Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08PARISFR2332
2008-12-29 12:12:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Mission UNESCO
Cable title:  

UNESCO CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION: INTERGOVERNMENTAL

Tags:  SCUL UNESCO USTR WIPO WTRO KIPR 
pdf how-to read a cable
UNCLASSIFIED   UNESCOPARI   12292332 
VZCZCXRO5968
RR RUEHAP RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHQU RUEHRN RUEHSK
DE RUEHFR #2332/01 3641212
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 291212Z DEC 08
FM UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 09 PARIS FR 002332 

SIPDIS

PLEASE PASS WHA/OAS: MKOPOLOW
GENEVA PASS USTR
USEU PASS USTR
PLEASE PASS EEP/TTP FOR CHENNIGER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO USTR WIPO WTRO KIPR
SUBJECT: UNESCO CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION: INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COMMITTEE DECISIONS MOVE CONVENTION ONE MAJOR STEP CLOSER TO FULL
IMPLEMENTATION, BUT DIFFICULT WORK STILL AHEAD

REF: PARIS FR 1342

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 09 PARIS FR 002332

SIPDIS

PLEASE PASS WHA/OAS: MKOPOLOW
GENEVA PASS USTR
USEU PASS USTR
PLEASE PASS EEP/TTP FOR CHENNIGER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO USTR WIPO WTRO KIPR
SUBJECT: UNESCO CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION: INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COMMITTEE DECISIONS MOVE CONVENTION ONE MAJOR STEP CLOSER TO FULL
IMPLEMENTATION, BUT DIFFICULT WORK STILL AHEAD

REF: PARIS FR 1342


1. Begin Summary. During its week-long second ordinary meeting,
the 24-member Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions ("the IGC" or
"the Committee") took decisive action on each of the items on its
agenda, although two items (preferential treatment and the Fund)
will require further work at the next session. One of the
Committee's most important actions at this session was its
consideration of six (6) experts' reports on the forms of
"preferential treatment" that "shall" be given to developing
countries by developed countries, according to Article 16 of the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions Convention. The Committee
determined, however, that it was not yet prepared to adopt
operational guidelines on the complex issue of preferential
treatment. It did adopt detailed operational guidelines to
implement Article 13 (Integration of culture in sustainable
development),Article 14 (Cooperation for development) of the
Convention, and Article 18 (the Use of Resources of the
International Fund for Cultural Diversity). Following a protracted
philosophical debate, the Committee decided not to adopt operational
guidelines to implement Article 12 (Promotion of international
cooperation),concluding that Article 12's terms were sufficiently
clear and needed no further elaboration. The Committee elected a
new Chairperson (St. Lucia) and new Bureau (Croatia, India,
Luxembourg, Oman and Senegal),and decided to schedule an
extraordinary meeting (23-25 March 2009) before the June 2009
Conference of Parties meeting where all preliminary draft
operational guidelines must be approved before they can become
operational.


2. Summary cont'd. The meeting was, for the most part, ably
chaired by the former Canadian Ambassador Gilbert Laurin. In terms
of the Committee's political dynamics, what stands out from the
debates thus far is an apparent growing North-South divide between

developing and developed (particularly European) countries,
especially when it comes to expectations for and approaches to
implementation of this Convention. This divide could further widen
when the Committee meets again in March 2009 where the politically
sensitive issue of preferential treatment will be taken up and
operational guidelines adopted on that subject. Moreover, at this
stage of the implementation process, India, Brazil, St. Lucia, and
South Africa have become a four-power axis that together routinely
wield disproportionate and often distorting influence over the
decisions of the Committee. They are increasingly using their
collective power on the Committee to exploit the Convention's vague
language to foster sometimes unintended interpretations of the
Convention to foster their self-interests. This unsettling pattern
of activity in the implementation of the Convention offers yet a
further reason, in addition to others that can be cited, why the
U.S. would be ill-advised to ever consider becoming a party to this
Convention as currently worded and interpreted by the preliminary
draft operational guidelines. End Summary.


