The Convention on Diversity
of Cultural Expressions in the
Digital Era
Antonios Vlassis, ULB-UQAM
Introduction
1.
Political building of the CDCE
(1990-2005)
2.
The implementation of the CDCE
(2006-2012).
3.
Link between CDCE and digital
landscape (current problem of the
Convention, current challenge,
1. Political construction of
the CDCE
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-1994.
Cultural development-UNESCO: World Conference on cultural
policies (MONDIACULT) in 1982; World Decade for the cultural
development (1988-1997); 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).
1. Political construction of
the CDCE
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
1. Political construction of
the CDCE
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.
2. Implementation 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.
2. Implementation of the
CDCE
The 4th 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
3. The CDCE, the digital landscape
and the audiovisual diversity.
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
3. The CDCE, the digital era
and the audiovisual diversity.
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.
3. The CDCE, the digital era
and the audiovisual diversity.
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)
3. The CDCE, the digital era
and the audiovisual diversity
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 1997.
“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 4th 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.
