Final Report
The European Congress on Cultural Diversity took place in Warsaw, from 3rd to 5th June 2004, on the joint initiative of the Polish and French National Commissions for UNESCO, under the patronage of the Ministers of Culture of France and Poland. The Polish National Commission for UNESCO and the French National Commission for UNESCO were its co-organisers. The International Organisation of the Francophonie (OIF) and the Swiss Commission for UNESCO provided support for the organisation of the conference. The debates were held at the Royal Castle in Warsaw and hotel Sofitel Victoria Warsaw. The Programme of the Congress is annexed as Attachment No. 5.
The objective of the Congress was to enlarge the scope of the debate on problems related to the concept of cultural diversity and seek to identify the field of convergence of opinions regarding the means and mechanisms of protection and promotion of cultural diversity. The fundamental question concerned the conditions that should be fulfilled in order to enable the States to conduct efficient policies in the domain of promotion and protection of cultural diversity. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the work of experts on a binding instrument, i.e. the UNESCO convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions, served as a reference framework for the debate. Representatives of 28 European states, the United States of America and Canada, as well as some countries belonging to other regions of the world participated in the Congress. The List of Participants is annexed as Attachment No. 6.
The Congress was a part of public debate in the eve of the intergovernmental consultations on the future UNESCO convention. It was held right after the conclusion of the work of the group of experts convened by Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, the Director-General of UNESCO with a view to elaborating a preliminary project of the convention. Organised on the initiative of national commissions for UNESCO, the Congress did not aspire either to substitute the experts’ debate or to become a forum of intergovernmental consultations. It served as a framework for exchange of opinions and allowed to note different points of view. The very debate took place in the framework of three Round Tables (the reports of them are presented in the Attachments Nos. 1, 2, and 3.) In general, drawing closer of different positions and certain harmonisation of opinions could be remarked. More particularly, it was recognised that on each state rests the responsibility for supporting culture on its territory, that cultural products have a double – economic and cultural – nature, and that an urgent need for establishing international solidarity in the domain of culture has emerged.
Opening plenary session
Mr Andrzej Rottermund, Director of the Royal Castle in Warsaw and Mr Tomasz Orłowski, Secretary-General of the Polish National Commission for UNESCO welcomed the participants. Mr Jean Favier, President of the French National Commission for UNESCO and Mr Jerzy Kłoczowski, President of the Polish National Commission for UNESCO chaired the session.
Mr Andrzej Rottermund and Mr Tomasz Orłowski evoked the character of the place where the inauguration ceremony was held. The Royal Castle in Warsaw, in the past the residence of the kings and the parliament of Poland, today is a lively museum that fulfils an educational mission demonstrating multicultural character of the society in the past, especially that of the old Res Publica of Both Nations (the Commonwealth of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.) It implements projects concerning i.a. Jewish schools on the territories of the old Res Publica, the vision of the man and the citizen in the orthodox schools or civic education in the protestant schools. Numerous projects related to protection of cultural heritage and cultural identity are implemented. It is worth a mention that the Royal Castle in Warsaw is the place of the adoption of the first constitution in Europe (3rd May 1791). Quite recently, it was in the gardens of the Royal Castle where the ceremony of the accession of Poland to the European Union was celebrated. The opening of the Congress inaugurated a public debate that, as Mr Tomasz Orłowski pointed out, could prove useful for the governments of the countries represented.
Mr Jean Favier pointed out that today the question of cultural diversity, the importance of which is recognised by all the Member States of UNESCO, more than ever incites profound debate. The French and Polish National Commissions for UNESCO have wished to open that debate. He noted that cultural diversity is a flagship project of UNESCO and a priority for France. It was Mr Jacques Chirac, the President of France who during the World Summit in Johannesburg requested that an international convention be elaborated and that UNESCO be entrusted with that task. France is interested in that matter as it intends to be an active stakeholder of the process of regulating globalisation by means of global policy in favour of cultural diversity. Mr Jean Favier evoked a pioneer role of the French National Commission for UNESCO in the debate on cultural diversity and its contribution to such events as: the symposium devoted to the Pérez de Cuéllar Report on Our Creative Diversity organised in 1988, the symposium on Culture: A Form of Merchandise Like No Other? organised in 1999, and the International Seminar on Cultural Diversity and Inter-Cultural Dialogue in Ljubljana (2004). The activities of the French National Commission for UNESCO are oriented first of all to preservation of cultural heritage, promotion of cultural diversity at national and international levels, and promotion of access of the public to and participation in the cultural life. The joint initiative of the French and Polish National Commissions for UNESCO is inscribed in the context of the process of preparation of the preliminary project of the UNESCO convention, the enlargement of the European Union and the question of the place of Europe and European culture in the world. The Congress is held a few days after the conclusion of the work of the expert group that elaborated the preliminary project of the convention, and, due to fears and hopes raised by the very recent enlargement of the European Union, at a convenient moment to try to answer legitimate interrogations of citizens and broadly open dialogue on the questions related to cultural diversity. Due to its involvement in the debate on cultural diversity, France can provide responses, however, France, and the French National Commission for UNESCO would also like to listen to the countries for which cultural diversity is not only a cultural issue but a social, political and even human one as well.