3. The IGC met from December 8-12, 2008 at UNESCO HQ for its second
ordinary session. The U.S. was represented by an inter-agency
Observer Delegation that comprised: Ambassador Louise Oliver
(Delegation Head); Mission Legal Adviser T. Michael Peay; IO/UNESCO
officer Laura Gritz; US Trade Representative (USTR) attach Ken
Schagrin from the USTR Geneva Office; US Patent & Copyright Office
attorney Michael Shapiro; and WHA/OAS officer Melissa Kopolow. USTR
attorney Dan Mullaney (at USEU Brussels) was also an integral member
of the U.S. delegation who was prepared to travel to Paris, on short
notice, to ensure continuous USTR presence on our delegation.
Several members of the U.S. delegation will retain continuing
oversight responsibility to monitor implementation of this
Convention when it becomes fully operational, not long after the
change in the U.S. Administration. For this and other reasons, U.S.
Mission UNESCO Permanent Representative, Ambassador Louise V.
Oliver, considered it strategic to have an enhanced U.S. Observer
delegation at this important Committee session, the better to ensure
continued, close U.S. inter-agency coordination and joint oversight
of this instrument whose implementation has important implications
for U.S. multilateral, trade and other related interests.


4. Article 12's Draft Operational Guidelines. The meeting got off
to a bumpy start when a contentious philosophical debate arose over
the need for guidelines to implement Article 12 (Promotion of
International Cooperation). Complicating that debate was a
collateral disagreement over whether, in connection with that
Article, the Committee should also adopt a proposed set of guiding
"principles." This idea was favored by a number of developing
countries, but strongly opposed by most of the Committee's European
members, who considered the principles redundant to those already
contained in the Convention itself. India wanted to add yet a
further principle that in effect would have said that "the current

UNESCOPARI 12292332 002 OF 009


international financial crisis should not be used as grounds to
diminish international cooperation." The debate over whether to
adopt draft guidelines and draft principles under Article 12 was
protracted and at times sharply divisive pitting outspoken
developing countries like India, Mali, and Brazil against developed
countries like France, Germany, and Luxembourg. During the course
of the debate, Brazil accused France and other Northern countries of
wanting to use the Convention to foster continued trade
relationships that in practice tend to benefit the North 90 percent
of the time and the South only 10 percent. This insinuation was
sharply rebuffed by France, and this exchange set an early tone for
similar North-South tensions that played out in the discussions
during the course of the week.


5. After much back and forth, the Committee ultimately decided not
to adopt any operational guidelines on the promotion of
international cooperation because "Article 12 is self-sufficient."
But, at the closing session, India reminded the Committee that it
had nearly overlooked its decision to return to the issue of what to
do about the principles. (That decision had been made earlier in
the week to get around the gridlock this issue had caused so early
in the meeting.) India then accused the Secretariat of "bad faith"
for failing to remind the Committee of this fact. A vain attempt to
re-open discussion on the principles quickly led to renewed
North-South divisions on this issue. So, with no remaining time for
discussion at the closing session, the Committee decided to bracket
the draft principles and defer discussion of them to a follow-on
meeting where it would be finally decided whether they should be
retained or discarded. This exchange on the final day soured what
was supposed to have been a happy ending to the 5-day session and
instead offered an identical bookend for how the meeting had begun.


6. (Article 13's Draft Operational Guidelines (Culture for
sustainable development). Brazil put forward an extensive set of
amendments for these draft guidelines the debate over which consumed
a considerable part of two sessions. Some Committee members were
sympathetic to the socio-political goals behind a number of Brazil's
proposed amendments, but saw them as going far beyond the scope of
Article 13. Brazil mentioned emphatically a recent OAS ministerial
meeting at which OAS Member States agreed to "reinforce cultural
industries in developing countries" and urged OAS Member States to
carry that message into these UNESCO deliberations. Luxembourg said
that Brazil's suggestions were too broad for operational guidelines,
and India said they didn't fit into the subject matter of Article

13. Moreover, Brazil's relentless attempts to include
education-related concepts into these operational guidelines were
also thwarted when Germany said that education in sustainable
development belonged in UNESCO's Education Sector, not in this
Convention. It was only after Brazil finally realized it had no
support that it decided to withdraw its proposed amendments. The
Committee then proceeded, without too much further ado, to adopt a
set of detailed draft operational guidelines on the integration of
culture into sustainable development under Article 13. Among the
salient points which the guidelines cover include provisions calling
upon States Parties: to realize the full potential and contribution
of cultural industries to sustainable development; to recognize the
needs of women, of various social groups (including minorities and
indigenous peoples),and of disadvantaged areas; and to facilitate
the elaboration of statistical indicators, the exchange of
information, and the dissemination and sharing of best practices.
These preliminary draft operational guidelines will be recommended
to the Conference of Parties to the Convention for consideration and
final adoption when the Conference meets in June 2009.


