(In)tangible Cultural Heritage and Religious Minorities: Legal Strategies for the Preservation of Religious Sites

Abstract

In recent decades, religious spaces have increasingly become subject to heritage processes, encompassing both their tangible dimension and the emerging concept of intangible cultural heritage. This article examines the legal strategies available for protecting the (in)tangible cultural heritage that minority religious communities can employ to safeguard their religious sites. Focusing on the case of African-derived religions in Brazil, this study argues that the recognition of their (in)tangible heritage serves as a strategic legal instrument for protecting their religious spaces, despite the conflicts that such recognition may provoke. This article contributes to the field of cultural heritage law, engaging with religious studies and exploring the complexities of legally safeguarding minority cultural practices.

1. Introduction

The last few decades have been marked by the re-emergence or “resurgence” of religions in the public space in various countries (Berger 1999; Casanova 1994; Taylor 2007), including those that have undergone secularisation processes throughout political modernity. This process is marked by the increasing dynamics of patrimonialisation, a direct result of the “politicisation of culture” (Benhabib 2002; Touraine 2005; Mattelart 2007), marked by the strengthening of various cultural, political, and religious identities. This phenomenon reflects a reconfiguration in the field of relations between religion and politics, with implications for the field of cultural heritage, transforming it into a terrain of dispute over the legitimacy and (re)signification of religious and secular narratives in the field of cultural symbols and national and local identities.

In this context, recognising the cultural heritage of religious communities, especially minority communities, becomes a tool for preserving and safeguarding their tangible and intangible cultural dynamics. The religions of African origin in Brazil exemplify this dynamic, demonstrating how heritage policies can protect religious spaces such as “terreiros” and value associated practices, rituals, languages and traditional knowledge. As well as ensuring the continuity of these traditions, this recognition strengthens Afro-Brazilian cultural identities, promoting their appreciation in the face of historical challenges such as religious intolerance and marginalisation. At the same time, it encourages the formulation of public policies that recognise and celebrate the country’s cultural diversity.

Taking this into account, this article seeks to analyse the legal strategies available for the protection of tangible and intangible cultural heritage that minority religious communities can use to safeguard their religious spaces. While much of the literature on cultural heritage protection has predominantly focused on the tangible dimension, this study incorporates the legal framework of intangible heritage protection to offer a more comprehensive perspective. Focusing on the case of African matrix religions in Brazil, this study argues that the recognition of their (in)tangible cultural heritage acts as a strategic legal instrument to protect their religious spaces, despite the conflicts that such recognition can generate. This study contributes to the field of cultural heritage law, engaging in dialogue with religious studies and exploring the complexities involved in the legal protection of minority cultural practices. The article is divided into two parts: the first explores the relationship between cultural heritage, religious minorities, and processes of patrimonialisation, while the second critically analyses the case of African matrix religions in Brazil.

2. I—(In)tangible Cultural Heritage, Religious Minorities and Patrimonialisation Processes

The legal notion of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) gained ground at the international level through the 2003 UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, which addresses an international regime for its safeguarding. This regime was gradually conformed after the enactment of the World Heritage Convention in 1972 (Blake 2015), as a critique and improvement of its developments. The latter entails the concept of cultural heritage essentially linked to the “modern” notion, which emerged during the French Revolution (Choay 1995), it being entrenched on the concepts of “monument”, “groups of buildings” and “sites”1. As this international regime ignored other cultural heritage manifestations, such as intangible elements, several criticisms have sparked especially from Global South countries (Blake 2001), who triggered the debate in this arena.

Some important factors and processes have had a significant impact on the legal and political recognition of ICH, particularly in International Law: (a) the acceleration of cultural globalisation and the acknowledgement that “traditional” and “indigenous” cultures could effectively be “lost” or “erased” (see, for instance, Canclini 1989); (b) criticism over “eurocentrism” approached regarding the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, as it privileged the heritage geographically located in Europe or those tied to European cultural narratives exported through colonization (Schmitt 2009); and (c) the emergence and empowerment of social movements grounded on “identitarian” or cultural claims, as well as new political subjects that have gained traction at both international and national levels (Castells 2004).

