Final. 24 July Review by: Sang Mee Bak Commissioned by: UNESCO Culture Sector Paris. 1 P age

Transcription

1 EVALUATION OF THE REGIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF UNESCO, SOFIA, REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA Final 24 July 2017 Review by: Sang Mee Bak Commissioned by: UNESCO Culture Sector Paris 1 P age

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 1. Introduction: background, objectives and scope of the evaluation 2. Methodology 2.1 Evaluation criteria 3 Findings 3.1 Overview 3.2 Structure and efficiency of the Centre 3.3 Effectiveness of the Centre s missions 3.4 Relationship with UNESCO 4 Recommendations 4.1 General recommendation on whether the renewal of the Centre s status as a category 2 institute is warranted and would conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy 4.2 Recommendations to the Centre for improving the effectiveness of its operations (1) Relationship with Member States (2) Governance issues within the Centre (3) A mid-term programme (4) ICH safeguarding and capacity building 4.3 Recommendations to UNESCO for improving the effectiveness of coordination and interaction with the Centre 4.4 Specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement 2 P age

3 Annex 1 List of Interviewees Annex 2 Questionnaires Annex 3 Mission Agenda Annex 4 Organization Chart Annex 5 List of Documents Provided Annex 6 General Assembly of Sofia Centre and Submission of Working Documents Annex 7 Meetings and Projects Annex 8 Terms of Reference 3 P age

4 Executive summary The main objectives of this evaluation are to assess the performance of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in South-Eastern Europe under the Auspices of UNESCO (hereafter, the Centre ) with respect to its objectives and functions, as specified in the agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria. It will also provide an assessment of its contribution to UNESCO s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities and themes. The findings of the evaluation will serve as the basis for the Sector Review Committee s recommendation to the Director-General as to whether or not to renew the Agreement. According to the 2010 Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria regarding the establishment of the Centre (the Agreement, Article 6), the objectives of the Centre are to: (a) promote UNESCO s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage ( ICH ) and contribute to its implementation in the South-Eastern European subregion; (b) increase the participation of communities, groups and individuals in safeguarding ICH in South-Eastern European countries; (c) enhance the capacity of the South-Eastern European Member States of UNESCO to safeguard ICH; (d) coordinate, exchange and disseminate information regarding the safeguarding of ICH in the sub-region; (e) foster regional and international cooperation for the safeguarding of ICH. This evaluation has considered the following three aspects: the Centre s conformity to the UNESCO Strategy, the structure and efficiency of the Centre, and the effectiveness of its mission. The methodology used to evaluate the Centre included: a desk study of relevant documents, both those provided by the Centre and the UNESCO Secretariat and those gathered from other sources, including the webpages of UNESCO and the Centre; a visit to the Centre, including interviews with the Centre s management and staff; and interviews (telephone, online and/or via ) with the Centre s stakeholders, collaborators, and beneficiaries as well as the UNESCO staff concerned. The Centre was established in collaboration with three national entities: the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria, and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Representatives of these three entities are members of the General Assembly (the Agreement, Article 7.1). Most of the stakeholders interviewed express no particular opinion on the appropriateness of this structure or its efficiency in carrying out the Centre s mission. 4 P age

5 However, some of the stakeholders interviewed in Bulgaria intimated that there is a connection between this structure and the frequent change of directorship. The interviewees agreed that, since its establishment, the Centre had made significant progress in carrying out its mission. Most interviewees mentioned the frequent change of directorship as one of the major weaknesses of the Centre. They said that this had led to a lack of long-term planning. They also considered the lack of ICH experts among the staff of the Centre as a weakness. For future programmes and activities that need to be more content-based, the Centre needs to hire ICH specialists as full-time staff. If this is not feasible in the near future, a systematic staff training programme could be helpful. As the staff of the Centre seemed highly professional, interested in ICH safeguarding and dedicated to their work, staff training in the field of ICH would improve the Centre s capacity and expertise in carrying out its mission in their Region. One of the three entities participating in the Centre (the Academy of Science) could provide human and other kinds of resources to this end. It is well recognized that the Centre is the only one of such nature in the region. Its existence and activities are appreciated not only by the Member States but also by UNESCO (the Headquarters and the UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe). All of the stakeholders interviewed as part of this evaluation greatly valued the location of the Centre, which stands at the crossroads of diverse cultures. The staff of the Centre are highly motivated and seem satisfied with their jobs. They are proud of their institution with its UNESCO affiliation, which garners great prestige in Bulgaria. This evaluation has found that the Centre has been successfully carrying out its mission in accordance with the Agreement with UNESCO, in line with the above-mentioned UNESCO Strategy and Objectives. The stakeholders interviewed as part of the evaluation all recognized these achievements positively. The Centre is also well prepared to take the next step in safeguarding ICH and collaborating with Member States and other ICH-related organizations through ICH-related programmes and activities. For these reasons, this evaluation recommends that the Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria be renewed. While the evaluation has reached the positive conclusion that the Agreement should be renewed, there are several recommendations to be made for the Centre to be more successful in carrying out its mission, reflecting the particular needs of the Member States in the Region. In particular, these are directed at: 5 P age

