Newsletter 22 – August 2002
Special edition: Draft Convention on Cultural Diversity
This month’s INCD newsletter is devoted to the Convention on
Cultural Diversity. Work on the proposed international treaty designed to
provide a permanent legal foundation for government measures that promote
cultural diversity has been proceeding on several fronts since its release in
March 2002. We want to report to you to stimulate further discussion of the
INCD’s own draft before the annual meeting in Cape Town October 11-13, 2002.
The INCD draft was widely circulated among the members and many significant
comments were received. Some were incorporated into the second draft that
was tabled in May 2002 with the Working Group of the International Network on
Cultural Policy (INCP), the parallel ministerial network, which has also
drafted terms of a possible instrument. An analysis of the INCP draft is
being prepared for the next issue of the newsletter. In the meantime, you
can see a copy (in English only) at www.incd.net
under Resources.
The INCP also received reports from special research teams on issues of
governance of the new instrument (should it be housed at UNESCO, the WTO or elsewhere?)
and the relation of development policy to it. We have included summaries
of these papers as well as an overview of other studies related to the
instrument.
We encourage INCD members to engage colleagues in discussions on the Convention
and its ramifications for your sector and community.
Contents:
The response to the INCD’s paper has been substantial and
substantive. While it is impossible to summarize the rich commentary
received from INCD members in a few lines in a newsletter, it is critical to
highlight some of the themes of the debate:
Scope of Government Authority
a) The Convention or Treaty will be an instrument through which sovereign
governments agree with each other to do and not to do certain things. In
its Lucerne Statement, the INCD said that each government should be free to
define culture and cultural diversity in a manner appropriate for its citizens.
b) Many argue the draft Convention provides an unhindered ability for
governments to act in the name of promoting cultural diversity and thus could
authorize acts that stifle diversity and creativity and which are of course
contrary to democratic principles.
c) The INCD draft does contain some specific limitations on government
authority, including respect for “the right of artists to freedom of
expression” and the need for government measures to be “reasonable” But
others insist these limitations are inadequate and would not guarantee that the
fundamental principles behind the initiative are respected.
d) Others propose that the Convention list measures that would be considered a
priori to be consistent with the terms of the Convention and another list of
measures that would be considered a priori to be inconsistent with the
Convention.
Positive Commitments
a) The INCD has stated it is concerned about promoting diversity within
nations, as well as between them. Some argue the draft Convention fails
to provide the necessary incentives or obligations in this respect.
b) Similarly, the INCD has stated in its Declarations support for measures that
promote a more balanced exchange between cultures. Some argue the draft
Convention does not contain substantive provisions that advance this objective.
c) Finally, there are similar concerns that the Convention does not establish
the necessary obligations and mechanisms to ensure the commitment “to preserve
the cultures and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples” is met
substantively.
Definitions
a) The INCD draft Convention does not define its terms, other than
implicitly. The INCP draft on the other hand contains a limited number of
definitions.
b) Some argue there should be definitions of “culture” and “cultural diversity”
since this would provide an objective test against which government measures
could be judged. The INCP draft attempts to define these terms.
Others argue it would be impossible to agree on these definitions. Still
others argue the lack of specificity is critical to ensuring there will be
enough countries prepared to commit to the terms to make the process viable.
c) There is a related debate around other definitions, including “artist,”
“artistic expression,” or “cultural industries.” There is considerable
concern about using any language such as “cultural goods or services,” since
that could prejudice aspects of the discussion about trade issues.
d) Part of this debate has been characterized as how broad or narrow should be
the scope of the Convention. Some note that the primary problem the
Convention is attempting to solve is the limitation on the right of governments
to support their cultural industries. Others insist the Convention must
be far more than that, if it is to attract the number of countries necessary to
permit its implementation, particularly in the light of likely opposition from
the United States.
Dispute Settlement
a) The Convention is designed to be enforceable, and countries would chose to
resolve disputes about cultural issues through its processes, rather than those
of the WTO or other trade agreements. Exactly how this can be
accomplished is not entirely certain, and the INCD draft presented a range of
options for discussion. Each of these options has strengths and
weaknesses, and there is yet no consensus around the best approach.
b) Some argue the draft Convention has not yet succeeded in this regard and
that none of the options guarantees that countries would adjudicate disputes
under its terms.
Governance Issues Related to an International Instrument on Cultural Diversity
The International Network on Cultural Policy’s (INCP)
Working Group on Cultural Diversity and Globalization has established a Special
Policy Research Team (SPRT) to examine the issue of governance of the
Convention on Cultural Diversity. The Swiss Federal Office of Culture, as
chair of this project, has undertaken the examination of the various options
for the implementation of the instrument, most notably the question of where to
house the treaty.
This initial paper is based on the three models of governance most commonly
presented: to pursue the instrument within the World Trade Organization, within
UNESCO, or to formulate it as a “stand-alone” agreement. It also
addresses the possibility that the instrument could become a “cultural shore”
from which a bridge could be built to the WTO, or that the instrument could be
“admitted” to the UNESCO system.