Mr Jerzy Kłoczowski pointed out that the joint initiative of the French and Polish Commissions for UNESCO at the time of the enlargement of the European Union augurs well for co-operation between Poland and France in the future. The initiative of organising the conference jointly is not a coincidence and has its origins in an age-old tradition of good relations between both countries and their strong attachment to the protection of cultural identity. In case of Poland, at the time of the partitions and whenever the independence of the country was threatened, fighting for preservation of cultural identity was the fight for surviving. In European tradition the fight for preserving cultures was guided by the principle of human solidarity and brotherhood. That fight belongs to a broader context of struggle for freedom and defence of human rights. The history of the Middle Ages, the Act of the General Confederation of Warsaw of 1573, as well as the armed resistance during the Nazi occupation period illustrate this phenomenon. Culture, also in its individual dimension, is an antidote against every act of barbarity. Besides international legal instruments, it is important that individuals, “wise” people, involve themselves in carrying on in practice the mission of protecting and promoting cultural diversity based on respect for each culture. The question does not belong exclusively to the domain of cultural policy. To be capable of living peacefully together with the Other and integrating in herself/himself multiple identities, such as e.g. national and European identity, remains personal work.
Mr Jakub T. Wolski, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland welcomed the participants on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Referring to the example of the reconstruction of the Royal Castle in Warsaw he emphasised that for Poles it is of vital importance to preserve the national identity in its context of cultural diversity. He noted that European integration brings to its participants new challenges related to the need for securing for each culture space for development and possibility to participate in the global and European progress. Thus, building of the European solidarity should be carried on through dialogue relying on the European Union founding principle of “unity in diversity”. Mr Jakub T. Wolski mentioned that for Poles there is no contradiction between their consciousness of being Europeans and being Poles. Cultural diversity has become a universally accepted principle of cultural policy from the adoption of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. The Declaration should inspire the states’ policies in the domain of promotion and protection of cultural diversity. The decision of the 32nd Session of the General Conference of UNESCO concerning the elaboration of the convention results from the need to reinforce the provisions of the Declaration. The process leading to the convention will not be easy, as many questions and doubts require profound discussion. Such debates as the European Congress on Cultural Diversity can facilitate the negotiations when creating the atmosphere of mutual understanding, international solidarity and openness.
Mr Frédéric Bouilleux, representative of the Minister of Culture of the Republic of France referred to both positive and negative effects of globalisation. We owe to globalisation the multiplication of commercial exchange and broader accessibility of cultural products. Nevertheless, it is propitious for concentration practises and leads to uniformisation. In order to prevent the negative effects, specificity of cultural goods and services should be recognised. Granting the cultural goods and services with a special legal status does not mean, however, that they should be excluded from the negotiations carried on at WTO. That special status could be guaranteed by the future convention on cultural diversity. It is for a long time that France has been opting for such an instrument. The official position of the government of France, elaborated further to consultations and with reference to the results of the proceedings of the International Network for Cultural Policy, is based also on two other premises. The states’ right to implement their own cultural policies with a view to protecting and promoting cultural diversity should be recognised and the bonds of international solidarity with the developing countries should be strengthened. It falls to every state to contribute to fighting the North/South divide, while giving its support for the development of developing countries. The convention should involve the States Parties in implementing active cultural policies, which means in no way that the convention should be of protectionist character. It is essential to base it on universally recognised principles, such as human rights, democracy, and pluralism of opinions and cultures.
