UNESCO intergovernmental session II, Day 12: Friday, February 11, 2005

Submitted by Sasha Costanza-Chock on February 11, 2005.English

Summary: The last day of the two week intergovernmental session began with reports from several working groups. The working group on international cooperation, which was looking at the issue of the article on vulnerability, reported that they had reached a consensus. The working group on the federal clause reached no consensus. On the definition of 'protection,' there is still an impasse with a few (US, to some degree Japan and Mexico) delegates insisting on a definition of protection that would eliminate any possibility of using it to support trade barriers. On the definition of 'cultural goods and services,' there was no movement forward; the discussion on these terms has been referred to a future meeting. There was consensus on various clauses about follow up mechanisms, accession, ratification, governing and implementing bodies and rules, with consensus that delegates to the implementing body of the Convention would follow the principle of geographic representation and rotation every 4 years. There was a consensus against setting up a Cultural Observatory, and against creating an Advisory group of experts. Finally, there was the Rapporteur's report summarizing the results of the entire meeting, followed by the adoption of a proposal for the next steps as follows:

The President will work closely with the Chair of the drafting committee, the Rapporteur of the Plenary, and the Secretariat to create a consolidated draft text that includes all of the results of the past two weeks of discussion and negotiation. As soon as it is ready, this text will be circulated to the member states, intergovernmental organizations, and NGOs. This new draft will be a heavily bracketed and footnoted text but will theoretically have boiled down most of the options to the core differences. This text will be the basis for negotiations at a third intergovernmental session, probably two weeks long and taking place from Monday, May 23rd till Saturday, June 4th. (Those dates could change but not likely by more than a week in either direction). That session will have to produce a final draft text to be presented to the UNESCO General Conference in the fall.

The day, and this intergovernmental session, ended as usual with everyone thanking everyone else and a somewhat rambling speech by the Chair.

Blow by Blow:

Chair: a point of order was raised by Saudi Arabia, signed by 21 states, about reopening article 1 for discussion. The ruling of the bureau is as follows: It is open to all parties, when the conference reconvenes, to propose amendments and revisions. This body cannot receive new proposals after the drafting committee has completed its work. I was approached by 2 or 3 delegations concerning an item we passed at the plenary, which we passed very clearly. My response was that we can't reopen debates where there was a clear decision by the plenary. Moving on.

The first report is from the working group on international cooperation, which was looking at one item, and India will present their conclusions.

India: 50 delegations worked for hours on the issue of vulnerability, which Haiti had given us, and how to deal with it and encourage int'l cooperation. I'd like to inform you that even the footnotes took several hours. Every word has been discussed, and the footnotes represent differing perspectives ... we can't change a single word or we'll be reopening the debate. The consensus text is:

"In the application of articles 12-14, States Parties shall endeavor to provide appropriate recognition and attention to endangered and vulnerable cultural expressions, specifically those that are at the risk of extinction, as well as to cultural actors facing discrimination, marginalization or exclusion, such as persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples."

There are several lengthy footnotes to this clause.

Luxembourg (EU): This convention was not set up to create new rights. We're concerned about 'recognition' and perhaps we could take up this discussion under the discussion of principles. We think that article 15 requires further analysis, for example cultural actors is only mentioned in this article. Furthermore article 15 is associated with article 8; we think that article 8 should be retained.

Chair: Luxembourg reserves position on this, and we can look at it in the next plenary, after we've looked at article 8. Is there any other state that wishes to intervene? I'll ask India to respond.

India: In this working group, there were differing viewpoints, including that of the EU. We worked for several hours to arrive at this version. There's a footnote that takes into account EU sentiments, as well as footnotes that take into account opposite sentiments expressed by others.

Chair: the plenary is invited to accept this as a directive for the next stage of drafting. Next report is on the federal clause. This is found in Article 29.

Turkey: I had a reservation on Article 15, on the last clause 'persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples,' there's an inconsistency in the French and English.

Brasil: point of order, are we considering the federal clause or something else?

Chair: Turkey, your views have been noted. Back to the federal clause. Canada will report.

Canada: The working group brought together Luxembourg, Canada, USA, ? to look at this. The members of the committee did not succeed in agreeing on the content of the federal clause. There was no agreement resulting from this discussion. That's the unfortunate result.

Luxembourg: We did our best to resolve these issues, sorry we didn't agree. We think it's important for all states to have to accept the same rights and obligations. We're worried that as this clause is written, it might seem like an exemption for federal states.

Canada: point of order, it seems we are reopening the debate. Do you want to reopen the debate?

Chair: we've received the report now. I think it's open to you to say there's no agreement. Does any other member of this group wish to inform the plenary there was no agreement?

St. Lucia: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important before you rule, for the plenary to understand why there was no agreement.

Chair: Sorry, we've discussed this issue. We had a discussion in the plenary. It was clear in the plenary that there should be a federal clause. After 4-5 days, the working group was not able to come to some kind of conclusion. Is it the view of the EU that there should be no federal clause?