7. Article 14's Draft Operational Guidelines (Cooperation for
Development). Several aspects of these draft guidelines became
sources of notable tension between the countries of the South and
the North on the Committee. For example, Northern/developed
countries came under heavy pressure over their denials of temporary
entry visas for artists coming from the South. This, it was said,
hinders the international mobility of such artists and thus their
ability to promote the diversity of cultural exchanges. Many
Committee members from the South asserted that meaningful
implementation of this Article should entail the "right" to
unlimited access and mobility of artists and should include special,
flexible visa regimes to that effect. There was an interesting, but
inconclusive, verbal tug of war between the Ambassadors of India and
France over how to address the issue of visas for artists from
developing countries. In an effort towards compromise, the draft
guidelines were amended to include a clause that calls for measures
to facilitate "the mobility of artists and other cultural
professionals and practitioners from developing countries and their
entry into the territory of developed and developing countries
through, inter alia, consideration of flexible short-term visa
regimes in both developed and developing countries to facilitate
such exchanges." The guidelines agreed to also call for

UNESCOPARI 12292332 003 OF 009


"institutional, regulatory, legal, and financial incentives" to
support distribution/dissemination of cultural activities, goods,
and services.


8. China successfully urged the inclusion of a provision in the
guidelines that calls on developed countries to supply "fair and
favorable conditions for technology transfer to developing
countries." In a similar vein, the Article 14 guidelines also
contemplate several other highly ambitious measures including, among
other things, "joint development of technology for the benefit of
developing countries," and "tax benefits" for "micro, small- and
medium- sized enterprises, cultural industries, artists,
professionals, practitioners of the cultural sectors." Notably,
with these kinds of amendments now contained in the Article 14
operational guidelines, they have indirectly become another category
of preferential treatment measures for developing countries. The
crucial difference is that the guidelines for Article 16 make
"preferential treatment" for developing countries mandatory, for
certain specified purposes, while Article 14 encourages a broader
scope of such treatment on a discretionary basis. The guidelines
for Article 14 will also be submitted to the Conference of Parties
for consideration and final adoption in March 2009.


9. Article 18's Draft Operational Guidelines (International Fund
for Cultural Diversity). The debate concerning these guidelines
produced several interesting sources of tension during the debate.
One source of tension was between those who wanted the guidelines to
ensure preferential access to the Fund for the neediest, i.e., the
"least developed countries," versus applicants to the Fund who come
from countries considered as "developing" but that have attained
comparatively higher levels of development (e.g., India, Brazil, and
China). Towards that end, Mali tried, but failed, to get in
language that would have required consideration of "the multiplicity
and development status of beneficiaries." The European states
generally supported making such a distinction, in order to favor the
neediest countries. However, India, in a bold move, motivated no
doubt by self-interest, succeeded in blurring such distinctions
among developing countries in as many places as it could in the body
of the guidelines. (Comment: This issue of making a distinction in
the "developing" status of different countries will probably remain
a tender spot and possibly come back to haunt the implementation
process downstream when competing requests for funding begin
streaming into the Fund from both developing and least developed
countries)End Comment.


10. A second source of tension that arose under Article 18 was
whether "official development assistance" (ODA) from European and
other northern countries could be donated to, and used as part of,
the Fund, consistent with provisions applicable to the Fund. That
issue opened a complicated and somewhat inconclusive debate over
whether the ODA in question would be offered without conditions, or
whether it would be "tied or earmarked." That in turn led to
discussion of what is meant by "tied or earmarked." Countries like
Brazil and St. Lucia asserted that funds offered with conditionality
and restrictions are not permitted under UNESCO's rules applicable
to "special accounts," nor by Article 18(6) of the Convention (which
provides "No political, economic or other conditions that are
incompatible with the objectives of this Convention may be attached
to contributions made to the Fund.") Curiously, when France and
other Europeans expressed their support for distinguishing between
developing and least developing countries so as to favor the latter,
they were accused by Brazil of seeking to use their ODA to "tie"
European financial assistance simply to conform to EU regulations
and norms for such prioritized assistance. UNESCO's Legal Adviser's
Office was asked to opine on the legality of using ODA funds in
connection with the Cultural Diversity Fund. He began by noting
that the issue was "a bit delicate" but ultimately concluded that
each ODA contribution would need to be assessed by the Committee in
the light of Article 18(6) of the Convention and the specific facts
relating to each particular contribution.