6 - ensuring the stability of the directorship, which is expected to enable the Centre to develop and execute long-term plans; - streamlining the Centre s objectives in the region by identifying priorities among many potential agendas in safeguarding ICH and promoting and implementing the 2003 Convention. Accordingly, a revision of the Agreement could be considered in order to align with the thematic and geographical focus based on consultations with all the relevant stakeholders. 6 P age

7 1. INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION Background Category 2 institutes and centres under the auspices of UNESCO form an important part of UNESCO s network and, as a general rule, represent an effective partnership model for UNESCO s programme delivery, significantly contributing to priority areas in UNESCO s fields of competence. Category 2 institutes and centres are intended to contribute to the achievement of UNESCO s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities and themes and to the attainment of programme results at the level of the Main Lines of Action ( MLA ) of UNESCO s programme and budget (C/5). This can be achieved either through individual action, joint action with other category 2 institutes and centres or joint implementation with the Secretariat. Category 2 institutes and centres can also play a considerable role in helping the Organization achieve programme objectives for which sectoral expertise or resources are not sufficient. In order to enhance the operation and effectiveness of individual UNESCO category 2 institutes and centres, as well as the effectiveness of their network, a revised Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for institutes and centres under the Auspices of UNESCO, as contained in document 37 C/18, Part I, and its annex, was approved by the 37 th Session of the General Conference (37 C/Resolution 93). This strategy, among other elements, provides guidelines for the renewal assessment procedures of category 2 institutes and centres. These guidelines provide that an agreement for the establishment of an institute or centre as a category 2 institute or centre is typically concluded for a definite time period, not exceeding six years. The agreement may be renewed by the Director-General, with the approval of the Executive Board, in the light of an evaluation of the activities of the institute/centre and of its contribution to the strategic programme objectives of the Organization and the aforementioned Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for category 2 institutes and centres. In its 35 C/Resolution 58, the 35 th session of the General Conference approved the establishment, in the Republic of Bulgaria, of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in South-Eastern Europe (hereafter, the Centre ). According to the 2010 Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria regarding the establishment of 7 P age

8 the Centre (the Agreement, Article 6), its objectives are to: (a) promote UNESCO s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage ( ICH ) and contribute to its implementation in the South-Eastern European sub-region; (b) increase the participation of communities, groups and individuals in safeguarding ICH in South-Eastern European countries; (c) enhance the capacity of the South-Eastern European Member States of UNESCO in safeguarding ICH; (d) coordinate, exchange and disseminate information regarding the safeguarding of ICH in the sub-region; (e) foster regional and international cooperation for the safeguarding of ICH. In order to achieve the above objectives, the specific functions of the Centre are to: a) instigate and coordinate research into practices of safeguarding ICH elements present in South- Eastern European countries, as referred to in Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the 2003 Convention; b) organize training courses on the following subjects: the 2003 Convention and its Operational Directives; different examples of policies including legal, administrative, technical and financial measures that foster the safeguarding of ICH; an introduction to UNESCO publications on the identification and documentation of ICH and their application in fieldwork; safeguarding ICH through formal and non-formal education; c) enhance international, regional and sub-regional cooperation through networking with institutions active in the domain of ICH, notably those established under the auspices of UNESCO (category 2), in order to coordinate activities, exchange information and knowledge concerning the safeguarding of ICH and promote good practices. Subsequent to the approval of the General Conference, an Agreement concerning the establishment of the Centre (hereafter, the Agreement ) was signed between the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria and UNESCO on 25 October The Agreement is fixed for a period of six years as from its entry into force on 13 May Objectives of the evaluation The main objectives of this evaluation are to assess the Centre s performance with respect to its 8 P age

9 objectives and functions, as specified in the Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, and its contribution to UNESCO s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities and themes. The findings of the evaluation will serve as the basis for the Sector Review Committee s recommendation to the Director-General as to whether or not the Agreement should be renewed. Scope of the evaluation According to document 37 C/18, Part I, and its annex, established by the 37 th Session of the General Conference, category 2 centres such as the Centre can be renewed according to specific guidelines. After a maximum of six years, the Director-General, with the approval of the Executive Board, can renew the centre based on the results of an evaluation of its activities and of its contribution to the strategic programme objectives of the Organization and the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for category 2 institutes and centres. This evaluation of the Centre, with reference to the above-mentioned documents, has taken into account the following three aspects: (1) Conformity to the UNESCO Strategy This comprises: the relevance of the Centre s programmes and activities to achieving UNESCO s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities and themes, as defined in the Organization s Medium-Term Strategy (C/4), and to attaining programme results at the level of the Main Lines of Action ( MLA ), as defined in the Organization s Approved Programme and Budget (C/5); the quality of coordination and interaction with UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in the field, with regard to the planning and implementation of programmes; the conformity with the integrated comprehensive strategy for category 2 institutes and centres, as approved in 37 C/Resolution 93, as well as the relationships with other thematically-related category 2 institutes or centres, with regard to the planning and implementation of programmes. (2) Structure and efficiency of the Centre This comprises: the nature and quality of organizational arrangements, including management, governance and accountability mechanisms; the human and financial resource base and the quality of mechanisms and capacities, as well as context-specific opportunities and risks for ensuring sustainable institutional capacity and viability; the process of mobilizing extrabudgetary resources 9 P age