Ms Małgorzata Dzieduszycka, Director of the Department of International Cooperation and European Integration at the Ministry of Culture, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Culture of the Republic of Poland, evoked Poland’s involvement in the proceedings of the International Network for Cultural Policy. Mr Waldemar Dąbrowski, the Minister of Culture of the Republic of Poland, presented them to Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, on behalf of other ministers participating in the Network. In Poland it is considered that cultural diversity can serve as an antidote to a uniformed and trashy culture. The future convention could complement the approach of the Convention on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage while reinforcing UNESCO’s message in favour of protection and promotion of cultures and the heritage to be transmitted to future generations. It can also encourage the countries to share their heritage with others, especially where, as in Central Europe, for historical reasons different cultural traditions are present in one territory. Having impact on building mutual understanding and dialogue, the convention will be a proposal for peaceful co-existence of various cultures worldwide. That is important also in the context of European integration that leads to disappearance of currently existing internal borders. Henceforth, culture counts more and more as a factor of social cohesion and a fundamental reference of identity.
Mr Kazimierz Kutz, taking floor in the double role of Deputy Speaker of the Senate of Poland and a representative of the artistic milieu, evoked numerous links between politics and culture. He pointed out that the history of Poland provides a meaningful testimony to the special role of culture in the protection of national identity. He evoked the enlightened policy of Stanislaw August Poniatowski, the last King of Poland that created instruments for supporting culture, which proved to be of crucial significance in the period after the last partition of Poland in 1795. Among subsequent generations, that policy inculcated a conviction that culture plays crucial role in the life of the Polish people. The testament of King Stanislaw August was an invitation to modern thinking about culture. When Poland did not exist as an independent state it was fulfilled by artists and the people of culture who kept the “rule over the minds” at that time. Paris became a centre of Polish political thought and culture where the Polish “Great Emigration”, the Polish Library or, in 20th century, Jerzy Giedroyc and his milieu developed the vision of multi-cultural Res Publica dating back to the traditions of the Jagellon Dynasty. Despite the loss of independence for a long period, Poland survived thanks to culture. Senator Kutz contrasted that situation with the present situation in cultural policies in Poland that, according to his opinion, should be more active. The requirements of acquis communautaires resulted in introduction of European standards in the area of culture. Recently adopted solutions in the domain of copyright protection are an example of positive impact of European integration on Polish jurisprudence. However, much rests to be done. Mechanisms of promotion (that exist in certain countries, like e.g. France where foreign film distributors contribute to a special fund devoted for the development of French cinematography) are needed.
Ms Catherine Tasca, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the International Organisation of the Francophonie raised the question of reconciling the purpose of preservation of cultural diversity with the increase of global trade. Referring to the elaboration of the preliminary project of the international convention on the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions she drew attention to the objectives of the future legal instrument: to ensure the recognition of the double – cultural and economic - nature of the domain of culture and, consequently, to secure its special place in international relations; to justify the states’ right to carry on or undertake activities in favour of diversity; to strengthen the international cooperation, so as the developing countries do not remain on the margin of the exchange. The convention should serve as a point of reference for the states and international organisations in the domain of cultural diversity. It would be much deserved that it comes into being before the next WTO agreements, so as the questions pertaining to culture be approached according to their logic and taking into account the problems that are specific to them. Although the work on the future convention is in progress, much rests to be done to bring it to a good end and convince the greatest number of states, as well as the civil society, of particular usefulness of that instrument in the present state of the world where priorities are the questions of health, environment, employment, etc…, and not those of culture. That explanation work should, according to the Francophonie, focus on three points: 1) to clarify the concept of cultural diversity and the problems related to it, 2) to assert the legitimacy of public policies, 3) not to alienate the capacity of each state to act in favour of cultural diversity. Ms Catherine Tasca devoted considerable place to the concept of “cultural exception”, evoking a semantic debate on “cultural exception” and “cultural diversity”. The concept of “cultural exception” was intended to assert the specificity of culture in international trade negotiations. It served the idea that all stakeholders should recognise it as evident that cultural products are not merchandise like other ones and, therefore, should not be subjected to solely commercial law. Thus, contrary to what was sometimes believed, “cultural exception” is a universal objective. Multilingualism is a major component of cultural diversity. In case of the countries of the Francophonie protection and development of cultural diversity means not only the protection of the language that they share but also of all other languages spoken there. The question of cultural diversity is a problem of all peoples and all cultures of the world confronted by vast movement of globalisation. This issue is dealt with by the Francophonie that is involved in the protection of cultural diversity together with other linguistic circles, especially hispano- and lusophone countries, as jointly organised conferences in Mexico and Rome in 2003 could show it. If cultural diversity is to endure not as a museum but, on the contrary, as a part of the changing world, then the possibility for active public cultural policies should be preserved. There is responsibility and right of states and governments to intervene in that domain. That intervention is indispensable, as: cultural diversity does not defend itself when facing the impact of economic and political powers; there are great inequalities worldwide in the possibility for participating in the circulation of cultural works and cultural products (especially developing countries are to a high extent absent in cultural industries and cultural exchange); the future of cultural diversity is even less certain in the context of increasing globalisation, due to the risks of concentration of cultural industries, creation of quasi monopolistic enterprises, or predomination of one model of culture. In the context of the negotiations carried on within the World Trade Organisation it is very important that the states abstain from the involvement in liberalisation in the area of cultural goods and services, in particular in audiovisual sector. That will enable them to maintain their ability to act in favour of cultural diversity. For Central and Eastern European countries, as well as for the countries of the South, it is not easy to maintain such an attitude. However, the expansion of cultural economy is considerable in terms of resources and employment. Every state has the right to participate in that development. Opening one’s market with no limits means to place oneself apart from the market. In this manner, the battle for cultural diversity is a true “investment”. The debate incited at UNESCO should be conducted as broadly as possible in the states.