11. A prospective third source of tension that could later arise
under Article 18 is "the examination of possible alternatives for
fundraising for the Fund, including innovative financial
mechanisms." This very issue has already been inscribed on the
agenda for the second extraordinary meeting of the IGC in March
2009, at the insistence of Brazil and Jamaica. It is likely to
become a basis for Brazil to renew (for the third time in this
Committee) its proposal to impose a tax on foreign blockbuster films
(read: U.S. films) that are screened in developing countries. Using
such a tax as an innovative means to raise money for the Fund would,
if adopted, almost certainly pit certain developed countries against
some developing countries, and immediately raise trade concerns. To
date, however, the Committee has not shown much interest in this
idea, but time will tell if opinions have evolved. The preliminary
draft guidelines for Article 18 agreed to by the Committee at this

UNESCOPARI 12292332 004 OF 009


session are detailed and fairly extensive. They cover such fields
as: objectives of the Fund; activities for which the Fund can be
used; the intended beneficiaries; and procedures for submitting and
approving requests. The Secretariat noted that the Fund currently
has deposits totaling USD 950,000.00 (plus another USD 50,000.00
that Belgium has promised for 2009). The secretariat also announced
that, in conjunction with its aim to develop a fund-raising
strategy, it will host a seminar near the end of January/beginning
of February 2009 on ways to increase contributions to the Cultural
Diversity Fund, targeting potential private sector donors.


12. Preferential Treatment (Article 16). The process of actually
drafting operational guidelines to implement the preferential
treatment provisions of Article 16 of the Convention has not yet
begun. In deference to the technical complexity this issue, the IGC
devoted one of its morning sessions to reviewing the written reports
presented by a panel of six (6) experts. To assist Committee and
the secretariat to prepare draft guidelines for review at the next
meeting, two experts (who served as "Coordinators") attended the
Committee meeting and provided a power point review of the key
findings in the six experts' reports. They also freely engaged the
Committee in a question and answer session. The format for this
encounter between Member States and experts (incidentally) served as
an excellent (if far too rare) example of how UNESCO can provide
Member States with a constructive forum for meaningful, two-way
exchanges of views with outside experts. Not only did the
Coordinators offer first-rate summaries and oral presentations of
their personal views on several key issues relating to preferential
treatment. They also openly and constructively debated between
themselves points on which they disagreed. The overall encounter
served both to enlighten Member States and to underscore for all
concerned the inherent complexity of the preferential treatment
issue - even for experts in this field. One Coordinator (Professor
Vera Thorstensen, from Brazil) distributed a very helpful three-page
summary document entitled "Reports on Article 16: Overview", which
she prepared that lists the key conclusions on which nearly all
experts agreed. The full text of that document can be found at
paragraph 23 below. Among the most important of its conclusions are
the following:

-- the concept of preferential treatment within the meaning of
Article 16 must be interpreted in the light of other relevant
provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 14 on
cooperation for development.

-- the concept of preferential treatment is wider than a narrow
trade understanding and must draw on "cultural cooperation
mechanisms" that go beyond just trade.

-- preferential treatment can be made conditional upon respect for
the Convention's guiding principles, e.g., Article 2 (respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms, etc.)

-- existing WTO and other international legal frameworks should be
used creatively, where feasible, to achieve the goals of
preferential treatment, for purposes of the Convention.


13. During the afternoon of Thursday, December 11, the Committee
met (without the experts present) and discussed at length the
experts' reports and the interchange with the experts from earlier
that day. A number of Committee members also offered for the record
their respective country views on issues related to preferential
treatment. Once again, divergent perspectives between the North and
the South became quickly apparent. An important example of
divergence relates to the issue of who should benefit from
preferential treatment, and what criteria should be used to
determine eligibility.