10 and to what extent such extrabudgetary funding is aligned with the strategic programme objectives of UNESCO. (3) Effectiveness of the Centre s Missions This comprises: the effectiveness of the Centre s programmes and activities for achieving its objectives, as defined in the Agreement; whether the activities effectively pursued by the Centre are in conformity with its functions, as specified in the Agreement signed by UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria; the quality of relations with various stakeholders. 2. METHODOLOGY The methodology used in the evaluation of the Centre includes: (1) A desk study of relevant documents, both those provided by the Centre and the UNESCO Secretariat and those gathered from other sources, including the webpages of UNESCO and the Centre; A desk study was carried out of all the background documents provided by UNESCO and the Centre as well as those gathered from other sources, including the webpages of UNESCO and the Centre (the list of such documents is provided as Annex 5). (2) A visit to the Centre, including interviews with the Centre s management and staff; A mission to Bulgaria was undertaken in order to conduct interviews with the relevant authorities and central Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, and with the staff and managers of the Centre (the travel plan and agenda/schedule of the mission are provided as Annex 3). Participant observations were also conducted in various locations and contexts in Bulgaria. (3) Interviews (telephone, online and/or via ) with the Centre s stakeholders, collaborators and beneficiaries as well as the UNESCO staff concerned; Interviews (face-to-face, by telephone, , and Skype) were conducted with the Centre s stakeholders and beneficiaries as well as with the UNESCO staff concerned (the list of interviewees is provided as Annex 1). The interviews were semi-structured, with necessary modifications for stakeholders in different capacities (the list of interview questions is provided as Annex 2). 2.1 Evaluation criteria In order to meet the purpose of this evaluation, the following parameters were considered: 10 P age

11 a) Whether the activities effectively pursued by the Centre are in conformity with its functions, as specified in the Agreement; b) The relevance of the Centre s programmes and activities to achieving UNESCO s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities and themes, as defined in the Organization s Medium-Term Strategy (C/4), and to attaining programme results at the MLA level, as defined in the Organization s Approved Programme and Budget (C/5); c) The effectiveness of the Centre s programmes and activities to achieving its stated objectives, as defined in the Agreement; d) The quality of coordination and interaction with UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in the field, with regard to the planning and implementation of programmes, as well as with other thematicallyrelated category 2 institutes or centres; e) The quality of relations with the Centre s Member States, including its focal points, government agencies and UNESCO National Commissions, and with public or private partners and donors; f) The nature and quality of organizational arrangements, including management, governance and accountability mechanisms; g) The human and financial resource base and the quality of mechanisms and capacities, as well as context-specific opportunities and risks for ensuring sustainable institutional capacity and viability; h) The process of mobilizing extrabudgetary resources and to what extent such extrabudgetary funding is aligned with the strategic programme objectives of UNESCO. 11 P age

12 3. FINDINGS 3.1 Overview The interviewees agreed that, since its establishment, the Centre has made significant progress in carrying out its missions. Most interviewees mentioned the frequent change of directorship as one of the major weaknesses of the Centre, suggesting that this had led to a lack of long-term planning. Concerning the lack of ICH experts among the personnel of the Centre: for future programmes and activities that need to be more content-based, the Centre needs to hire ICH specialists as full-time staff. If this is not feasible in the near future, a systematic staff training programme could be helpful. As the staff of the Centre seemed highly professional, interested in ICH safeguarding and dedicated to their work, staff training in the field of ICH would improve the Centre s capacity and expertise in carrying out its mission in their region. One of the three entities participating in the Centre (the Academy) could provide human and other kinds of resources to this end. According to the Agreement, the Centre requires a minimum of six administrative staff members: one Executive Director, one accountant and a minimum of four office staff members (Article c). The Centre currently has the total of six full-time staff (Annex 4 of this report). Also according to the Agreement, the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes to provide at least the equivalent of 200,000 euros annually. So far, this sum of money has been properly provided. However, the Centre has been unable to spend the total budget, resulting in an excess of funds from previous calendar years, which is now almost equivalent to the annual allocation from the state budget. This is partly due to the fact that the Centre only has six staff members and its operations have been focused only on networking and organizing events, while it could spend more on shortand long-term training programmes, for instance. 3.2 Structure and efficiency of the Centre The Centre was established in collaboration with three entities: the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Representatives of these three entities are members of the General Assembly (the Agreement, Article 7.1) Most of the stakeholders interviewed express no particular opinion on 12 P age