These elements encouraged UNESCO to launch the first ICH initiatives in the 1980s: the adoption of the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore in 19892; the creation of the Living Human Treasures Programme in 19933; and the publication of the document “Our Creative Diversity”, which emphasised the interchanges between tangible and intangible heritage, along with the importance of preserving cultural heritage for social, human, and economic development. The latter document served as impetus for a number of talks and conferences on the preservation of folklore, which resulted in UNESCO’s 1997 Proclamation of Masterpieces and the beginning of Studies on a standard-setting Instrument.

The 2003 UNESCO Convention was, therefore, enacted in this context, with the aim of consolidating a specific international legal regime to foster ICH safeguarding, filling the gap left by the World Heritage Convention (Scovazzi 2020, p. 19). The very success of the Convention is “explained by the awareness of many States regarding the importance of intangible cultural heritage and the need for its protection” (Scovazzi 2020, p. 19)4. Actually, Global South countries have widely ratified the Convention, and as of 2025, 183 States have ratified or approved it. This makes it the most successful UNESCO legal instrument in terms of the number of State-parties (Lixinski 2011).

The UNESCO 2003 Convention lays out various legal obligations to the States for the protection of ICH. The Convention refers to internationally recognised human rights, particularly cultural rights; it views ICH as a tool to support cultural diversity and promote sustainable development; it emphasises the close connection between tangible and intangible cultural heritage, as well as natural heritage; it acknowledges that globalisation frequently makes it challenging to protect various intangible cultural practices; it takes into account the need to raise public awareness, particularly among younger generations, of the need to preserve their own heritage elements; and it takes into consideration the remarkable role that the Convention may have as a catalyst for mutual understanding among various groups, communities, and nations5.

The 2003 UNESCO Convention is deeply based on an “anthropological” concept of culture (Kono 2009), whereby ICH cannot be considered as a mere “thing” or “good” (Ariezpe 2020), embodying an extensive concept of culture, which includes all human production by which a given community identifies itself (Vaivade 2018). In this regard, the 2003 UNESCO Convention enriches the definition of cultural heritage in International Law, associated with a set of resources inherited from the past, which people identify, regardless of whether they own the property, as a reflection and expression of their values, beliefs, knowledge, and traditions, which is constantly evolving (see Blake 2001; Craith 2008), to also become a “living heritage”, constantly recreated by communities (Blake and Lixinski 2020; Cornu 2020).

Article 2 of the Convention establishes the concept of ICH:

The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills—as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith—that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.

Tullio Scovazzi points out that “more than a real definition, this is a description of a complex reality that includes heterogeneous elements” (Scovazzi 2020, p. 22)6. As a result, there are various ways in which the legal notion of ICH can manifest: (1) traditions and oral expressions; (2) performing arts; (3) social uses, rituals, and festive acts; (4) knowledge and uses related to nature and the universe; and (5) traditional craft techniques. Therefore, “examples of intangible cultural heritage are not limited to a single expression, and many of them include elements belonging to multiple areas”, because “the boundaries between the areas are very imprecise and often vary from one community to another” (UNESCO 2014, p. 3). States may include new elements that may not be covered by the Convention’s concept in their own definitions of ICH, provided that they adhere to the Convention’s determinations7.

In the area of International Cultural Heritage Law, the Convention has resulted in two significant advancements. The first relates to the term “safeguard”, as defined in articles 2.38, and refers to actions taken to “guarantee the viability” or “continuity” of ICH. This definition goes beyond the traditional meaning of “protection”, which refers to tangible heritage. The second, which is addressed in art. 15, refers to the need for ensuring the widest possible participation of communities, groups, and individuals9. In this length, “a diversity of voices from within the community needs to be heard in order to achieve truly participatory approaches to safeguarding” (Blake 2015, p. 185; see also: Lixinski 2011; Bendix et al. 2012; Bortolotto et al. 2020; Blake and Lixinski 2020), in order to make participation more faithful to what the Convention itself determines, moving the convention from the “state-centric approach” to a “community-centric approach”. These components add complexity to the current legal and political frameworks for ICH safeguarding.