14. The issue of granting temporary visas to artists and other
cultural professionals, and instituting new legal regimes to
"guarantee" the issuance of such visas, came up again (as it did
under Article 14) in the context of preferential treatment and will
likely continue to loom as a major issue. Nearly all Committee
members from the South strongly favor flexible visa regimes.
Discussion of preferential treatment under Article 16 was often
conflated with the terms of Article 20 (the relationship of the
Convention with other instruments),including the issue of whether
the Article 16 guidelines should specifically take into account the
content of Article 20. (St. Lucia, for instance, said that the
Article 16 guidelines should be drawn up entirely at UNESCO with no
input from the WTO in Geneva; South Africa stated that Article 16 is
a lever that should be used to counter other multilateral
organizations such as the WTO; India acknowledged the synergy
between Articles 16 and Article 20, while noting that those articles
clearly implicate WTO and WIPO, demonstrate the complexity of this
Convention, and indicate why this Convention should not infringe

UNESCOPARI 12292332 005 OF 009


upon other legal regimes; the European Commission (speaking for all
EU Member States, invoking its competence on trade matters) opposed
making any mention of Articles 20 or 21 in the Article 16
guidelines); Brazil proposed organizing a UNESCO-WTO seminar on the
issue of preferential treatment, though most Committee members
thought this idea premature. Interestingly, many Committee members
were (or seemed) insufficiently aware of the Convention's
implications on the international trade regime. This melange of
views will need to be reconciled in the Committee's subsequent
sessions.


15. In the United States delegation's only intervention on a
substantive issue as an Observer State, USTR representative Ken
Schagrin read a cleared statement that offered U.S. views, for the
record, on the issue of preferential treatment. The full text of
that statement can be found at paragraph 22 below.


16. The Bureau for the Committee decided that it would be prudent
to give IGC members, and their governments, additional time to
reflect further on the issue of preferential treatment and what the
content of draft guidelines on this issue should be. To assist that
process, it was decided that the secretariat would prepare a short
"Questionnaire" on this issue to be sent out immediately to IGC
members and to other States Parties to the Convention. When the
chairman then approved a request to allow select representatives
from civil society to also reply to the questionnaire, U.S.
Ambassador Oliver intervened to ask whether Member States of UNESCO
that are not parties to the Convention would also be allowed to
offer comments in response to the questionnaire, India (more
delicately) and St. Lucia more sharply intervened to oppose any
involvement by such non-States Parties in the questionnaire process.
St. Lucia added tartly "If you want to be heard on this, then join
the Convention." No other delegation spoke up on the question and
the Chairman ruled against the U.S. request. The U.S. then
immediately intervened one time further to explain (for the record)
that our request had been based in part on the fact that all UNESCO
Member States, through their assessed contributions, are helping to
fund the secretariat staff costs to implement this Convention, and
thus should have an opportunity to be heard on these issues as well.
The following day, the representative from Belgium stated that his
country was not yet a party to the Convention but was actively
progressing through its internal political steps towards
ratification of the Convention. Belgium noted that it had already
given USD 50,000.00 to the Cultural Diversity Fund for 2008 and
would give a similar amount in 2009. It then asked to be allowed to
offer comments on the questionnaire. The chairman politely declined
Belgium's request, explaining that the preceding day the Committee
had turned down a similar request from another State non-party to
the Convention (the U.S.) and therefore the issue was closed.


17. In wrapping up its discussion on Preferential Treatment, the
Committee adopted a decision that: took note of the debate that
occurred on that subject; underlined the importance of early
implementation of preferential treatment for developing countries;
authorized the preferential treatment questionnaire to be sent out,
with responses due before 31 January 2009; and requested the
secretariat to present to the IGC at its next session "preliminary
draft Operational Guidelines on Article 16" taking into account the
replies received to the questionnaire. It is worth noting that in
the six experts' reports on preferential treatment, and in the
Committee's discussions during the week, there were a surprising
number of references to the protection of intellectual property
rights (IPR) and traditional knowledge (TK),including folklore.
(Comment: During negotiation of the Convention, the U.S. strongly
urged that a substantive provision be included affirming the
positive role that IPR could play in fostering cultural diversity
and diminishing the damaging effects of piracy on local creative and
cultural industries, especially in developing countries. U.S.
views, however, were largely ignored and yielded only a single, weak
reference to IPR protection in the Convention's preamble. It is now
interesting to see that experts from three countries that helped to
squelch U.S. views on IPR during the negotiations (India, South
Africa, and Barbados) have come around to validating U.S. views
about the value of IPR protections. The rising focus on IPR and TK
within the Committee's deliberations is further indication of a need
for ongoing close monitoring of these issues in order to ensure the
Convention is implemented in a manner not inconsistent with U.S. IPR
interests and in a manner that complements rather than conflicts
with ongoing work at WIPO on these issues. End Comment).


