music / dance etc.) and whether there should be a category for items of living heritage that are more defined by being place-based or lifestyle-based.

230. There were other calls for standalone categories that would work to give a greater prominence or clarity to a specific area such as Folklore, Youth, Subcultures, Urban, Architecture or Health and Wellbeing. Whilst these can be seen as useful ways of looking at and linking types of living heritage, many are less discrete as individual areas and would cover a number of the 7 proposed categories, which could end up making the groupings more confusing. There were also arguments put forward for each, but without consensus or a high level of support for any particular it would have been difficult to select one or two, and given there was very limited appetite for adding a large number of additional categories the decision was taken not to add any further categories than the 7.

Amending categories

231. There were also a number of questions about which category some items would sit within, specifically around place and land use and lifestyles, such as commoning and canal-boating. The closest category would be ‘Knowledge and Practices concerning Nature and the Universe’, but we acknowledge this wasn’t a clear fit, plus that this category received the lowest survey percentage approval of any of the 5 (88%).

232. We also noted the confusion around ‘the Universe’ which we understand to refer to any wider spiritual beliefs about the natural environment: cosmology, shamanism, or traditional healing systems, for example.

233. We are therefore amending the category to ‘Nature, Land and Spirituality’ to provide a wider, more inclusive grouping of practices in these areas. Note, as we explored in the section on religion, we do not include religion as a whole or in itself within the inventories, but would accept items of living heritage that are associated with religion.

234. Many people also pointed out that ‘Culinary’ related specifically to food and that there should be equal acknowledgement of drink-related practice. Whilst we fully agree with giving reference to the practice of making types of drink, we could not find a suitably similar umbrella term. We also did not want to use the more common joint phrase ‘food and drink’ so as to not cause confusion about the practice versus the product. We are therefore retaining culinary, but noting the inclusion of drink-related practices.

235. One of the first criticisms of the existing names of the categories was the gendered term ‘craftsman’. Whilst acknowledging that this is an historically commonly used term, we agree that this does not reflect the approach of the Convention in relation to inclusivity. ‘Craftsperson’ is the commonly used contemporary term, but it was further questioned whether ‘Crafts’ would not be sufficient. We will therefore use ‘Crafts’.

236. Furthermore, following discussions around the problem of defining the term ‘tradition' it was pointed out that the term featured in 4 of the 7 proposed category names. For craft in particular, it was felt that some notions of ‘traditional’ might exclude what would be considered more contemporary craft, and that ‘traditional’ is not necessarily old-fashioned and can stay very modern as it develops. It was also noted that ‘contemporary’ tools and practices are often used to create ‘traditional’ crafts, and vice versa. We will therefore remove the term ‘traditional’ from the category names.

237. In light of the above considerations, we are taking the decision to simplify the category names in order to make them more open, inclusive, and easier to understand. As noted above, items of living heritage can sit in more than one category and the decision as to which remains with the submitting community.

Questions 4-7 response

238. We will retain the five categories and add a further on Sports and Games and Culinary Practices. We will also rename and simplify the wording for the categories and add explicit reference to Land and Spirituality.

Revised category names

239. Proposed name - Oral Traditions and Expressions

Agreed name - Oral Expressions

Living heritage relating to both spoken-word and non-verbal communication that are used to pass on knowledge, cultural and social values and collective memory. Examples could include proverbs, riddles, songs, nursery rhymes, or storytelling.

240. Proposed name - Performing Arts

Agreed name - Performing Arts

Living heritage relating to performance and human creativity. Examples could include different musical practices, dance, or drama.

241. Proposed name - Social Practices, Rituals and Festive Events

Agreed name - Social Practices

Living heritage that is often shared and practised by a group. Examples could include calendar or seasonal customs, festivals, celebrations or rituals.

242. Proposed name - Knowledge and Practices Concerning Nature and the Universe

Agreed name - Nature, Land, and Spirituality

Living heritage relating to the environment and belief. Examples could include building techniques, land management systems, knowledge about certain animals and plants and ecologies.

243. Proposed name - Traditional Craftsmanship

Agreed name - Crafts

Living heritage relating to the skills, knowledge and making of things, either by hand or with assisted tools. Examples could include specific practices of weaving, wood carving, pottery, blacksmithing, or stonemasonry.

244. Proposed name - Traditional Sports and Games

Agreed name - Sports and Games

Living heritage relating to games, competitions or activities needing physical effort and/or skill. Examples could include sporting events or recreational games.

245. Proposed name - Culinary Traditions

Agreed name - Culinary Practices

Living heritage relating to the preparation and consumption of food and drink. Examples could include the making of specific dishes or the sharing of food and drink socially.