These innovations are the result of “a truly explosion of patrimonial enterprises”, according to Dominique Poulot, placed on a “sense of cultural sharing” (Poulot 1998, p. 7), whereby “cultural heritage is no longer only historical, artistic or archaeological, but also ethnological, biological or natural; not only tangible, but intangible; not only national, or local, or regional, but global, universal” (Poulot 1998, p. 7)10. Put differently, cultural heritage currently plays a polysemic and comprehensive role in the legal (Benoît and Dionisi-Peyrusse 2015) and political systems. Therefore, even though the term “cultural heritage” is essentially a “single concept” that incorporates multiple dimensions and meanings, it has experienced many changes, additions, and specialisations—especially in the past few decades—contributing to the very emergence of the “intangible cultural heritage”.

Some countries, however, passed specific legislation on ICH even before the UNESCO Convention of 2003 was promulgated, as is the case in Brazil. The 1988 Constitution carried out a broad and detailed process of constitutionalising cultural rights. As a result of the engagement of cultural sectors, ethnic and cultural minorities, and the demands of various groups—especially those historically marginalised—in Brazilian society, cultural rights came to be projected as a true “constitutional category” (see Ruiz Miguel 2003). The Constitution has a specific section dealing with “culture” (articles 215, 216 and 216-A). In this context, the constitutional text establishes that the Brazilian state must guarantee everyone the exercise of cultural rights and access to the sources of national culture and must also support and encourage the valorisation and dissemination of cultural manifestations (art. 215, caput). The Brazilian state must also protect the manifestations of popular, indigenous, and Afro-Brazilian cultures, as well as other groups belonging to the national civilisation process (art. 215, § 1).

In an innovative way, the Constitution establishes the protection of cultural heritage in its material form—historically consolidated in Brazil and in most Western countries—and also in its intangible form—a significant innovation for Brazilian constitutionalism (art. 216, caput). The constitutional concept of cultural heritage is defined in a broad and detailed way, with its constituent elements being forms of expression; ways of creating, doing, and living; artistic, scientific, and technological creations; works, objects, documents, buildings, and other spaces used for artistic and cultural manifestations; urban ensembles and sites of historical, landscape, artistic, archaeological, palaeontological, ecological, and scientific value (art. 216, items I to V). Its recognition and management are the responsibility of IPHAN—the National Historical and Artistic Heritage Institute—established in the 1930s.

The inclusion of the intangible dimension of cultural heritage in the 1988 Constitution was effectively driven by the engagement of religious communities of African origin, who were and still are considered minorities in the Brazilian demographic context11—a country with a Christian and Catholic prevalence. In this context, IPHAN’s bodies began to apply the legal institutes that until then had only been applied to “tangible” heritage—such as the “tombamento” institute—to recognise various heritages that could not necessarily be considered “tangible heritage”, often shaped by a monumental and Eurocentric perspective rooted in colonial history. In 1984, the Terreiro da Casa Branca was listed as one of the oldest and most respected places of worship of the Candomblé religion, of African origin.

A candomblé terreiro is the sacred space where the religious and cultural practices of this Afro-Brazilian tradition are carried out, and it is also the dwelling place of spiritual leaders, such as the father or mother of saints and other members of the religious community. The terreiro performs ritual functions, such as making offerings, dances, and songs dedicated to the orixás, voduns, or inkices, depending on the candomblé nation (Ketu, Jeje or Angola). In addition to its religious importance, the terreiro is a space of cultural resistance, preservation of ancestral knowledge, and community organisation (Sant’Anna 2006). Architecturally, it includes elements such as the barracão (main area for celebrations), the altar or peji (space consecrated to the gods), and specific places for initiations and offerings. According to Prandi (2001), terreiros are “territories of memory and identity” that articulate religiosity and Afro-Brazilian culture, playing a central role in maintaining these traditions Prandi (2001).

