Overview
Learning from what has worked is as important as designing new strategies. This lesson surveys proven institutional models, regional networks, and community-based programs that offer replicable frameworks for ICH resource mobilization and safeguarding.
Content
The UNESCO Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of ICH in South-Eastern Europe (Sofia)
Registered in Sofia under UNESCO’s Category 2 Centre system, this Centre is the primary regional institution for ICH safeguarding coordination across Southeast Europe. It fulfills several overlapping functions:
- The Regional Network of Experts on ICH (established 2007) holds annual meetings rotating across SEE countries, enabling practitioners to exchange knowledge, align national approaches, and co-develop project proposals.
- The University Network (initiated 2018) connects universities, researchers, and ICH bearers — creating pathways for academic documentation projects, ethnomusicological research, and student fieldwork placements that benefit communities.
- The NGO Network provides a platform for civil society organizations across the region to share practices, coordinate advocacy, and access information about UNESCO accreditation — particularly important for smaller NGOs seeking international recognition.
- UNESCO Accreditation Information Sessions specifically target under-represented NGOs from SEE, helping organizations navigate the accreditation process that gives them formal standing in UNESCO Convention meetings.
Living Human Treasures — Bulgaria
UNESCO’s “Living Human Treasures” initiative was created to recognize and support individual bearers of ICH — master craftspeople, singers, storytellers, healers — who embody irreplaceable knowledge. Bulgaria has developed a national system under this program, awarding the “Living Human Treasure” designation to exceptional practitioners and providing small but sustained support for their transmission activities.
This program addresses a critical gap: institutional funding tends to support organizations and projects, but the actual knowledge lives in individual people. Without direct support for master practitioners, transmission can fail even when institutions are well-funded.
Community Cultural Centres (Chitalishta)
Bulgaria’s network of approximately 3,500 Chitalishta (community reading houses/cultural centers) is perhaps the country’s most distinctive institutional asset for ICH. Established in the 19th century, these centers are present in even the smallest villages and function as the primary venue for folk singing groups, traditional craft workshops, and local heritage celebrations. Their deep community embeddedness makes them natural hubs for ICH documentation, transmission, and local fundraising — particularly through small-scale municipal grants.
🔍 Case Study — Poros, Greece: Digital Documentation as a Good Practice
The inThrace project’s work in Poros, Greece, demonstrates how a well-organized community documentation initiative can serve both preservation and resource mobilization purposes simultaneously. Two video resources from the project illustrate different aspects of the methodology:
Digital documentation of this quality does two things at once: it preserves a practice for future generations, and it creates the portfolio of evidence — video archives, community testimonies, practitioner interviews — that funders expect to see in project applications and impact reports.
The “Living Heritage” Journal published by the Regional Centre in Sofia is a further good practice: a peer-reviewed publication dedicated to sharing knowledge, methodologies, and case studies from ICH safeguarding across the SEE region, ensuring that hard-won practical learning is not lost within individual projects.
Activities
Activity 1 — Good Practice Analysis (15 min): Choose one of the good practices described in this lesson (UNESCO Regional Centre, Living Human Treasures, Chitalishta network, Poros documentation). Identify three features that make it a good practice and one limitation or challenge it faces.
Activity 2 — Adapt and Apply (10 min): Could the Chitalishta model — community-embedded, multi-functional cultural centers with small municipal grants — be adapted for a community in your country that lacks equivalent infrastructure? What would be required?
Activity 3 — Documentation Quality Review (5 min): Watch both Poros videos. What specific elements of the documentation (camera work, interview style, context information, language/subtitles) would make this footage useful to a funder reviewing a project report? What is missing?
Key Questions
- Why does the “Living Human Treasures” program focus on individual bearers rather than institutions, and what problem does this solve that institutional funding cannot?
- How does the UNESCO Regional Centre in Sofia create value for national organizations that they could not generate independently?
- In what ways do the Chitalishta function as both a cultural infrastructure and a funding mechanism for local ICH?
- How does high-quality digital documentation — like the Poros case — strengthen a community’s position when applying for future funding?
- What does it mean for an ICH safeguarding practice to be entered on the UNESCO Register of Good Safeguarding Practices (as opposed to the Representative List), and what advantages does this bring for resource mobilization?