Cultural heritage has long been seen only from the angle of buildings and materials. This conception, which originated in the cult of the relic, which prevailed for centuries, has been overtaken by the advent of the immaterial, the result of an evolution in society and mentalities. Thus, we move away from this reduced vision of heritage, which only takes into consideration the visible and natural side, we now extend it to intangible assets which are the product of individual and collective social, cultural manifestations, including the language of transmission .<\/p>\n
The awareness of actors and professionals of the limits and the danger of a drifting heritage fact has led to the opening of a debate on fundamental questions such as: Why does man need to conserve? Why do we keep objects? What are the purposes of heritage? These reflections around conservation, transmission, the notion of matter, the immaterial have changed the consciousness of the past to take into consideration not only material culture but also immaterial culture. Thus, a convention on the intangible cultural heritage (ICH) was adopted unanimously by all the Member States of UNESCO. What are the elements that have helped the emergence of the ICH? What characterizes intangible cultural heritage? Why was the term \u201cprotection\u201d used in the previous convention replaced by the term \u201csafeguard\u201d? What are the challenges of intangible cultural heritage?<\/p>\n
1. The origins of the convention on intangible cultural heritage<\/strong> As for awareness of the ICH within the UNESCO institution, it dates back to 1973, with the convention concerning “the protection of monuments and natural sites” when voices from non-Western countries claimed the right to something other than the object (the beautiful, the rare, the authentic). Countries that have signed the convention and have few or no artefacts have demanded that the institution extend the protection of cultural heritage to folklore (F. Maguet, 2011). Thus, in 1973, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bolivia sent a letter to the Secretary General of Unesco in which he said that all the existing legal instruments implemented by the institution “aim to protect tangible objects, rather as well as forms of expression such as music and dance, which nowadays undergo the most intensive clandestine export, participating in a process of commercially oriented transculturation which destroys traditional cultures\u201d (C. Bortoloto, 2011). The end of colonialism, the pressure from the countries of the South which do not have the same vision of heritage as those of the North, the emergence of struggles for the recognition of cultural, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities have helped in a certain way to the emergence of intangible cultural heritage.<\/p>\n
\nIt was after a long process of debates involving heritage theorists, practitioners and jurists that the 2003 convention was reached, which consecrates intangible cultural heritage as \u201ccommon goods\u201d by Unesco. The Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), adopted on October 30, 2003 by the General Conference of UNESCO, is the result of expert debates (2001-2003) and difficult negotiations between the Member States of this institution. But the discussions on the PCI started long before. In France, for example, the debate on the heritage fact predates 2004, \u201cyear of the heritage fact\u201d. Actors such as A. Desvall\u00e9es and B. Delloche, to name but a few, even if they have not used the name PCI, present themselves as precursors in the sense that they are the first to attempt to draw attention and raise awareness about the negative diversion of consciousness from the more alienating past (J. Mariannick, 2006). In Algeria, Mr. Mammeri also presents himself as a precursor of the 2003 convention. These interventions on oral literature, on popular culture is an example. In one of his conferences he said \u201ca culture is not a heritage, a culture is not a heritage. A culture is something that we live, it is something that we bring to life. This expression is often used by many people without any explanation, without addressing the issue to which it relates. We all know that the cultural heritage of a community, of a people is the culture inherited by this community or this people plus the one it has created. And besides Mouloud Mammeri does not fail to specify it in his last conference of February 1989 in Bejaia on popular culture in these terms: “Culture is not only a heritage…”. So why did Mr. Mammeri say \u201cculture is not a heritage, it is not a heritage…? \u201cI think we have to put his words in the context of the time. Mr. Mammeri, who is at the forefront of popular culture, of a society with strong oral traditions, wanted to distance himself from the material vision of heritage that prevailed in the West where only the monument, the object is taken care of. At the time, intangible heritage was not yet supported by Unesco. Mr. Mammeri therefore has a vision of cultural heritage different from that of the institutions of the time. The heritage of which he speaks is a living heritage, constantly being re-created, as the convention on the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage later advocates. It is a precursor of the 2003 convention in that it participated in raising awareness for cultural diversity, the basis of all human progress. This was not only reflected in his interventions (interviews and conferences), but also through his practice in the field. The best example is the interest in the Ahellil of Gourara. He initiated the process of safeguarding this element several years before the 2003 convention. This work started by Mr. Mammeri, continued by R. Bellil ended up being recognized worldwide. The Ahellil of Gourara was inscribed by Unesco on the world list of humanity in 2005.<\/p>\n