Another terreiro, Terreiro do Axé Opô Afonjá, in Salvador, was also recognised as a Brazilian cultural heritage site in 1999; and in 2000, the Quilombo do Ambrósio Historic Site in Ibiá was also recognised as a national cultural heritage site. These initiatives led to the development of a specific national public policy in this area. In effect, the engagement of religious communities of African origin represented a turning point in cultural heritage policy in Brazil, both from a political–institutional point of view and in terms of constitutional and legislative innovations.

In this context, Decree No. 3.551 of 2000 was enacted, which “institutes the registration of intangible assets that constitute Brazilian cultural heritage, creates the National Cultural Heritage Programme and makes other provisions”12. This policy basically consists of regulating registration, which is seen as the mechanism par excellence for protecting intangible cultural heritage in the country. Article 1 establishes the register and the books in which ICH must be registered: (1) Book of Register of Knowledge, where knowledge and ways of doing things rooted in the daily life of communities are registered; (2) Book of Register of Celebrations, where rituals and festivals that mark the collective coexistence of work, religiosity, entertainment, and other practices of social life are registered; (3) A Register of Forms of Expression, where literary, musical, plastic, scenic, and playful manifestations are registered; and (4) A Register of Places, where markets, fairs, sanctuaries, squares, and other spaces where collective cultural practices are concentrated and reproduced are registered (Art. 1, § 1, I to IV).13

The National Inventory of Cultural References was also established in 2000 by IPHAN14. In fact, the contours of the application of this instrument are delimited by IPHAN (Silva 2013) and were also determined by a Manual for the Application of the National Inventory of Cultural References, written and coordinated by anthropologist Antônio Augusto Arantes Neto. IPHAN states that the inventory “is an instrument for getting to know and documenting cultural assets, as well as for getting to know the value attributed by social groups to these assets”; thus, “in carrying out this inventory work, IPHAN is both documenting and identifying problems and solutions for safeguarding cultural manifestations” (IPHAN 2012, pp. 20–21). This endeavour attests to Brazil’s pioneering role in the legal and political recognition of ICH, even from a comparative perspective, and has also contributed to international discussions within UNESCO (see Cunha 2018; Cunha Filho 2018).

3. II—ICH, Religions of African Origin and Religious Spaces

The resurgence or re-emergence of religion in the public space since the 1980s has also been marked by the rebirth of various religious minorities, which until then had been relegated to the role of social and cultural marginalisation (Hackett 2005). In the case of religions of African origin in Brazil, such as Candomblé and Umbanda, this process of political rebirth is closely linked to the struggle for cultural recognition (Santos 2005), inclusion of their communities in public policies, guaranteed social and cultural rights, and resistance against religious intolerance and “structural racism” (Almeida 2019), which permeate the country’s cultural and political–institutional dynamics.

The process of politicising these religions, therefore, involves confronting the symbolic and physical violence that groups of African origin have suffered—and still suffer—in the country, as well as seeking representation in the public arena, in the formulation of public policies and in decision-making dynamics. The movement gained strength with Brazil’s re-democratisation in 1985, when there was a growing mobilisation of terreiros and religious leaders in favour of the right to religious freedom and the preservation of their cultural manifestations and sacred spaces (Nascimento 2002). The promulgation of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, with its guarantee of protection for religious diversity, was also a milestone that catalysed the political action of these communities (Concone 1987).

One of the results of this movement was the demand for spaces in the educational and cultural field, based on the affirmation of the importance of Afro-religious traditions in the formation of the Brazilian national identity—as already emphasised by various anthropologists (Ribeiro 1995)—and the inclusion of content on African and Afro-Brazilian history and culture in the school curriculum, established as compulsory by Law 10.639/2003 (Gomes 2017)15. Thus, the political engagement of religions of African origin is a strategy of resistance and reinvention not only of the “religious” sphere but above all of the “cultural” sphere in the contemporary scenario, reaffirming their relevance and rights in an environment that has historically been characterised as hostile.

Another significant result has taken place in the field of cultural heritage. The designation of cultural elements of religions of African origin is based on the criticism that “tangible” heritage tends to favour cultural elements of European heritage in Brazil, especially from the process of Portuguese colonisation or from the great waves of migration from other European countries in the 19th and 20th centuries, such as Italy and Germany, for example—a criticism that is also evident internationally (Meskell 2018)16. This analysis reframes the concept of “national” cultural heritage, broadening its content in favour of other groups that make up the national identity, not only those linked to European cultural heritage (Lima 2012; Gonçalves da Silva et al. 2024).