Submission Panels

Question 8

Are you supportive of our intended approach to the approvals process?

Survey response: 86.3% agree, 10.3% are neutral, 3.5% disagree

246. In the consultation we outlined that panels would be created for each nation to check submissions against the criteria. We proposed that they would have sufficiently broad knowledge and expertise.

247. A high percentage agreed with this process, although there were a number of questions about the details. We have further explored and reviewed this process, taking into account comments and discussions from the consultation in order to ensure the process:

• Is on the basis that submissions are included if they meet the criteria, subject to any extenuating circumstances

• Is as light-touch as possible - i.e. accessible and straightforward

• Follows the same process for each of the inventories - i.e. is the same in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England

• Includes sufficient representation from a range of communities; and

• Is fair and transparent

Question 8 response

248. We will continue with our intended approach and provide details with the call for submissions.

Reviewing

Question 9

Are you supportive of our intended approach to reviewing the inventory?

Survey Response: 9% want it to be more often, 51% want it to be as proposed, 34% want it to be less often, 5% do not want a review period.

249. In the consultation we outlined an approach where each item would be reviewed every two years, by the community who submitted the item, in order for the entry details to remain up to date.

250. The main area of comment and discussion was around what a ‘review’ would involve: ranging from comparisons to UNESCO’s periodic reporting with concerns about the amount of work required from the submitter, through to a much lighter check-in about whether any details had changed or were out of date.

251. Our response is that the inventories are not intended to be an archive or historical record and should be ‘live’ inventories of living heritage. As above, we also recognised that living heritage continues to evolve and is not fixed.

252. It is therefore important to ensure that the items in the inventories are still being practised, that the description of the item is up to date, and that the community continue to consent for their inclusion in the inventories. Therefore, we proposed ‘reviewing’ the inventories.

253. We acknowledge the confusion over the term ‘review’ and will instead refer to this process as an ‘update’.

254. The majority of respondents agreed with the 2 year review period, although a high 34% wanted it less often. Our understanding is that most people who wanted a longer update period did so based on an expectation of a more detailed update.

255. We will therefore retain the 2 year period, but will rename this process to a biennial ‘update’. Every 2 years, each person who submitted the entry will be asked whether the item is still being practised, whether the community continues to consent to its inclusion in the inventories and whether any of the submitted information needs updating.

256. The item will be removed from the inventories in any of the following scenarios: if an item is no longer practised and the knowledge to practise it no longer exists, if a community decides they do not wish to sustain their consent for inclusion in the inventories (which can be for any reason), or if we are unable to make contact with the submitting community.

257. We also note that the submitting community has the right to revoke consent for the inclusion of the item in the inventories at any time. We will provide further details on this process in the guidance to accompany the call for submissions.

Question 9 response

258. The submitting community will be required to provide an update on the item every 2 years. This will include whether the item is still being practised, whether the community continues to consent to its inclusion in the inventories and whether any of the submitted information needs updating.

Outreach and engagement

Question 10

Other comments

259. We also invited other comments and discussion as part of the roundtables and survey. One of the main areas of response was around community outreach and engagement.

260. We heard how important it is to include all communities across the UK and invite them to participate in the inventories process. It is also important that sufficient guidance, information and support be provided so that communities fully understand the process and their participation. The guidance will aid those with different needs and access requirements. Further, it is essential as part of any outreach and engagement to build trust and listen.

261. We also heard that there are a range of organisations, networks and groups across the UK that are keen to play a role in aiding, facilitating and delivering outreach and engagement, as well as supporting local communities. We also heard that many communities might not consider their practices as examples of living heritage, so there is an important role for organisations and individuals to help facilitate this conversation around what ‘counts’ as living heritage.

262. We acknowledge and welcome all these points and suggestions and will look to develop an outreach and engagement plan in collaboration to try and reach and engage with as many communities as possible.

263. As noted, the inventories are live products that will be updated on a regular basis. A review and analysis of the first inventories will inform the revision of future targeted outreach and engagement for groups who may have been unable to participate in the first round and whose living heritage may be subsequently underrepresented on the first inventories. We also note and agree with the suggestion that providing case studies for future iterations would be useful.

264. We also received a range of comments, questions and suggestions about safeguarding. This is the core, ongoing purpose of the Convention and we provided an outline of our initial thinking on this in the consultation text. We will provide further information about this as part of the guidance when we open the call for submission to the inventories.

265. There were also a number of comments about the information / data of the inventories, specifically in regards to data standards, FAIR data principles, open access and linked data, in order to allow for greater analysis, research and linking. We have taken all these comments on board and will include information about this as part of the guidance when we open the call for submission to the inventories.