13 the appropriateness of such structure or its efficacy for carrying out the Centre s missions. They simply accepted it as a given fact. Moreover, the stakeholders outside Bulgaria in particular considered it as something that resulted from particular circumstances in Bulgaria. However, some of the stakeholders interviewed in Bulgaria intimated that there is a connection between this structure and the frequent change of directorship. Some interviewees from the Academy of Sciences argued that, given their expertise in the field of ICH, they should have been more involved in the Centre s activities. The staff of the Centre are highly motivated and seem satisfied with their jobs. They are proud of their institution with its UNESCO affiliation, which garners great prestige in Bulgaria. The annual wage for the staff is regarded as relatively high, which also significantly contributes to their high level of job satisfaction. The disparity between the workloads of the staff was pointed out as a potentially problematic aspect. 3.3 Effectiveness of the Centre s missions Most of the stakeholders interviewed as part of this evaluation expressed their satisfaction over the way the Centre had been communicating with relevant stakeholders, including the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris and the Regional Bureau in Venice and how it had followed the recommendations provided to them. This concerns, in particular, the organization of different training workshops that the Centre has supported since 2015, as its contribution to UNESCO s global capacity-building strategy for the implementation of the 2003 Convention and annual meetings of ICH experts in South-East Europe. The Centre supported such training workshops in Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Romania, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Based on its active collaboration with UNESCO, it also hosted a review meeting of the global capacity-building strategy for safeguarding ICH in Europe and Central Asia in 2014, in Sofia. It is well recognized that the Centre is the only centre of such nature in the region. Its activities are appreciated not only by the Member States but also by the UNESCO Headquarters and the Regional Bureau. All of the stakeholders interviewed as part of this evaluation greatly valued the location of the Centre, which stands at the crossroads of diverse cultures. 3.4 Relationship with UNESCO The interviewees from the UNESCO Headquarters and the Regional Bureau were satisfied, at the 13 P age

14 operational level, with the way the Centre had been communicating and collaborating with them. They considered that the communications had been regular and useful. The Centre had often relied on the opinions of UNESCO when it came to capacity-building activities implemented by the Centre in different countries of the sub-region. Moreover, the Centre had supported regional cooperation by helping to sustain annual meetings of the Regional Network of Experts on ICH of South-East Europe, coordinated by UNESCO. However, the interviewees noted that the frequent change of Executive Director (currently covered ad interim) hindered the normal functioning of the Centre. They also highlighted a number of aspects that the Centre could further improve on in its work, which are the basis of some of the recommendations below. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General recommendation on whether the renewal of the Centre s status as a category 2 institute is warranted and would conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy The findings of this evaluation provided evidence that the Centre has been carrying out its missions in accordance with the Agreement with UNESCO. This evaluation therefore recommends that the Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria be renewed. All the stakeholders interviewed as part of this evaluation took a positive view of the Centre s achievements. The Centre is also ready to get more involved in long-term training for ICH safeguarding and to further collaborate with its Member States and other ICH-related organizations through related programmes and activities. There are, however, a number of aspects where the Centre s work could be improved. These are presented below: 4.2 Recommendations to the Centre for improving the effectiveness of its operations (1) Relationship with Member States The Centre currently has fifteen Member States. A total of six Member States (represented by ICHrelated persons in various capacities, whose names and titles are listed in the Member States section of Annex 1) provided detailed feedback on their experience with the Centre, and their responses were quite positive. They appreciated the important, unique role that the Centre plays in the region, and benefit from the Centre s activities and programmes. However, some responses revealed that some of the interviewees did not fully understand the role, objectives and functions of the Centre. For instance, 14 P age

15 one of the respondents hoped that the Centre would provide funding for ICH-related activities and research exclusively in their own State. Another respondent, an academic in the field of ICH, expressed his hope that his own academic research could be funded by the Centre. Yet another ICH specialist in one of the Member States said that the Centre should reach out to practitioners and experts directly, i.e. not necessarily through each state government. It appears that the Centre needs to make further efforts to render its objectives and functions more visible and better understood among current and potential Member States, while continuing to identify the most ideal and efficient methods of carrying out its mission. As the number of Member States has been increasing since the establishment of the Centre, it has been observed that States have had different expectations in terms of their participation in the programmes and activities it organizes. This does however seems to be inevitable since States have different circumstances and capacities to implement the 2003 Convention at the national level, ranging from the availability of a specific agency/body in charge of implementing the Convention and different understandings of the Convention to language barriers and financial constraints. The Centre therefore needs to develop more customized approaches to its Member States facing specific challenges. (2) Governance issues within the Centre Almost all of the interviewees pointed to the frequent changes of Executive Director since the establishment of the Centre as one of the most problematic issues. In fact, the Executive Director has changed at least five times since the establishment of the Centre, and the current Executive Director was appointed ad interim. Some of the interviewees stated that this is due to the particular structure of the Centre, namely the collaboration among three different entities, as mentioned in Article 7.4 of the Agreement (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences). The delicate relationship among the three entities may have hindered important decisions being made, including those concerning the establishment of simple, clear procedures for appointing the Executive Director and ensuring that his or her responsibilities can be fulfilled in a sustained manner. Moreover, the situation seems to have led to a heavy decision-making process, with the adoption of multiple new rules and procedures above and beyond the guidelines initially adopted, ultimately leading to different interpretations. Even if the structure remains the same in the future, the decision-making process needs to be streamlined for matters of critical importance. This would enable the Centre to advance with mid- and long-term decisions more effectively. It is also recommended that the new Agreement list the duties of the Executive Director, such as directing the work of the 15 P age

