Antonios Vlassis, ULB-UQAM
Workshop Internacional, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 3-4 otober 2013
1.
Political building of the CDCE (1990-2005)
2.
The implementation of the CDCE (20062012).
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-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).

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.
2.
3.
4.
Organizational mechanism (International Network for Cultural
Policies, Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, Union
latine, etc.).
Societal mechanism (Coalitions for cultural diversity,
International Network for the cultural diversity)
Epistemic mechanism (Groupe franco-quebecois sur la diversité
culturelle).
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 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
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 landscapediversity 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 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.