Since the first terreiros were recognised by IPHAN, various other elements of Afro-Brazilian culture and religions of African origin have also been listed as intangible cultural heritage at the national, state, and municipal level17. Among the most emblematic elements are terreiros such as “Bate Folha”, “Ilê Axé Oxumaré”, “Omo Ilê Agboulá”, and “Zogbodo Male Bogun Seja Unde” in the state of Bahia and “Casa das Minas Jeje” in the state of Maranhão18. In these cases, the legal instrument of protection was “tombamento”, which is the par excellence instrument used to protect “tangible” cultural heritage. It implies administrative restrictions on property rights and is based on the conservation of the property, expressly prohibiting any intervention aimed at demolishing, destroying, or modifying the property, requiring IPHAN’s approval for any changes to the property’s original characteristics19.

Another type of protection has been “intangible” cultural heritage. In this case, various elements of African traditions and religions have been declared as such. Starting at the international level, two elements inscribed on the ICH UNESCO Representative List are intrinsically related to Afro-Brazilian cultural traditions and religions of African origin, such as the “Samba de Roda of the Recôncavo of Bahia”20, inscribed in 2008, and the “Capoeira Circle”21, inscribed in 2014. As well as being an artistic and musical manifestation, “Samba de Roda” carries religious and social elements that dialogue with practices of African religions, such as candomblé, reflecting values of collectivity, resistance, and ancestry (Nogueira et al. 2016). “Capoeira” is a symbolic and ritualistic space in which African values and traditions are preserved, often in association with candomblé terreiros, where meetings and training sessions were originally held during periods of persecution of Afro-Brazilian practices (Merrell 2020).

Other elements have also been listed and declared as ICH at the national, state, or municipal level. Some emblematic examples are the “Bembé do Mercado”, considered to be the only street candomblé in the world, which takes place in the city of Santo Amaro in the state of Bahia, registered as ICH by IPHAN22. Similarly, another nationally recognised element is the “Ofício das Baianas de Acarajé”, which are women who prepare and sell acarajé, a fried bean cake in palm oil, which has a strong connection with candomblé, being offered to orishas such as Iansã and Xangô in religious rituals23.

From the point of view of the states, the “National Sanctuary of Umbanda” in the city of Santo André in the state of São Paulo has also been registered as a cultural heritage site in that municipality24. The state of Rio de Janeiro recognised candomblé as an ICH through a law (Law n. 5506/2009) in 2009. The same state also recognised umbanda as an ICH in 2016, through the IPHAN Superintendence of the respective state. This latest law establishes a register of umbanda terreiros throughout the city, in order to map the traditional places where the religion is practised. In 2021, a new law (Law No. 7.162/2021) declared religions of African origin and influence, such as Candomblé, Umbanda, and Ifá, to be ICH of the people of the state of Rio de Janeiro.

In addition to the examples mentioned above, in 2015 IPHAN also promoted the Cultural Heritage of Traditional Peoples and Communities of African Origin Award, marking a significant step in recognising actions aimed at preserving and enhancing Afro-Brazilian cultural heritage. The award covered 31 initiatives nationwide, involving religious and cultural practices of African origin such as candomblé, umbanda, jurema, and batuque, and supporting the revitalisation of religious spaces of African origin. The award is part of the goals of the National Plan for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities of African Origin (2013–2015), coordinated at the national level, reinforcing the importance of intersectoral public policies for safeguarding cultural heritage.

In this regard, it can be said that recognising elements of Afro-Brazilian traditions as intangible cultural heritage is a major legal strategy for preserving religious spaces associated with religions of African origin. This type of protection makes it possible to safeguard not only cultural practices and traditional knowledge but also the sacred territories where these practices take place, in a decolonial perspective (Chuva 2020). The link between intangible heritage and religious spaces is a clear example of the broadening of the concept of cultural heritage to include the symbolic, identity, and spiritual dimensions of communities—including marginalised ones—as indicated by sources such as Cunha (2018). In this perspective, intangible heritage policy acts as a response to the history of cultural exclusion, ensuring the right to sacred territory and collective memory.