16 Centre, proposing mid- and long-term programmes, as well as the responsibility to prepare the documents for the General Assembly. Another issue that came up during the evaluation was the timing of the General Assembly sessions. To present the sessions have been held in March-April of every calendar year, which also meant that the activities implemented at the beginning of the year were officially approved by the General Assembly after they had actually been completed. It is therefore recommended that the Centre plan the sessions of the General Assembly in the third or fourth quarter of the preceding calendar year, while sharing agenda and other working documents according to a precise timeframe that should be included in the agreement, as already occurred with other category 2 centres in the field of ICH. (3) A mid-term programme As the Centre has positioned itself as an important sub-regional actor in promoting the implementation of the 2003 Convention in South-East Europe by supporting capacity building, the next stage of its development needs to be more focused on producing substantial and concrete outcomes. If the Centre s programmes and activities have sought to be as inclusive as possible, the Centre might find it useful to focus its efforts instead on Member States that have expressed a greater interest and have the capacities to cooperate with it. In addition, rather than trying to cover issues and topics related to ICH safeguarding in general on a short-term basis in the framework of annual work plans, it would be useful to identify more specific aspects of ICH safeguarding that require attention in the sub-region and to concentrate efforts on them from a mid- to longer term perspective. The Centre therefore needs a mid-term programme, which would go beyond annual work plans and guide its work over multiple years, preferably aligned with the quadrennial or mid-term strategies of UNESCO. (4) ICH safeguarding and capacity building The programmes and activities initiated and/or organized by the Centre have been in line with the 2003 Convention, and have certainly been making a positive contribution to safeguarding ICH and achieving more active communication in the sub-region. Those that took place during the first six years mostly focussed on networking and organizing ICH-related resources in the region. For the future, it will be necessary to develop the Centre s staff knowledge and capacities in ICH, as well as in terms of results-based management. This could help better integrate the principles of the Convention and ICH safeguarding, and ensure results-based management in the planning and implementation of activities. 16 P age

17 The Centre s role in delivering training has become one of its main achievements; this has increasingly been the case over the last couple of years. While implementing training activities, the Centre called upon UNESCO-accredited facilitators and capacity-building curricula developed by UNESCO. The Centre also contributed to developing, sustaining and enlarging the network of UNESCO-accredited facilitators in the region. In order to sustain future training interventions, it would be advisable for them to benefit from a more in-depth approach by focusing on fewer beneficiary countries and developing full-fledged projects rather than stand-alone activities. While it is understandable that the Centre attempts to support activities in as many countries as possible, its actions could have a greater and more sustainable impact if they were concentrated on full-fledged projects combining a series of training programmes in a logical order (with the use of the needs assessment mechanism, where appropriate). It is also recommended that the Centre benefit from the new and/or revised materials developed by UNESCO for the effective implementation of the 2003 Convention. As far as the Centre s role in research is concerned, it does not seem to have produced any visible research output since its establishment. In that sense, it would be advisable for the Centre to either remove research from its functions in the Agreement or to begin to actually enact this aspect of its mandate. It also needs to decide whether to directly engage in ICH research, or just to instigate and coordinate (the Agreement, Article 6.2.a). However, even the latter task seems neither well defined nor to have been implemented so far. Depending on this choice, the Centre might need to consider whether to include ICH researchers among its staff. 4.3 Recommendations to UNESCO for improving the effectiveness of coordination and interaction with the Centre The staff of the Centre and other stakeholders interviewed expressed their overall satisfaction with the way UNESCO (both the Headquarters and the Regional Bureau in Venice) had been working with the Centre. They also mentioned that having UNESCO in its title helped them to carry out their mission more effectively and efficiently. UNESCO seems to have supported the Centre in many ways, by providing advice, cooperation opportunities, recommendations on facilitators, content for training programmes, etc. 4.4 Specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement As a general recommendation, the evaluation advises that the new Agreement clarify the duties of the 17 P age

18 Executive Director, and that it introduce mechanisms to stabilize the governance of the Centre, to avoid the frequent turnover experienced in the past. The evaluation recommends that the new Agreement consider the following, in particular: Keeping Article 6.2. (a) as it currently stands, should the Centre wish to continue working in the field of research, subject to a review of the identifiable research outputs and/or outcomes, to be assessed at the next renewal process in six years time; Introducing an additional line in Article 6.2 (b), which would allow the Centre to provide training on the new and/or revised training materials developed by UNESCO for the effective implementation of the 2003 Convention, to be in line with the agreements of other category 2 centres; Introducing a clearer identification of the duties of the Executive Director in Article 9.2, in order to be in line with those of other category 2 centres and to encourage a more sustained and consistent leadership of the Centre. 18 P age