The primary dilemma is positioned as the balance between “normative power”, ensuring
that the legal, enforceable facets are as strong as possible and
“representativeness”, allowing for the greatest political weight.
The WTO is seen to be a difficult choice given its aggressively commercial
outlook and the fact the instrument, while having certain commercial
considerations, is designed from a cultural perspective. The WTO has
struggled with the relationship between its agreements and environmental
treaties that similarly go beyond narrow commercial considerations. While
UNESCO is weighted down with lengthy bureaucratic practices, it is seen as the
“benchmark agency best able to enhance the standing of the instrument.”
But UNESCO faces a significant timing problem as it would be impossible for it
finalize an instrument before the WTO is scheduled to complete its Qatar Round
of trade negotiations, even if the political will existed. UNESCO is
presently committed only to considering “the opportunity of an international
legal instrument.”
The SPRT examines the possibility of creating a stand-alone agreement.
This option has the attractive feature of speed, given its flexible and ad hoc
nature and would also ensure the content of the instrument would not be subject
to external pressure. However, this option necessitates the construction
of an environment for the instrument, an institutional framework would need to
be built to support the monitoring and dispute settlement processes.
The SPRT concludes that the ministerial network should continue to study these
issues. However, it also states that the impediments to utilizing either
the WTO or UNESCO in the short term, are “more significant than the obligation
to create a ‘structure’ and establish a ‘representativeness’ so that the
instrument can evolve as a stand-alone entity.” Thus, it points clearly
in the direction of developing the instrument initially within the INCP"
The South African government has established a Working Group on Developing Countries and Cultural Policy, in addition to the already existent groups: Cultural Diversity and Globalization, Cultural Heritage and Broadcasting in the Global Environment , organized within the International Network on Cultural Policy. This fourth working group intends to give greater voice to the needs of developing countries in the work of each of the three other working groups. It has prepared a frame for a larger study on the implications of the Convention on policy and culture in the developing world which is summarized below. This paper will provide the basis for a discussion on culture and developing countries during the 5th Ministerial meeting of the INCP, October 14-16, in Cape Town.
A consideration of the New International Instrument for
Cultural Diversity from a developing country’s perspective
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The paper takes as its point of departure the work of the International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP) and the progress made on the New International Instrument for Cultural Diversity (NIICD). It does this from the perspective of a developing country isolating both what the development priorities are as well as the status of cultural sectors in developing countries and how these interact. Having identified these it interrogates the instrument to assess the extent to which the instrument impedes or enhances the ability of developing countries to realise their cultural policy objectives. This assessment results in a listing of research questions as well as suggestions for amending the NIICD. It also highlights the critical issues for South Africa’s Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (DACST) to present to the INCP October Summit, entitled: ‘Cultural Diversity in Developing Countries: the challenges of globalization’.
Evaluation of the Legal Feasibility of an International
Instrument Governing Cultural Diversity
A further study was prepared jointly by the Groupe de travail franco-québécois
sur la diversité culturelle (Ivan Bernier and Hélène Ruiz
Fabri) - an executive summary of the paper is available in five languages.
Français :
http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/francais/bibliotheque/diversite_culturelle_synthese_fr.html
English :
http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/english/bibliotheque/diversite_culturelle_synthese_an.html
Español :
http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/espanol/bibliotheque/diversite_culturelle_synthese_es.html
Portugues :
http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/portugais/bibliotheque/diversite_culturelle_synthese_po.html
Deutsch :
http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/allemand/bibliotheque/diversite_culturelle_synthese_de.html
Fostering Cultural Diversity and
Development: Local, national and global strategies
The agenda with speakers is now available online www.incd.net/conference.html .
Register now as the deadline for early bird reduced registration fees is SEPTEMBER 1, 2002.
INCD affiliate member the International
Federation of Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies
recently launched two new information portals : “Publications from Arts
Councils” http://www.ifacca.org/en/organisation/page03a_bibliography.html
and “On-line bibliographies and databases for arts and cultural policy” http://www.ifacca.org/en/organisation/page03b_bibliography.html
.
The Coalition for
Cultural Diversity is organizing a special
seminar for Canadian professional associations on the instrument for cultural
diversity, September 17, 2002 in Toronto, Canada. For more information: coalition@cdc-ccd.org .
- If your organization is planning an event or has news to
announce, please send it to incd@ccarts.ca
for inclusion in the newsletter.
IX Summit of La Francophonie: Cultural Dialogue
October 18-20
Beirut, Lebanon
Call to entries : Europa
Nostra Awards 2002 and European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage
Both of these prizes award
excellence in the field of heritage conservation in Europe. The deadline for
entries is November 1, 2002 – for more information: www.europanostra.org and click on
“awards”.
Creative Clusters
The Creative Industries Summit
Conference
November 20-23, 2002
Sheffield UK
Cultural Traffic: Policy,
Culture and the New Technologies in the European Union and Canada
November 22-23, 2002
Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
For more information: rgould@ccs.carleton.ca ; Paul_Theberge@carleton.ca