Antonios Vlassis, ULB-UQAM Workshop Internacional, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 3-4 otober 2013

1. Political building of the CDCE ( ) 2. The implementation of the CDCE ( ). 3. Link between CDCE and digital landscape (current problem of the Convention, current challenge, required changes).

Parallel worlds: exception culturelle (trade negotiations) and cultural development (UNESCO).  Exception culturelle: Negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), negotiations on Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI-OECD, 1998), FTA US-Canada, NAFTA  Cultural development-UNESCO: World Conference on cultural policies (MONDIACULT) in 1982; World Decade for the cultural development ( ); Report “Our creative diversity” by the World Commission on Culture and development (1996); International Conference on cultural policies for the development in Stockholm (1998); Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001).

 The diversity of cultural expressions is built both on the overrun of cultural exception from the trade negotiations and on the creative diversity, conceptualized by UNESCO.  Four mechanisms for the CDCE building: 1. Organizational mechanism (International Network for Cultural Policies, Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, Union latine, etc.). 2. Societal mechanism (Coalitions for cultural diversity, International Network for the cultural diversity) 3. Epistemic mechanism (Groupe franco-quebecois sur la diversité culturelle). 4. Diplomatic mechanism (French, Canadian delegations within the UNESCO).

 International negotiations for the adoption of an instrument on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.  On the one hand, France, Canada, China, Spain, Germany and several members of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and of the International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP) were in favor of a binding and efficient convention for the regulation of cultural industries; on the other hand, the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand are very reluctant about the perspective of an international tool on cultural industries.  Trade-culture debate: A lot of countries are very skeptical about the adoption of a binding tool that favors the cultural expressions at the expense of the trade exchanges (Colombia, Israel, Turkey, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, India).  An intense debate took place about the mandatory or the voluntary contributions of Parties to the International Fund for Cultural Diversity.  The text of the CDCE is negotiated on a deliberately ambiguous consensus.  Article 20: the particularity of the CDCE.

 The implementation has two objectives: a. the exchange of information, good practices and expertise between the Parties to the Convention and b. the strengthening of the cultural development and the cultural cooperation.  Three reasons: a. the US strategy moving from multilateral to bilateral level; b. the CDCE, minor priority for Canada and France; c. New instigators of the implementation: Spain, China, Norway, Germany, UNESCO.

 The 4 th Conference of the CDCE “invites the Parties that so wish as well as civil society to report to the Secretariat on aspects of the development of digital technologies that have an impact on the Convention and proposals for future action for examination of the Committee during its seventh session”.  US strategy: Multilateralism à la carte, FTA with EU, Transpacific Economic Partnership, Plurilateral trade negotiations in the services (WTO).  Existence of an unequal exchange between the EU and the US. In 2010, the EU imports more than it exports, and it is still the most significant gateway for the audiovisual services from the US.  One of the major US priorities is now to include the non-linear audiovisual services in the agenda of trade negotiations.  It aims to prevent the implementation of regulatory measures in the new technologies, the Internet service providers, and the new audiovisual services which represent the future of the sector.  Mid-June 2013, 27 members of the EU agreed on the exclusion of audiovisual services from the mandate of European Commission for the negotiations with the US. There is no strong consensus within the EU regarding the cultural exception.

 Major identity problem of the CDCE, a great number of Parties suffer from confusion and misunderstanding about the scope and the objectives of the CDCE. Highlighting the original scope and the concrete meaning of the CDCE and emphasize its particular nature especially compared to other UNESCO normative tools, such as the Conventions dedicated to the tangible and intangible heritage.  Major challenge of the CDCE: The paramount issue is a more fair and balanced exchange of cultural expressions. Beyond the opposition “homogenization vs. hybridization”, the Convention should deal with two points: on the one hand, the domination of cultural products coming from few media conglomerates and on the other hand the ethnocentric structure of some cultural markets.

The principles of the Convention remain relevant for the digital era :  The Convention refers that « the rapid development of information and communication technologies represent a challenge for cultural diversity » (preamble, paragraph 19)  Article 12 « Promotion of international cooperation » (d) : The Parties shall promote the use of new technologies, encourage partnerships to enhance information sharing and cultural understanding, and foster the diversity of cultural expressions.  Article 4 : Cultural diversity is made manifest through diverse modes of artistic creation, production, dissemination, distribution and enjoyment, whatever the means and technologies used.

a. Article 4, paragraph 4: a special mention to the digital cultural services. b. Article 6, cultural policies and measures of parties. Special mention to new forms of digital quotas such as quotas for national cultural expressions, independent productions, audiovisual products from less developed countries (Véronique Guevremont); new taxes on the new players of the industry (Rapport Lescure-France). (Obstacle: domaine réservé of each State). Article 9: exchange of good practices about the link « digital landscape- diversity of cultural expressions ». c. Article 12 and 14, cultural cooperation and cultural development. Technical assistance and exchange of expertise for the deployment of infrastructure networks; support for the distribution of audiovisual products from developing countries in the digital landscape; the allocation of a share of the Fund resources for this purpose. (Obstacle: lack of financial resources and of willingness from developed countries)

d. Trade-culture debate: CDCE Parties should make sure that the cultural exclusion covers new sectors which may have an impact on cultural diversity and particularly those brought by information and communication technologies; promote discussions with other CDCE Parties regarding the way the CDCE should be applied to the “trade and culture debate”, particularly regarding the digital sector (Obstacle: very controversial stake) e. Article 21: Close cooperation of the UNESCO with other organizations and forums related to the digital landscape - WTO, International Organization of Telecommunication, World Intellectual Property Organization, United Nations Development Program. (Obstacle: budget crisis of UNESCO). f. The status of the artist in the digital landscape Expertise of UNESCO - Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist approved by the UNESCO in 1980; World Observatory for the Social Status of the Artist created in “The right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity”: Fifth thematic report published in June 2013, the Special Rapporteur on cultural rights of United Nations. The 4 th Conference of the CDCE deals with the condition of the artist. The rights of artists (and also from the audiovisual sector) in the digital era, the remuneration of the artists in the digital landscape, the access of artists to the digital technologies. Consensual stake, especially for the developed countries.