19 ANNEXES Annex 1- List of Interviewees List of Interviewees Sofia category 2 centre Name Position Contact Mr Daniel Kalchev Executive Director ad interim director@unesco-centerbg.org, dankalchev@gmail.com Ms Iliyana Rousseva Expert on coordination and communication Ms Chayana Bozhkova Expert in international relations ch.bozhkova@unescocenterbg.org i.rousseva@unescocenterbg.org National counterparts Name Position Contact Ms Maria Donska Secretary General of the Bulgarian National Commission for UNESCO maria.donska@mfa.bg Ms Maya Dobreva Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maya.DOBREVA@mfa.bg Mr Vladimir Milanov Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Vladimir.MILANOV@mfa.bg Head of the Regional Activities Assoc. Prof. Dr. Department, Ministry of Culture of Ventsislav Velev Bulgaria v.velev@mc.government.bg Ms Berisa Mehovic Senior advisor in the Federal Ministry of Culture and Sports of Bosnia and Herzegovina, member berisa.mehovic@fmks.gov.ba of the Board Ms Maria Radaković Senior curator of Museum Kozaram in Prijedor, representative of the Republic of Srbska within Bosnia and Herzegovina radakovic3@gmail.com Ms Vesna Paskutini- Juraga Ms Miroslava Lukic Krstanovic Ms Zhulietta Harasani Mrs Velika Stojkova Serafimovska Ms Catalina Pirvu Senior Expert, Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture representative of Croatia on the Centre s Executive Board Ethnologist in the Institute of Ethnography, Serbia, member of the Centre s Executive Board Former Director of Albania s Ministry of Culture and Chairperson of Sofia centre General Assembly Ethnomusicologist, Researcher at the Institute for Folklore "Marko Cepenkov" Skopje, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Department of International Relations and European Affairs, Vesna.Pascuttini- Juraga@min-kulture.hr miroslava.lukic@ei.sanu.ac.rs zharasani@gmail.com, lika73@yahoo.com pirvu.catalina@cultura.ro 19 P age

20 Ms Stavroula Fotopoulou Mr Mehmed Öcal Oğuz Romanian Ministry of Culture Director, Head of Modern Cultural Assets and Intangible Cultural Heritage Directorate, Greece President of Turkish National Commission for UNESCO Facilitators of the UNESCO capacity building programme Name Position Contact Mr Rieks Smeets Facilitator, former staff member of UNESCO s Intangible Cultural Heritage Section rieks.smeets@gmail.com Facilitator, former staff member of UNESCO s Intangible Cultural Mr Frank Proschan Heritage Section and former frank.proschan@yahoo.co UNESCO Director-General m representative to the Sofia Centre General Assembly Mr Nikolai Vukov Facilitator nikolai.vukov@gmail.com Mr Sasa Sreckovic Facilitator sasasrec@gmail.com Ms Chiara Bortolotto Facilitator chiara_bortolotto@hotmail. com UNESCO Name Position Contact Ms Veronique Dauge Head of Culture Unit at the Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe (Venice, Italy), UNESCO v.dauge@unesco.org Director-General representative to the Sofia Centre General Assembly Mr Tim Curtis Chief of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, UNESCO t.curtis@unesco.org Mr Rasul Samadov Regional Officer for Eastern Europe, in charge of Sofia category 2 centre, Capacity Building and Heritage Policy Unit, Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, UNESCO r.samadov@unesco.org List of Interviewees that answered to the online survey Name Dr. Antigoni Polyniki Gor Yedigaryan Ms Velika Stojkova Serafimovska Vesna Pascuttini-Juraga Dr Varvara Buzila Role Officer, Cyprus National Commission for UNESCO Armenian National Commission for UNESCO Researcher at Institute for Folklore Marko Cepenkov, Skopje, Macedonia Senior Expert Advisor-Conservator, Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Conservation Department in Varazdin City, Croatia President of the National ICH Commission of the Republic of Moldova 20 P age

21 Annex 2 Questionnaires - In what capacity have you worked with the RC (Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in South-Eastern Europe under the auspices of UNESCO)? - For how long have you (and/or your institution) been working with the RC? - Do you consider RC has been fulfilling its mission in accordance with the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage? What are the grounds for your judgement regarding this? - Do you think the RC has been carrying out its tasks effectively and efficiently? Can you take an example of such cases? - Do you think the cultural and linguistic diversity in South-Eastern Europe are reflected in the activities of the RC properly? Please provide reasons/bases for your opinion. - Do you think the RC has been communicating with its relevant stakeholders in the Region properly? - What are the three strengths of the RC? - What are the three weaknesses of the RC? - Is there a way to further encourage the Members States of the RC to participate in the activities initiated/supported by the Centre? - What are the most important tasks that need to be carried out by the Centre? - Are there any region-specific topics/issues that need to be incorporated in the activities of the RC? - Could you propose programs/activities that are ideal for the RC to carry out in the future? - Additional Comments 21 P age

