Day One, August 20, 2024
The training began with traditional greetings. Sabira Soltongeldieva, Secretary-General of the National Commission of the Kyrgyz Republic for UNESCO, Madjer Massanov, representative of the UNESCO Office in Almaty, and Gulnara Aitpaeva, Director of the Aigine Cultural Research Center (hereinafter referred to as Aigine CRC), welcomed the seminar participants. Each participant introduced themselves, indicating their field of activity, organization, and primary expectations from the training.
The working part of the day began with an interactive session to introduce participants to the 2003 Convention. The objectives of the introductory session were: a) to highlight the specific features of the 2003 Convention, b) to informally assess the participants’ knowledge level, and c) to provide a practical introduction to the work of Aigine CRC. The main outcome of the session was the realization that half of the participants (8 out of 16) required basic knowledge about the 2003 Convention and the UNESCO Lists within this framework. As a result, the program for the next two days was slightly adjusted to ensure that all participants could understand the purpose of the training and actively engage.
The subsequent sessions focused on an introduction to the existing UNESCO Lists under the 2003 Convention, the nomination mechanisms, as well as the specifics of the Representative List (RL), the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (USL), and the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices (RGSP). Understanding the specifics of each List was reinforced through a detailed study of the forms for each List. As a successful example of a multinational nomination, participants were presented with the nomination file for falconry (“Falconry, a living human heritage”), developed by 24 countries and inscribed on the RL in 2020.
When analyzing the requirements for the USL, Sabira Soltongeldieva shared Kyrgyzstan’s experience with the nomination of “Ala-Kiyiz and Shyrdak, the art of Kyrgyz traditional felt carpets” to this List in 2012, emphasizing the positive long-term impact of this nomination. She noted that the Shyrdak could now confidently be transferred from the USL to the RL.
Participants from each country familiarized themselves with charts displaying their country’s activity in nominating elements of intangible cultural heritage.
The participants were also shown a slide that highlighted joint nominations by Central Asian countries up to 2024. Two elements were presented on the RL by all five countries: Nowruz and the Stories of Khoja Nasreddin.
One of the afternoon sessions focused on analyzing the reasons behind the unbalanced representation of Central Asian countries in the UNESCO Lists. All countries are successfully represented on the RL, while Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are included in the RGSP, and Kyrgyzstan in the USL. To illustrate this, a slide was shown depicting each country’s representation in the three Lists, with orange indicating the RL, yellow the USL, and green the RGSP. The unbalanced representation of Central Asian countries across the three Lists became evident to the participants.
Among the reasons for this imbalance, the participants identified: a) a lack of understanding of the overall picture, b) low awareness of the USL and RGSP, c) proficiency in working with the RL form and a lack of skills for the USL and RGSP, and d) experience with joint nominations for the RL and the absence of such experience for elements in the USL and RGSP. The participating countries were encouraged to consider steps they could take outside the training to improve the situation and to develop strategies aimed at increasing their representation in all three Lists.
The final session of the first day focused on the requirements for films for the RL, using as examples two nominations from 2023 that were recognized by the Committee as exemplary. Participants were shown films from a multinational nomination on transhumance in Europe and a national nomination (Elechek), to highlight the differences between films for multinational and national nominations.
The day’s work concluded with a reflection session in which participants provided feedback on the first day of the training. This monitoring revealed a high level of interest and motivation among most participants. According to our observations, 15 out of 16 participants were actively engaged on the first day. Based on this motivation, we strengthened the practical and interactive components of the training. The revised program was shared with the participants that evening through the WhatsApp group.
Day Two, August 21, 2024
The start of the second day was modified to enhance the practical aspect of the training. Instead of a theoretical review of nomination files submitted by Central Asian countries to the Representative List (RL), a file nominated by Tajikistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran to the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (USL) was examined—the “Ceremony of Mehrgan.” In 2023, the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) rejected this file and advised the participating countries to revise it based on several remarks. Representatives from Tajikistan presented information about the ceremony during the training. Their presentation made it clear that the ceremony is a cultural element of undeniable value and social significance. The participants were provided with the decision of the IGC, translated into Russian, after which a joint analysis was conducted to identify the reasons for the rejection. The main lesson from this exercise was that when a nomination file is rejected, it is not the cultural element itself that is dismissed, but the written form in which it is presented. The participants were given a strategic goal: to prepare a nomination dossier that leaves no grounds for rejection.
Continuing the work started during the analysis of the “Ceremony of Mehrgan” file, Gulnara Aitpaeva shared her observations on the overlaps and discrepancies between the decisions of the Evaluation Body (EB) and those of the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC), based on her experience working with the EB. The EB’s decisions are impartial; they are based on a thorough analysis of each component of the dossier, collective discussion, and consensus-building among all 12 experts over several months, as well as individual voting when necessary. The EB’s decisions are grounded in the professional, long-term work of its members, as well as the Secretariat staff who prepare all necessary evaluation materials. In contrast, the IGC’s decisions are influenced by diplomatic relations and are made within a short timeframe.