18. Proposed Agenda Items for Committee's Extraordinary Session
(23-25 March 2009). The debate centered largely on the need to
ensure that Article 16 remains the primary focus at the Committee's
extraordinary session and that adequate time is set aside to review
and approve draft guidelines for preferential treatment under
Article 16. Brazil stressed the need also to devote serious time at

UNESCOPARI 12292332 006.2 OF 009


that session to discussing alternative forms of funding the Fund,
"including through innovative means." Views on "innovative means"
diverged, again along North-South lines, with the German Ambassador
saying that "innovative" ideas for funding the Fund fall within the
prerogative of Finance Ministers, not this Committee.


19. Election of New Committee Officers. Brazil moved the
nomination of St. Lucia (Mrs. Vera Lacoeuilhe) to become the new
chairperson (replacing former Canadian Ambassador to UNESCO Gilbert
Laurin),and this motion was quickly adopted by acclamation. Mr.
Mouhamed Konat from Senegal was elected Rapporteur, and Croatia,
India, Luxembourg and Oman were elected Vice-Chairperson of the
Committee. In order to secure India's re-election to the Committee
in conformity with the Committee's rules, however, the Committee had
to suspend "exceptionally for this election the application of
Article 12.1 of its Provisional Rules of Procedure providing for
non-immediate re-eligibility of the members of the Committee." This
was done at the recommendation of UNESCO's legal adviser without
controversy in order to ensure that the Asian-Pacific region has
fair geographical representation on the Bureau.


20. Other Business. Two complaints of a procedural nature came up
and were briefly discussed under the rubric of "Other Business."
The first complaint was from the in-coming chairperson (St. Lucia),
who observed that of the 94 States Parties to the Convention only
about a dozen States thus far had made regular, or any,
contributions to the International Fund for Cultural Diversity
established by Article 18 of the Convention. St. Lucia issued an
appeal for more regular, voluntary contributions and said this needs
to be taken up at the next (March 2009) meeting. The second
complaint came from two sources, Tunisia and India. Tunisia,
speaking on behalf of itself and Oman, used this occasion to chide
the Secretariat once again (as Tunisia had done earlier in the week)
for having shown religious and cultural insensitivity in scheduling
the Committee's meetings during a week that coincided with one of
the most important Muslim holidays (Eid al-Adha, December 8 and 9).
India leapt in to voice a similar and more generalized complaint
about poor scheduling of UNESCO meetings by the Secretariat; about
the latter's need to show greater sensitivity toward all religious
holidays in scheduling meetings; and about the failure to schedule a
pause in this Committee meeting in order to allow members to
participate briefly in the Director General's special program on
December 10 that commemorated the sixtieth anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These complaints (all valid)
added further to the dark mood in the room during the closing
session of the meeting.


21. Begin Comment. North-South geo-political cracks have clearly
begun to emerge within the group of States Parties that had
previously represented an unbreakable solidarity front on the issue
of cultural diversity. There are reasons to believe that this
divisive pattern will continue and perhaps lead to either gridlock
or a glacial pace in the implementation of this Convention. The
March 2009 extraordinary meeting could therefore become a kind of
fork in the road for the Committee. For instance, how it deals with
the "preferential treatment" guidelines may become a key indicator
of the direction in which this Committee is headed. A second
important indicator of the Convention's prospective success or
failure could well be how the Committee disburses money from the
Fund, and its political ramifications. The pattern of frequent
Committee meetings that have occurred since December 2007, including
the extraordinary session set for March 2009, represents a growing
drain on the Culture Sector's limited budget for hosting all UNESCO
convention meetings. If continued, it is likely to become an
on-going disproportionate claim upon those budgetary resources.


22. Comment cont'd. The Committee's new Bureau of member states (as
well as the individual personalities on it) will also play a key
role in how effective this body will be in achieving its ambitious
goals. Most states on the new Bureau are comparatively weak, which
will ensure that India and St. Lucia will have little difficulty
exerting disproportionate influence on key issues. Together,
India, St. Lucia, Brazil and South Africa will likely continue
collaborating closely and be determinative voices in guiding the
Committee's work. The Europeans on the Committee (including, at
times, the voice of the European Commission) as well as Canada, will
probably (and some would say, deservingly) face formidable
challenges ahead, as they try to walk the difficult line between
blunting the extremist impulses of developing countries on the
Committee, while trying to show continued solidarity with those very
countries on the cultural diversity issue. It appears that the
North-South coalition of expediency that engineered adoption of the
Convention in 2005 is starting to fray, at least at this stage of
the implementation process. In this vein, a prominent member of the
Brazilian delegation, in a moment of discreet candor, told a U.S.
delegation member that one reason why he personally regrets the U.S.