22 Annex 3 Mission Agenda DATE TIME PLACE NAME SUNDAY 08 JAN :55 ARRIVAL Sofia airport, Term 2 LUFTHANSA From Munich MONDAY 09 JAN :30-13:00 REGIONAL CENTRE THE RC STAFF RC STAFF meetings Regional Centre ========== == 13:00-14:30 ========== == 14:30-15:30 16:00-16:30 16:30-17:30 ================== = LUNCH BREAK ================== = ================= ================= Meeting with the members of the Executive Board of the Regional Centre - Mr Ventzislav Velev - Ms Irena Ilieva - Mr Stoyan Denchev Meeting with Prof. Julian Revalski, D.Sc. - President of the Bulgarian Academy of Science Ms Irena Ilieva representative of the Bulgarian Academy of Science in the Executive board of the Regional Centre Sofia - Ms Yoanna Spasova BAS former representative in the EB and GA :30 heading from RC toward the Bulgarian Academy of Science Ms Iliyana Rousseva Ms Diana Tokadjieva ======== =================== HOTEL ========== == 19:00 ================== DINNER TUESDAY 10 JAN :00-10:30 Visit to the Ministry of Culture 22 P age

23 10:30-11:00 11:00-11:30 11:30-12:00 - The Minister of Culture Mr Vezhdi Rashydov - Head of section, regional activities, Mr Ventzislav Velev - Ms Deyana Danailova Head of Department of International and Regional Activities at the Ministry of Culture. Former Chairperson of the executive board of the RC. ==================== ==================== Interviews with experts in the field of ICH: ========== = 12:00-12:30 ========== = ================== = LUNCH ================== = - Mr Nikolai Vukov - Ms Iglika Mishkova Interviews with RC staff not present at the office meeting: Ms Chayana Bojkova Expert last 4 years now temporarily on maternity leave 13:00-13:45 Mr Toni Dimov RC legal advisor 14:00-14:45 16:00-16:30 Mr Hristo Angelichin - Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs / former Acting Director of the ICH Regional Center, Sofia 16:30-17:15 17:15-18:00 ==================== :30 Leaving the RC ========= ========== = 19:00-21:00 ================== = DINNER 23 P age

24 WEDNESDAY 11 JAN :00-11:15 Meeting in the IEFSEM Ethnography Museum one of our partners. Mr Petko Hristov director of the museum and experts. 11:30-12:00 ========== == 12:00-13:30 ========== == 14:00-14:45 15:00-15:45 ================== = LUNCH ================== = Sofia Municipality - Mr Todor Chobanov Deputy Mayor of Sofia city. ===================== Mr Todor Chobanov ===================== Interviews with some of the longtime partners of the RC: - Mr Ciryl Arnautski president of foundation Sozopol - NGO - Mr Emil Pavlov - president of CIOFF, Bulgaria. CIOFF is an accredited NGO - Ms Silvana Tzokova Head of the section Cooperation and public affairs - Diplomatic Institute of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs MFA. 16:00-17:00 17:00-18:00 18:30-19:30 Regional Centre - free activities CULTURE - The Bistrica grannies - Vocal Ensemble for traditional Bulgarian folklore one of the four Bulgarian elements on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. ===================== 18:00 heading from the RC to Bistrica Visiting a rehearsal of the Vocal Ensemble The Bistrica grannies in Bistrica 30-min drive from the RC. ========== ========== == 20:00 ================== DINNER THURSDAY 12 JAN 2017 Ministry of Foreign Affairs: 24 P age

25 11:00-11:30 11:30-12:00 - The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Bulgaria, Mr Daniel Mitov - - The Secretary General of the National Commission UNESCO for Bulgaria - Ms Maria Donska chairperson of the Executive Board of the RC 12:00-12:30 ========== = 13:00-14:00 ========== = 14:30-15:30 16:00-17:00 17:00-18:00 ================ LUNCH ================ SKYPE CONVERSATIONS =================== =================== Ms Vesna Pascuttini Juraga Senior expert advisor Directorate for the protection of cultural heritage, Ministry of Culture, Republic of Hrvatska Skype conversations: - Mr Sasa Sreckovic - curator of the Ethnographic museum of Belgrade Republic of Serbia - Slovenia EthnographicMuseum - Cyprus Officer of the National commission of UNESCO Ms Antigony Poliniki 12:55 ARR VESNA PASCUTINI 14:30 in RC =================== Bulgaria hall ========== 19:00-20:30 ========== = 19:00-21:00 ================ DINNER/Concert FRIDAY 13 JAN :30-12:00 SULSIT State University of Library Studies and Information Technologies ========== = 12:00-13:30 ================== LUNCH ================== ================= ================= 14:30 heading from RC to New 25 P age

26 ========== = 15:00-16:30 16:30 - CULTURE NBU New Bulgarian University Department of Anthropology CULTURE Visit of Surva, Traditional Festival in the town of Pernik 25 km from Sofia. ================= Bulgarian University 14:30 heading from NBU to the town of Pernik ========== = ================== DINNER SATURDAY 14 JAN :55 DEPARTURE SOF - MUNICH RC Accountants: Mr Assen Seniov former RC accountant since the beginning of the RC / October Ms Stanimira Davidova current RC accountant, since October P age