The message of this session, like the previous one, was that nomination files must be submitted in high quality with all necessary components. If this is done, the files will be appropriately evaluated by the EB, and the IGC will simply approve them. An example of this is the “Orteke, Traditional Performing Art of Kazakhstan: Dance, Puppet, and Music” file, which was nominated by Kazakhstan and rejected by the IGC in 2016, but was later revised and successfully inscribed on the RL in 2022.
In the afternoon, group work began on developing lists of joint elements for multinational nominations to the three UNESCO Lists. Four groups were formed, each comprising representatives from different countries. Each group was given time and space to accomplish the task.
The most active and emotional part of the work was the discussion of the proposals developed by the groups (see Appendix 4). The groups presented the following proposals: Group 4 – Kelin Din Bet Achar Ritymy (Bride’s Face-Unveiling Ritual); Group 2 – Kurban Bayram/Traditions of Producing Fermented Dairy Products; Group 3 – The Tradition of Making and Wearing Tübeteyki and Topu/Traditions and Techniques of Making and Wearing Silver Jewelry; Group 1 – The Art/Technique/Knowledge of Water Extraction (Traditional Well).
The discussion lasted several hours, which led to a delay in the program schedule. However, this work fulfilled arguably the most important function of the training—taking into account the opinions of each participant, especially the positions of the respective countries, and aligning these opinions and positions. Therefore, it was decided not to interrupt the work until a certain consensus was reached among the participants and countries. The very achievement of consensus became an indicator of successful intercultural cooperation and the participants’ ability to work towards a common goal.
The selection of elements for nomination followed a careful and detailed discussion, considering various aspects and features of each proposed element.
1. Exclusion of “Kelin Bet Achar Ritual”: This element was excluded from the list since it had already been nominated by Kazakhstan.
2. Kurban Bayram: This element, based on the ritual of sacrifice, was not supported by all participants.
3. Traditional Wells: The technique of water extraction through traditional wells has not been preserved everywhere.
After thorough discussion, the only element that was unanimously supported by all participants and approved by all countries was the tyubeteika (topu, takiya, ükü topu, etc.) – a traditional cap. It was recognized by representatives of the five countries as a shared cultural heritage of all the peoples in our region. It was emphasized that there are more peoples and cultures in the region than just the countries themselves, making this an important unifying element. The group confirmed their intention to prepare a multinational nomination of the tyubeteika on behalf of the Central Asian countries.
Group and Joint Work
The group work and subsequent joint discussion to align cultural elements for nomination in the Representative List (RL), the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (USL), and the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices (RGSP) revealed an interesting picture. For instance, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan proposed to nominate koshki—the ritual women’s mourning during funerals—as an element at risk of disappearing. However, in Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, this element, along with traditional funeral rites in general, has been well-preserved. In these countries, the public and loud mourning for the deceased still takes place, with the ritual process in some regions lasting up to forty days. Meanwhile, in these countries, traditional kurak techniques are being forgotten, whereas in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, these techniques are actively being revived. Lullabies in the native language are rarely sung in some countries, but in Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, they are still widely practiced.
Special Attention: “Oimo” Festival
One of the groups proposed nominating the international “Oimo” festival for the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices (RGSP). Indeed, the festival has demonstrated resilience over 18 years, has a reliable cooperation between state and non-state organizations, and attracts artisans from all Central Asian countries. During the discussion, we jointly reviewed the RGSP form to understand how well the group could fill in all its sections. We connected via video call with one of the founders of “Oimo,” the well-known cultural figure Dinara Chochunbayeva, who answered the participants’ questions. Although the conditions for working on a multinational nomination in the RGSP were quite favorable, two countries expressed doubts about pursuing this direction. Therefore, it was decided to return to an element nominated for the Representative List (RL).
These detailed and extended discussions once again highlighted the diversity of cultural heritage in the region and, more importantly, the differences in the preservation and state of this heritage in our countries. Therefore, it is crucial to meet and discuss such issues.
End of the Second Working Day
At the end of the second working day, group work began on Section R1 of the multinational nomination. While the groups formed to propose common elements were multinational, this time the groups were formed on a national basis. Their task was to prepare information from their respective countries corresponding to the first criterion of the Representative List.
The final working day began with a discussion of the materials prepared by the representatives of the participating countries. Following this, the painstaking process of completing the nomination form commenced. This process was organized similarly to an Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) session: all information was displayed on a screen, and the group worked collaboratively to reach a consensus. All suggestions and revisions were projected on the screen, ensuring that every participant was actively engaged in the process. However, this approach led to a rather slow pace of work. For instance, reaching an agreement on the first section of the first criterion—describing the element—took three hours.
When complex situations arose, 2-3 representatives from different countries were encouraged to form small working groups to develop solutions. Their proposals were then presented on the screen for general approval. Even at this stage, “hidden pitfalls” and points of discrepancy and disagreement emerged. Each session on the final day was co-facilitated by 1-2 representatives from the participating countries, alongside the trainer. This deepened the participants’ involvement in the nomination preparation process. Issues that arose were either resolved during the writing process or marked as “for further clarification with practitioners.”