Ms Katerina Stenou, Director of the Division of Cultural Policies and Intercultural Dialogue at UNESCO Secretariat in Paris emphasised that public debate must accompany the work of the experts on the new instrument of international law. Otherwise, as it proved several times in the past, the convention will remain a dead letter. The time has come to translate the results of the discussions on cultural diversity hitherto conducted into the language of convention. The experts have to face a difficult task to find appropriate phrasing that will render adequate relations between the concept, the message and the current legal situation, while harmonising philosophical and economic aspects. Cultural identity, contrary to genetically determined features, is of dynamic character. However, it is important that changes occur in such a way that they be accepted by the societies which they concern. Uncontrolled globalisation is a menace to cultural identification. It leads to the rejection of the changes imposed from without. Its consequence can be closing of cultures and a reaction taking form of fundamentalism. According to the approach of UNESCO, culture is not something that should be protected as a museum relic. It is important to ensure the conditions encouraging its development through maintenance of mechanisms of cultural diversity. The convention must not be an instrument of a “new globalisation” or serve as a pretext for nationalisms. In compliance with Article 4 of the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, its provisions should prevent the misuse of cultural diversity for such ends as violating human rights or restricting their scope. The convention should not be limited to the questions of quotas and subsidies but have broader scope relating it to the debate on the condition of culture (however, a kind of Manichaeism in the approach to culture that manifests in ignoring the economic nature of cultural goods and services should also be avoided). The proposal of replacing the phrase “cultural contents and artistic expressions” in the text of the future convention by a more general term “cultural expressions” manifests the concern for securing a broad field of application of the instrument. The preamble to the convention should include a strong cultural message reflecting the complexity of the question of protection of cultural diversity in the context of sustainable development, dialogue and openness of cultures, according to the spirit of opposing protectionism and showing the concern for serving the development of all cultures. The convention should be an act of solidarity with developing countries. It will aim to combat, as one can say, a kind of “cultural Darwinism” according to which it is the strongest who wins. Here, the issue is to ensure that all parties could win. The convention should provide clear instructions regarding how to understand and implement the principles inscribed in its preamble. On the one hand, those instructions will consist of references of philosophical character, and, on the other, concrete measures leading to the achievement of its objectives. Their formulation should be harmonised with the regulations concerning the rights and obligations of the states, as well as other acts of international law, and take into account future implementation of the convention at the country level.
Mr Kazimierz Krzysztofek, Deputy Director of the Warsaw Research Institute on Culture, noted that despite all processes that took place in the past and can be observed today, the differentiation of cultures will persist. The world is a complex structure and is developed by flows, instability, disorder, discontinuity etc. Destruction of elements of identity, disintegration of social bonds or vanishing of systems of adaptation and socio-cultural relations results in gaining in value of symbols protecting people from uniformisation. The diversity will not perish, however, some elements that are vital for the future of our culture and civilisation, might be destroyed. It makes sense to speak about diversity when knowing what is actually shared in the common image of globalisation at the beginning of 21st century. In fact, we do not really know what we have in common in terms of universal values. After the acts of terrorism and in the epoch of stormy changes, we must answer that question in order to have firm grounds for analysing and trying to forecast global cultural processes. Another question: for what do we need cultural diversity? Firstly, Varietas ludet et delectat; but there are also functional values and needs flowing from diversity, such as creativity, development, cognition, civilising the process of globalisation (giving it human face), protection of life support systems. Fifteen years of transformation have made the Poles well aware that mere systemic changes in banking, finances, free market etc., do not suffice. Mechanisms should be elaborated that will enable building the image of each group basing on its own experience and not only on imported cultural products. When preparing the convention and answering the question of what kind of diversity we need, there are also some controversial issues to be faced, such as the question of bad cultural diversity or the problem of equality and dignity of cultures. Should we use the very term “bad culture”? The problem, evoked in a very controversial and emotional way by Oriana Fallaci, is whether we can treat others (or be treated by them) as equal when having only idiomatic culture which is not understandable for- and understood by the others. There are also other controversial questions to be tackled: does the market produce good or bad diversity; is the global culture to be blamed?
