Page 12 - 2022 UNESCO ICDH Newsletter_vol.3

Jiyoung Noh
Column Since the conception of the MoW Programme, Implementation of MoW monitoring should not
the Secretariat and expert groups have agreed be limited to simply updating the information on the
that periodic monitoring is required due to the inscribed documentary heritage, but should reach a
The Necessity of UNESCO’s nature of the inscribed documents, as mentioned level that improves the problems mentioned above.
in the Implementation Guidelines for the 2015 As stated in the Register Companion, “[b]eing
Monitoring Programs on ‘Recommendation Concerning the Preservation of, inscribed on the MoW register is not an end
and Access to, Documentary Heritage Including in itself.” What should be kept in mind is that
in Digital Form.’ The guidelines were adopted by the beginning, which starts from continuous
Documentary Heritage UNESCO’s General Conference at its 38th session management and monitoring, is intended to
along with other standard-setting instruments in increase systematic preservation of and access to
relation to the MoW Programme. The International documents. More and more new inscriptions will be
Advisory Committee (IAC), which plays a pivotal accumulated. Typically, relevant information and
role in the overall implementation and consultation the management plan, which includes details on
of the MoW Programme, has also consistently parties or institutions that manage the document,
mentioned the need for monitoring as indicated in regardless of the reporting cycle, is collected right
the 2021 revised edition of the ‘General Guidelines’. after the decision on the inscription. Progress is
The necessity of monitoring the MoW Programme as also continuously tracked through regular reports
post-inscription management is accentuated more and monitoring. Subsequently, it will be possible
than ever with the expansion of new inscriptions to prevent situations in which some documentary
and the reinforcement of management for existing heritages rapidly deteriorate after inscription.
inscriptions. Given the practical difficulties of on-site
The MoW inscription has played a major role in monitoring, periodic or non-periodic written
enhancing the visibility and international recognition reports from nominators or owners/custodians
of the Programme. However, although inscription have to contain details whereby the collected
is a means of increasing accessibility, protection, contents should be sufficient to enable experts to
and awareness of documentary heritage, there is a understand the state of the documentary heritage
widespread misperception that only inscription is and necessary actions thereafter. Therefore, it is
an important priority. This had led many Member important to design questions that exclude short
States to prioritize the number of registers and and non-descriptive answers so as not to interfere
inscriptions by country. There are known cases of with the identification of necessary information and
significant gaps caused by differing post-inscription database building. Providing a sample standard
management frameworks in different regions and response that indicates the “must-be-included”
the absence of systematic management such as information should also be considered. When these
inadequate management due to the nominator’s instruments are utilized properly, it will be possible
retirement or insufficient handover; or current status to obtain content that is practically helpful in
insufficiently tracked due to the non-cooperation identifying the status of the documentary heritage,
of an owner/custodian when the nominator is not managing it properly, and establishing plans to
the owner/custodian. Thus, the periodic reporting improve access and utilization in the future.
and monitoring mechanism are required to track
and have proper countermeasures for safeguarding
inscribed documentary heritage.

12 UNESCO ICDH Newsletter 13 Memories of Today