UNESCOPARI 12292332 007 OF 009


is not inside the Convention framework is because he does not trust
the Europeans and finds them to be Janus-faced about this
Convention.


23. Comment cont'd. U.S. delegation members noted, with
disappointment, that a number of delegations openly or privately
expressed hope that the new U.S. Administration would do an
"about-face" on this Convention and make them all happy. When
appropriate opportunities were presented, U.S. delegation members
cast serious doubt on this ill-founded assumption, adding of course
that they could not speak for the new Administration. For this and
other reasons, it is important that the U.S. continue closely
monitoring the implementation of this Convention through our
inter-agency observation delegation. Sustained U.S. oversight will
help ensure that the new Administration is kept well informed about
the determined joint efforts of the Committee and UNESCO's
secretariat to use this Convention offensively as a way to give
greater international prominence to the potent issue of culture.
Sustained oversight of all Convention-related meetings will also
ensure that all relevant sectors of the U.S. Government remain
mindful of the continuing dangers and challenges that this flawed
Convention and its implementation can pose to important U.S. foreign
relations, trade, and other related interests . End Comment.


24. Text of U.S. Statement on Preferential Treatment:

BEGIN TEXT

Draft Statement for the Record of the United States of America on
the Issue of Preferential Treatment (Article 16 of the UNESCO
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions)

As the United States is not a party to the Convention, we have
listened with interest to the Committee's deliberations, but have
refrained, as an Observer State, from making formal comments.
However, we would like to take advantage of this opportunity to
commend the efforts made by the Experts in their reports to provide
constructive perspectives on Article 16. The United States
recognizes that expanding the interpretation to include most forms
of capacity building provides a more robust - and probably more
effective - set of implementation options than a narrower focus on
preferential market access in a strictly trade-related sense.

From the beginning, we have always noted, as one of our several
concerns, that the path of this Convention not collide with trade
agreements, and that if anything this Convention and trade and
intellectual property rights agreements should work as complementary
instruments to advance cultural diversity. Trade plays a critical
role in expanding access for cultural goods and services,
particularly for developing countries.

Indeed, where governments choose to restrict access to cultural
goods and services, the Convention's stated objective of promoting
cultural diversity is not served. Certainly preferential treatment
can facilitate cultural exchanges and foster greater cultural
understanding, cooperation and development. And, so too can an open
trade environment that allows for the free flow of cultural goods
and services to complement the free flow of ideas called for in
UNESCO's Constitution. Indeed, the principles embedded in trade
agreements - opportunity, predictability, fairness - are essential
to expanding cultural industries and diversity - and are something
that can enrich us all.

Therefore, preferential treatment based on merit or economic need
can comfortably co-exist with trade agreements, and they should be
considered as mutually enhancing complements to each other rather
than mutually exclusive.

So in conclusion, we would urge Parties drafting operational
guidelines, as well as when preparing answers to the Committee's
questionnaire, for this Article to bear in mind that, for the United
States, this Convention must remain complementary to and fully
compatible with current as well as future trade obligations that are
shared by countries of the both the North and South.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for this
opportunity to speak, and we ask that this statement be included in
the records of this meeting.

- As submitted to the Convention's Intergovernmental Committee on
December 11, 2008. END TEXT.


25. Text of Summary of Experts' Reports on Article 16: Overview:

BEGIN TEXT
Reports on Article 16: Overview

UNESCOPARI 12292332 008 OF 009



Section B (The Concept of Preferential Treatment)
- All experts have endorsed the view that the concept of
preferential treatment within the meaning of Article 16 of the
Convention must be interpreted in the light of other relevant
provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 14 on
cooperation for development.

- All experts have argued that the concept of preferential treatment
under Article 16 is wider than a narrow trade understanding. Aimed
at facilitating cultural exchanges between developed and developing
countries, preferential treatment must not be construed in mere
trade terms but rather build on partnership and cooperation.