Religious places are central to discussions about cultural identity issues and can be seen as a conductive instrument for communities and groups dialogue, that is, where intercultural and interreligious dialogue can flourish—although it does not always happen (Benzo 2014, p. 21). In the same way, religious spaces are arenas in which politics and religion find an action camp (Halafoff and Clarke 2018, p. 5), as space itself is a concept with a great capacity to capture the relationship and relationality, as well as dynamics and hybridity, of law and policy in the course of their operativity. This illustrates how religious heritage can refer to the widest range of religious expressions in various contexts, depending on how each group or community views the sacred.

Actually, “sacred sites are attracting growing attention from scholars, policymakers and local communities, who see them more and more as a common heritage” (Tamma and Sartori 2017, p. 557). It therefore follows that maintaining its authenticity and integrity is imperative. It is undeniable that management techniques and strategies that are up to the demands of sustainable development and the new global challenges are needed for the protection and preservation of religious spaces. Due to this, Michele Tama and Rita Sartori draw a line under which the ICH safeguarding regime’s safeguarding approach should be applied to the preservation of religious spaces (Tamma and Sartori 2017, p. 558). According to them, this approach “can help to preserve the integrity of the place, and avoid conflicts and inappropriate behaviours” (Griffiths 2011).

In Brazil, the recognition of African-derived heritage demonstrates the complex relationship between cultural identity, institutional politics, and legal protection for sacred spaces. Indeed, despite the official recognition of terreiros as cultural heritage, there is still an observable inequality in this process, often favouring traditions that align with national narratives. At the same time, it represents a significant step toward correcting historical injustices in cultural heritage protection policies, as well as defending sacred lands (Gonçalves da Silva et al. 2024).

Given this, safeguarding ICH linked to religious heritage can be a very useful tool for preserving the related religious sites, as it is based on an understanding of the aforementioned connection between tangible and intangible cultural heritage25. The protection of ICH might be seen as a “resource” for safeguarding religious spaces and ensuring sustainable development dynamics for these spaces, as well as for the ICH surrounded by it, even though it has not been thoroughly investigated yet. This is because heritage can be a driver and enabler of all the SDGs (ICOMOS 2021; see also Niglio 2022), being more evident when it comes to contexts involving religious minorities or minorities in the most diverse spaces26. It stands for the potential to give the relationship between religious spaces and cultural heritage new meanings on a variety of levels.

In this sense, we can mention at least three points in which the strategy of patrimonialisation of ICH related to religions of African origin in Brazil can generate for the communities involved.

The first of these refers to the possibility of activating legal mechanisms relating to ICH protection, enshrined in the 2003 UNESCO Convention and in Brazilian domestic legislation, especially with regard to “safeguarding measures”. The Brazilian legal system states that any inscription of an element on a list or inventory must be preceded by the drawing up of a safeguarding plan, which describes the detailed actions to be taken by the public authorities, with the involvement of the community concerned. Among the safeguarding measures, the restoration and preservation of religious spaces associated with intangible cultural practices can be a valuable tool for promoting them, especially for religious minorities such as candomblé and umbanda in Brazil. In addition, patrimonialisation can facilitate access to public resources for the maintenance and promotion of terreiros and their associated practices, as well as creating possibilities for local development through cultural and religious tourism.

The second concerns the fight against prejudice and intolerance. The recognition of the religious heritage of African origin as a constituent element of Brazil’s national heritage provides a symbolic effect, given the context of marginalisation that these traditions have historically been subjected to and continue to be subjected to, especially due to the growth of a type of evangelical Christian “fundamentalism” in Brazil (Burckhart 2021). This latter phenomenon has led to a series of physical and symbolic attacks on religious spaces of African origin, such as invasions, destruction of terreiros, and attacks on practitioners (Mendes de Miranda et al. 2022). In this context, the patrimonialisation of the ICH of these religions acts as an important counterpoint by publicly affirming the cultural, historical, and social value of these religious traditions.