Mr Mihály Ficsor, President of the Hungarian Copyright Council took floor as a co-chairman of the expert group convened by the Director-General of UNESCO to elaborate the preliminary project of the convention. At first, he summarised the state of affairs in international negotiations, the course of which is marked by subsequent negotiation rounds related to GATT and agreements made in the framework of GATS. The parties have agreed as to the provisions allowing introduction of quotas regarding the audiovisual industry and stipulating protection of specific cultural values through setting of special conditions. The experts who debated in Paris were in agreement that the future convention should go beyond the context of the negotiations conducted at the WTO or on other forums where questions concerning culture are discussed first of all in terms of economy and focus on the essential issue, i.e. cultural diversity. Presently, as the proceedings of the expert group have showed it, there is much more favourable climate for settlements of universal character than during the stormy debates of the Uruguay Round. The advocates of the cultural exception principle do not question the economic nature of cultural goods and services. Those who hitherto have been opposing the introduction of special regulations concerning cultural goods and services do not attempt any longer to eliminate quotas and subsidies. Nevertheless, it matters for them that the concessions go not beyond the current regulations. It is important for the project of the new convention to keep adequacy between the measures proposed and the expected objectives. A fair balance should be established between protection of cultural diversity, preservation of openness of cultures and care for avoiding protectionism. The preliminary project of the convention not only asserts the right of the states to protect cultures at national level but involves them in watching over the development of cultures at the local level as well. It also includes a provision authorising the states to intervene when diversity is endangered or requires support.
Mr Max Wyman, President of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, declared that the adoption of the convention on cultural diversity remains a priority for Canada, a country that during the last years manifested many times its involvement in favour of promotion of the principle of protection of cultural diversity. The Minister of Culture of Canada was the host of the meetings of the International Network for Cultural Policy. The government of Canada created a special fund of 350.000 dollars to support UNESCO’s activities in the domain of cultural diversity and, in particular, the organisation of intergovernmental meetings at which the issues related to the future convention are debated. The government of Canada, jointly with the authorities of Quebec and other regions, undertake actions in favour of cultural diversity. It is the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of International Trade that are involved in the co-operation with UNESCO. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO plays the role of co-ordinator in the co-operation between Canada and UNESCO. National and international NGO-s play particular role. One of major NGO-s is the International Network on Cultural Diversity, uniting over three hundred organisations from over 50 states. Canada’s positive attitude towards the future convention results from the conviction that the instrument will contribute to strengthening cultures; and it is in cultures, where, in the era of globalisation, communities find the source of their pride and identity. The diffusion of cultural content of various cultures fosters mutual respect that is a prerequisite of life in peace and sustainable development. Three principles on which Canada was funded, i.e. pluralism, sharing with others and co-operation, lie at the origin of that country’s today’s position concerning the question of cultural diversity.
Ms Dorota Ilczuk, President of CIRCLE, Director of the Warsaw Research Institute on Culture referred to the institutional framework of cultural co-operation in Europe and emphasised that we are witnessing the creation of a new system of cultural co-operation, funded on multilateral relations, in which various stakeholders are involved. The former model based principally on bilateral relations. Cultural co-operation in Europe has evolved from actions executed directly by the governments to the support provided by the latter to initiatives proposed by regions, cities, NGO-s, and the private sector. International, regional, and sub-regional organisations, like e.g. UNESCO, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Visegrad Group and the Nordic Council have gained in meaning. They perform the tasks that exceed the frame of bilateral co-operation and elaborate new international legal norms. The establishment of numerous networks of cultural co-operation that have found their place on the map of Europe is a new phenomenon. The European cultural policies obey the principle of subsidiarity that stipulates that co-operation be implemented at the lowest possible level. The role of international organisations and the states is to create optimal conditions for the development of cultural industries, network co-operation, and the involvement of the civil society and creative circles.