EU: we think it's not necessary, but we would agree to have it, if it expressed full respect for international law.

Switzerland: the federal clause must be kept in, because it strengthens the mandate for all states whatever their system to implement it.

Chair: A report from the working group should not be discussed in plenary.

St. Lucia: I'm sorry, we can't accept this, Mr. President. Ad hoc working groups help the discussion, but the plenary can reopen anything coming from an adhoc working group.

Canada: the issue that Luxembourg has raised is that, the way federal clauses are written, there's no guarantee that all states would be obliged to implement the convention. Switzerland, USA, and Canada did not share this opinion. We feel that before signing an agreement, we come to internal agreement among our states that we'll be willing to respect it. The federal clause allows us the flexibility that corresponds to our constitutions, for example where power is shared, in our case with provinces.

Lux: We worked in an atmosphere of good faith, we examined other federal clauses in other conventions. In our minds we're not far from a solution in the future.

Chair: I've consulted our legal adviser. It seems that the difference of opinion is that paragraph B is not biting enough. It's a question of drafting. With St. Lucia's permission, I'd say that the federal clause should be referred to the next stage of drafting, taking into account views expressed here.

USA: we don't want to delay proceedings, but for the sake of the record, we'd like to support the report made by Canada. As you stated, Mr. Chairman, there was very strong support for including a federal clause. This language is based on a federal clause approved by all EU states just a few weeks ago. It was the EU that carried the burden of proof to convince. They did not carry the burden of proof. I would add one final point, which is that we will give them the credit for moving away from their original position, and said we could include a federal clause...I'll stop there, they have provided no proof that federal states do not live up to their committments.

St. Lucia: we're not a federal state and not a member of the EU, but we want to make it clear that this clause concerns all of us. We fully support your last ruling, that we should continue to work on this clause, taking into account the views of the plenary.

Chair: Thank you. There's general consensus there will be a federal clause. We'll take into account the EU position.

Next outstanding business was the EU clause. EU, have you advanced on that?

Lux (EU): We take note of the need you mention to look at this as a crosscutting position. We agree to return to it later.

USA: We have asked for but have not been able to find the EU clause. Is it really available?

Chair: the tobacco convention from the WHO was circulated. But we will discuss it when the time comes.

Chair: Now the very simple matter of goods and services and protection. (laughter). I understand the working group divided itself into two subgroups, as reported to me by my spies, sorry, my people who were paying attention (laughter).

Saudi Arabia: 20 member states requested you reopen a debate on a simple point. You used your authority to send this discussion to another plenary. Please be more reasonable and let us discuss this this afternoon.

Chair: I'll ask the assistant secretary general to explain.

Asst: The secretariat has received here the signatures of a number of countries for reconsideration of objective 1(a). Chair ruled that this proposal came after the drafting committee has already discussed and come to a temporary conclusion to be submitted to the plenary. You explained that any state has the right to reopen any part of the text that is under discussion, and asked the honorable delegate to reopen this at the next session of the intergovernmental. I personally talked with the ambassador and we arranged a meeting with the Chair at the end of this session.

Chair: Now who's reporting on goods and services and protection? Costa Rica? If Korea wants to join, you're welcome to do so.

Costa Rica: I'm going to explain the results of the working group on protection. We divided in two parts, one for protection, and one for goods and services. The group on 'protection' met last night for 2 hours under Costa Rica and Korea. Many delegations attended, more than 30, in room 9. We began working on the base of the 3 proposals: Brasil, USA, and the Chair.

1. Various delegations thought that a definition of protection is not necessary.
2. The president's proposal was supported by various delegations. There were a few proposals to modify the language.
3. Some delegates insisted on a definition of protection that would eliminate any possibility of using it to support trade barriers. Some proposed 'safeguard.'
4. Many delegates underlined the link between this term and Article 19. Thought the base of the solution was to deal with 19, the relation to other instruments.

Finally, we are close to reaching consensus on this term.

Chair: Thanks for that report on 'protect.' I've spoken to the legal advisor, and the title was given to us by the general conference. The drafting committee has put this term in square brackets, until the issue has been resolved. The word protect and protection will be in square brackets. The title retains its language, because we got the title from the general conference. In the text, it will be bracketed. The chair of this committee said they are 'very near' a conclusion, but the problem is this is the last day of the conference.

Costa Rica: I don't really think we can complete this today. We're going to need time in the next meeting, that I'm sure we'll have to organize. We also think that article 19 will be the key to clarify all of this.

Chair: Can we leave it to this working group to continue this discussion informally?

Brasil: I think you correctly began to indicate that this question will be solved only further on, in connection with other issues.

India: I agree with Brasil. There's an additional issue, which is that in the second part of the definition provided by USA, which was clarification on what the definition does not include. In order to have progress, there has to be flexibility. There are 3 definitions, and a question on whether the second clause of the US proposal should be included. Progress on this is linked to discussion of article 19 and progress on goods and services.