- All experts agreed that preferential treatment can be provided
through a variety of means and methods. Trade instruments are
obviously one option. However, preferential treatment, as understood
from the Convention's perspective, must also draw on cultural
cooperation mechanisms. The latter could involve:

- funding agreements and exchange arrangements,

- sharing of resources and experience on best practices,

- technical capacity building and transfer of technology,

- specific fiscal incentives,

- visa facilitation arrangements,

- education and training,

- joint production and diffusion of cultural expressions,

- joint investment, etc.

- The experts of Tunisia, South Africa, India and Brazil have also
discussed some common concepts developed in the field of trade with
a view to avoiding circumvention of preferential treatment.
Positions have varied, representing a rich source for the IGC's
debate.

- With regard to the eligibility of developing countries to benefit
from preferential treatment in the field of culture, some authors
have taken the position that a distinction among developing
countries that are at different stages of development could
undermine attainment of the Convention's objectives. Others have
argued that existing classification criteria based on economic
indicators or a country's self-declaration could be used, coupled
with additional cultural policy-related considerations.

- As regards reciprocity, namely the granting of reciprocal
preferences, most experts have advocated that non-reciprocity is
congruent with the objective of supporting the emergence of viable
cultural industries in developing countries and correcting
imbalances in cultural exchanges

- Experts have also agreed that preferential treatment can be
conditional upon respect for the guiding principles of the
Convention (Article 2)

- Regarding graduation, that is the phasing out of preferences as
the beneficiary countries reach a certain level of development,
whilst some experts have argued against graduation, noting amongst
others the difficulty in determining objective and transparent
criteria in this respect, others suggested considering graduation on
a case-by-case basis.

- Finally, in relation to rules of origin and their relevance for
the provision of preferential treatment in the field of culture,
some experts took the view that there can be no alternative to
preventing circumvention of the mechanism of preferential treatment.
For others, rules of origin are not suitable when preferential
treatment is granted to cultural expressions which are not locally
specific.
Section C (The legal and institutional framework concerning
preferential treatment granted by/to the country/group of countries
under study)
- All experts have investigated the structures put in place for the
provision of preferential treatment by/to the country/group of
countries under study, as well as the scope, extent and nature of
the preferences granted.
- On the basis of the information provided, a broad distinction
between donors and beneficiaries of preferential treatment may be
drawn. Tunisia and the ACP countries enjoy preferential treatment in
the field of culture, including by the EU. India and Brazil are

UNESCOPARI 12292332 009 OF 009


principally portrayed as donors of preferential treatment towards
developing and least developing countries. The evidence provided in
relation to South Africa revealed that preferential treatment for
culture is not a central feature of the agreements concluded.
Section D (Analysis of existing agreements and preferential
treatment mechanisms)
- The experts' reports attested to the variety of the preferential
treatment mechanisms used or needed in the cultural field and
revealed how different policy spaces can be used in order to
facilitate cultural exchanges between developed and developing
countries.
- The Tunisian case study was based on the EU- Tunisian association
agreement and the bilateral French-Tunisian cultural cooperation
agreement. The EU and the Caribbean reports discussed the Economic
Partnership Agreement (EPA),signed between the EU and Cariforum on
15 October 2008. The Brazilian case study examined preferential
treatment for the audiovisual sector mainly on the basis of various
bilateral and regional co-production agreements with developed and
developing countries. The Indian case study focused on the
audiovisual sector and yoga, investigating the need for the
provision of preferential treatment in their regard. The South
African report confirmed that preferential treatment for culture is
not readily inscribed in the country's bilateral, regional and
multilateral agreements and explored the need for preferences for
most South African cultural sectors.

Section E (Conclusions and recommendations)

- Many of the recommendations formulated by the experts display
similarities, suggesting a certain level of convergence.

- The effective implementation of Article 16 requires the
exploration or both trade and non-trade instruments.

- Preferential treatment is facilitated when it links partners which
formulate and implement policies conducive to the promotion of
cultural activity.

- Coherence must be ensured between preferential treatment and other
development cooperation instruments for preferential treatment to
have a lasting impact on cultural exchanges between developed and
developing countries. Development cooperation measures which target
the emergence and development of viable local cultural markets, as
well as the training of artists, cultural professionals and
practitioners on key competencies are particularly pertinent.

- Regional cooperation between developing countries and between
developed and developing countries is considered to be an asset for
preferential treatment.

- Civil society can make an important contribution to the
identification and clarification of the needs of developing
countries in the cultural sector.

- Most experts also agree that the formation of appropriate
institutions to manage and monitor preferential treatment schemes
should be given serious consideration. END TEXT
OLIVER