Round Tables
The debate was held at three parallel Round Table sessions:
1. From the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity towards the future convention. Possibilities and limits in application of the concept of cultural diversity at international level.
2. Cultural diversity and dialogue among cultures: problems of identities in contemporary societies.
3. Artistic creation, creativity, the artist’s involvement in favour of the public good.
The object of the Round Table 1 was related to the work carried on within UNESCO with a view to elaborating a preliminary project of the convention on the protection of cultural diversity. At the 32nd Session of the General Conference of UNESCO the Member States decided unanimously to request the Director-General to present the project of the future convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions during the subsequent session that will be held in autumn 2005. The future convention should attempt to integrate in one normative instrument such different domains, usually dealt with separately, as: intellectual property, protection of the heritage, rights of minorities, cultural pluralism, development of cultural industries, international cultural co-operation.
The participants of the Round Table 1 reflected upon the scope of application of the future convention. Assuming that the future convention should be of innovative character it is important to secure its compatibility with the existing regulations of international law. One of fundamental questions debated in the framework of the Round Table 1 was placing the future convention in the relation to the existing legal solutions and the negotiations conducted currently on the forums of other international organisations, such as the World Trade Organisation or the European Union. Report of the debate of the Round Table 1 is annexed as Attachment No. 1.
The objective of the debate of the Round Table 2 was to attempt to find a response to the question in what manner the future convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions can contribute to solving the problems that emerge due to intensification of contacts between various cultures and proliferation of multicultural societies. The participants discussed the phenomenon of multiple identities, social assimilation and integration, counteracting the processes of exclusion and marginalisation of minority cultures. They exchanged opinions and experiences concerning the means leading to securing favourable conditions for preservation and development of cultural diversity, and the states’ social cohesion as well.
It was emphasised many times that European specificity rests on the principle of unity in diversity, adopted in the project of the Constitution Treaty of the European Union, with the stress put on diversity. It was admitted that globalisation is a phenomenon producing positive and negative results as well. It is the states’ policies, the civil society’s activity and the international solidarity on which it depends, whether the negative results can be limited. The protection and promotion of cultural diversity is a proposition of an antidote to the threats brought about by the 21st century. The Report of the Round Table 2 is annexed as Attachment No. 2.
The debate of the Round Table 3 was devoted to the condition of the artist nowadays and related challenges to cultural policies. The double nature of cultural goods and services was evoked. It was recognised that cultural goods and services should not be treated as simple goods and services for consumption but should be made the object of special legal protection. It was also highlighted that the mission of creators should be supported by provisions of national law, especially the copyright law, as well as by setting of legal framework and favourable conditions for investing in the sector of culture. The Report of the Round Table 3 is annexed as the Attachment No. 3.
Closing plenary session
The reports of the three Round Tables were presented during the closing plenary session by their authors who are respectively: Mr Hadrien Laroche, Culture Counsellor at the French National Commission for UNESCO, Ms Madeleine Viviani, Secretary-General of the Swiss Commission for UNESCO and Mr Chérif Khaznadar, Chairman of the Culture Committee of the French National Commission for UNESCO. The Congress showed the need for eventual co-ordination that would place the national commissions for UNESCO in the process of the debate on the future convention. The conference confirmed the need for mobilising creators, intellectual milieus, and representatives of the worlds of culture, politics and business in favour of efficient cultural policies. Mr Tomasz Orłowski, Secretary-General of the Polish National Commission for UNESCO who chaired the closing session, proposed to consider a possibility for continuing the regional debate that proceeded in Warsaw. E.g., creation of an Internet discussion forum could provide space where consultations with participation of artistic milieus and intellectuals could continue. Creation of a working group composed of representatives of national commissions for UNESCO was also proposed. Its task would be to follow the work related to the question of cultural diversity carried on within other organizations, such as: the International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP), the International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD), the International Organisation of the Francophonie (OIF), as well as national coalitions for cultural diversity. It was suggested that periodical coordinating meetings could be held in Warsaw to lead eventually, in a long-term perspective, to the launch of a regional observatory on cultural diversity. Conformingly to the wishes expressed during the discussion those proposals were, with an amendment, submitted to all the national commissions for UNESCO of the Region of Europe and North America gathered in Zurich from 19 to 24 June 2004. The text of the “Conclusions” was annexed as an attachment to the Final Report of the conference in Zurich. In the present report it is annexed as the Attachment No. 4.