27 Annex 4 Organization Chart General Assembly Executive Board Executive Director Legal Advisor Financial Expert Expert on International Relations Expert on Programs and Projects Expert on Coordination and Communication Expert on Popularization of the RC Network Activities Expert on Coordination of Trainings and Seminars Technical Assistant Full-time and Part-time staff of the Centre (part-time in shades) Name Daniel Kalchev Iliyana Rousseva Mirena Staneva Nadejda Ilieva Diana Tokadzhieva Irena Todorova Tony Dimov Stanimira Davidova Chayana Bozhkova Position Executive Director ad interim Expert on Coordination and Communication Expert on Programs and Projects Expert on Popularization of the RC Network Activities Technical Assistant Expert on Coordination of Trainings and Seminars Legal Adviser Financial Expert Expert on International Relations (on maternity leave) 27 P age

28 List of General Assembly Members Representing Country Name Occupation Ms Eranda BEDALLI In 2015 and 2016, Ms Zhulietta ALBANIA Harasani In 2017, Ms Arta Dollani ARMENIA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 4 BULGARIA 5 CROATIA 6 CYPRUS 7 GEORGIA 8 THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACADONIA Ms Yeranuhi MARGARYAN Ms Berisa MEHOVIC Ms Maria RADAKOVIC Ms Maria DONSKA Mr Ventzislav VELEV Mr Vladimir MILANOV Ms Irena Ilieva Mr Stoyan DENCHEV Ms Vesna PASCUTTINI- JURAGA Ms Antigoni POLYNIKI Ms Marina TAKTAKISHVILI Mr Konstantine NATSVLISHVILI Ms Velika STOJKOVA- SERAFIMOVSKA Expert on intangible heritage, General Directorate for Strategic Planning for Cultural Heritage Ministry of Culture of Albania Deputy Head of the Department of the Cultural Heritage and Folk Crafts, Ministry of Culture of Armenia Senior Advisor in the Federal Ministry of Culture and Sports of Bosnia & Herzegovina Senior Curator at the Museum of Kozara General Secretary of the Bulgarian National Commission for UNESCO; Chairperson of the Executive Board of the Regional Centre Representative of the Ministry of Culture Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Representative of the Bulgarian Academy of Science Representative of the International Association of National Folklore Federations and the Association of Cultural Centres Senior Expert, Advisor-Conservator, Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Conservation Department in Varaždin City, Ministry of Culture of Croatia Officer, National Commission for UNESCO, Cyprus Chief specialist of Cultural Heritage Inventory and Documentation Unit Chief specialist of Cultural Heritage Inventory and Documentation Unit Ethnomusicologist Researcher at Institute for Folklore "Marko Cepenkov 28 P age

29 9 GREECE Ms Stavroula FOTOPOULOU Director of Modern Cultural Assets and Intangible Cultural Heritage, Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Education and Religious Affairs President of the National ICH Commission of the Republic of Moldova 10. REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA Ms Varvara BUZILA 11 MONTENEGRO Ms Milica Nikolic Ministry of Culture of Montenegro 12 ROMANIA Ms Sabina ISPAS Folklorist, Director of Institute of Ethnography and Folklore "C. Brailoiu" Senior Scientific Associate of the 13 SERBIA Institute of Ethnography SASA, Ms Miroslava coordinator of joint projects, Institute LUKIC- Ethnography SASA and Institute of KRSTANOVIC Ethnology and Folklore with Ethnographic Museum BAS 14 SLOVENIA Ms Bojana ROGELJ-ŠKAFAR 15 TURKEY Mr Öcal OĞUZ Director of Slovene Ethnographic Museum President of the National Commission for UNESCO, Turkey List of Executive Board Name Ms Maria DONSKA Mr Ventzislav VELEV Mr Vladimir MILANOV Ms Irena Ilieva Mr Stoyan DENCHEV Occupation General Secretary of the Bulgarian National Commission for UNESCO; Chairperson of the Executive Board of the Regional Centre Representative of the Ministry of Culture Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Representative of the Bulgarian Academy of Science Representative of the International Association of National Folklore Federations and the Association of Cultural Centres Representatives from the General Assembly in the Executive Board Name Occupation Ms Vesna Senior Expert Advisor-Curator, Directorate for the Protection of PASCUTTINI- Cultural Heritage, Conservation Department in Varaždin City, JURAGA Ministry of Culture of Croatia Ms Representative of the Ministry of Culture Berisa MEHOVIC Mr Senior Advisor in the Federal Ministry of Culture and Sports of Vladimir MILANOV Ms Maria RADAKOVIC Bosnia & Herzegovina Senior Curator at the Museum of Kozara, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina List of the members of the Secretariat 29 P age

30 Name Mr Daniel Kalchev Ms Mirena Staneva Ms Irena Todorova Ms Nadezhda Ilieva Ms Chayana Bozhkova Ms Iliyana Rousseva Ms Diana Tokadzhieva Position Executive Director, ad interim Expert on Programmes and Projects Expert on Coordination of Trainings and Seminars Expert on Popularization of the RC Network Activities Expert International Relations Expert on Coordination and Communication Technical Assistant 30 P age