The third relates to property speculation, especially in urban areas. The recognition of the intangible elements of religions of African origin in Brazil stands as a counterpoint to the process of de-characterisation and expulsion of traditional communities from their historic territories (Silva Santos 2019). Property speculation, often driven by economic interests, results in an increase in the cost of maintaining sacred spaces, often leading to the forced removal or unfeasibility of terreiros in urban areas. In this sense, the patrimonialisation of the intangible elements of religions of African origin acts as a legal and cultural barrier against expropriation. By recognising the terreiros and their rituals as assets of public and cultural interest, the state assumes responsibility for guaranteeing their preservation, protecting them from interventions that compromise their existence.

This recognition, however, does not occur without tensions. In the case of Candomblé, for instance, there is a noticeable tendency to emphasise references associated with the Ketu lineage (Parés 2013). This bias is evident, on the one hand, in the widespread use of the term “orixás” in everyday language and, on the other, in heritage policies, as the most prominent processes of designation and official recognition tend to favour this specific tradition27. As a result, other lineages, such as those of Jeje and Angola origin, receive less visibility and official protection, revealing both a hierarchy within Afro-Brazilian traditions and the influence of institutional preferences for manifestations that are more widely accepted in the national context (Góis Dantas 2009). This scenario presents additional challenges for communities whose practices do not conform to this dominant pattern, making it more difficult for them to gain recognition and legal safeguarding.

In this regard, the complementarity that the protection of intangible heritage can generate in the protection of religious spaces of minority religions is clear—a complementarity between tangible and intangible cultural heritage. A number of challenges remain, such as insufficient financial and human resources to implement safeguarding measures in a broad and effective way, as well as resistance from sectors of society that do not recognise the importance of this heritage, often linked to racial and religious prejudices. However, patrimonialisation represents a promising legal and cultural strategy, capable of combining symbolic appreciation and practical protection of these spaces. By reinforcing the role of religions of African origin in the composition of Brazil’s cultural heritage, these initiatives contribute to mitigating historical inequalities, promoting respect for diversity, and guaranteeing the right of religious communities to preserve their traditions and sacred territories. Thus, the integration of public policies, educational actions, and legal instruments appears to be a viable way of protecting these spaces in the face of contemporary challenges.

4. Final Considerations

The protection of intangible cultural heritage is particularly important when it comes to minority religious expressions in Brazil, such as religions of African origin. The case of these religions offers an opportunity to analyse the application of ICH-related legal instruments, with the aim of revitalising them, while at the same time seeking to guarantee the sustainability of associated religious spaces, such as candomblé and umbanda terreiros, especially through safeguarding measures. The implementation of these instruments can also enable public policies involving financial, technical, and educational support, allowing minority religious communities to become protagonists in preserving their heritage and passing on their values and practices to future generations.

In this context, the preservation of intangible cultural elements, such as rituals, practices, and crafts of religions of African origin goes beyond simple formal recognition, acting as a mechanism for strengthening identity and cultural resistance. Protecting these elements not only guarantees the continuity of cultural practices but also combats religious intolerance and social marginalisation, promoting respect for diversity within public policies. This process challenges the concept of “authorised heritage discourse”, which has prevailed in Brazilian heritage policies and is still trying to impose itself, broadening the definition of what constitutes heritage and its inclusion in the debate.

Although ICH protection faces a number of challenges, such as economic and political–institutional conditions, abrupt changes in government, and resistance from part of the population, it is clear that the protection of intangible cultural heritage is established as a fundamental legal strategy in the current scenario of heritage policies. This approach reinforces the thesis presented in the introduction to this work, demonstrating that it is an effective instrument for promoting cultural diversity, defending the rights of traditional communities, and mitigating historical inequalities, contributing to the construction of a more inclusive and plural social environment.

Therefore, the protection of ICH should not be seen as an isolated measure, but as part of a set of intersectoral actions that dialogue with issues such as education, sustainability, and social inclusion. This approach reinforces the role of intangible cultural heritage as a tool of resistance and empowerment for the communities that continue to enrich Brazil’s cultural diversity.