Colombia: I'd like to support what India said. Some of the proposals floated in the group yesterday was to postpone this definition until we've seen the result of the discussion on article 19 and 13, and come back later, so that this article can be in conformity.

Chair: goods and services, report from Luxembourg

Luxembourg: In the debate yesterday, one of our colleagues used the term 'an equation with several variables.' Now the report on goods and services.

The delegations in attendance were committed, we were able to make a few steps forward regarding our findings. There was broad consensus that cultural contents view with values meaning and worldview. It was legitimate for plenary to look at goods and services. Without preempting any definition, cultural goods and services do fall squarely within the area of the convention. When it comes to defining them, there was a link established between these goods and services, and cultural expressions. Several ideas were expressed.

-As vectors of cultural content, may be the main point of cgs.
-The sensitivity of the definition may depend on how its used in the convention.
-It can be defined with a cross reference to cultural expressions.

No additional reference to IPR commanded support from delegations. There was no expression of support for this. (?)

We may talk about cultural goods and services and activities, which would cover those expressions of noncommercial value. Another solution would be that CGS would exist regardless of the commercial value.
There was also a proposal to delete CGS from the convention, as well as its definition.

Chair: there has been some small movement. We'll have to postpone this discussion. All I can do is say that at the next stage, this issue will have to be one of the first issues resolved. At the next stage, it cannot be postponed. Now we have finished the reports and we move to the convention itself. Now we move to the article 15, establishment of a cultural diversity observatory. There was some reservations expressed about setting up a new body. Very few wish to maintain the structure proposed here. The issue would therefore be, how do we ensure that reliable data is collected? Some have suggested that there is the UN Bureau of Statistics in canada. The reply is that the Bureau of statistics is an inert body. However, what you need is more active involvement in sharing information and providing this information. Is it possible to address this issue by saying that the Directorate on Culture shall be the appropriate body to receive this information? I don't think there's value in setting up a new structure. What's the reaction?

Brasil: Yes to your proposal. Thank you.

Turkey: I'm sorry, I have a different approach. We believe that a structure based on General Assembly, which is an intergovernmental committee, is preferable. the IG could set up working groups as necessary. We believe the work envisaged can be done by the UN institute of statistics. We are therefore for deletion of this article.

St. Lucia: You summarized very well the situation. For us, the functions of the observatory are essential. We would be reluctant to create a new structure though. We think that existing structures, including the IOS could do it, but we can leave it to UNESCO to organize it.

Mexico: We agree with your summary. We also don't want to create new expensive bureaucracies. We think it's important to note that Latin America has already begun creating such an observatory. Any UNESCO effort should take into account what has already been realized in the Americas.

Chair: who opposes the summary I have suggested? Who's asking for support for an observatory? None. Who supports the idea that the secretariat of UNESCO will work with the institute of statistics? Any dissent? Thanks very much.

Senegal: perhaps there could be a way of drawing on what will be done on the convention on intangible cultural heriitage.

Chair: we won't have an observatory, we'll relate this to 15, and the close relationship between the secretariat and the institute for statistics.

USA: Can you clarify the relationship between 12 and 15?

Chair: this package belongs to international cooperation. Now we turn to the intergovernmental committee first. Article 20, General Assembly of States Parties.

(missed a few intervention here)

Japan: we think that the current proposal is too heavy to make the convention workable. We feel that we should set up a workable structure to properly implement this convention. So instead of setting up a separate general assembly of the convention, we propose to meet every two years on the occasion of the general conference. We are also agreeable on setting up intergovernmental committee, but the role should be as light as possible so we don't put too much of a burden on it.

Turkey: On article 21, IG Committee, we support the view expressed by Mexico.

St. Lucia: we agree that the general conference should meet as far as possible with the general assembly. We can't agree to Japan's proposal, because the states parties might not be the same as the general conference. It's fine for general conference to create adhoc working groups, but we would not agree that rules of procedure of the committee should be adopted by the general conference. This would make their work impossible. We also support the issue of geographical representation and rotation, plus precision on the term of office, we recommend 4 years, and for the drafters, look at the intangible heritage convention. I'm speaking in the name of Barbados so we won't waste time.

Chair: Ok, they'll report to the general assembly, but the rules don't have to be adopted by the general assembly. Apart from these very practical interventions, is there anyone who opposes a general assembly of states parties? Is there anyone who opposes an intergovernmental committee?

Costa Rica: regarding 20 and 21, we recently had the negotiation here over doping in sports. I've participated in many of these negotiations. We shouldn't call ourselves general assembly, but conference of the parties (?). General Assembly is restricted to the UN Assembly in NY. For this type of conference, what they like is the term Conference of the Contracting Parties.

Uruguay: I agree with your summary. Thinking in operative terms, maybe in the future we should have an adhoc group to further discuss these articles.

Chair: In the absence of deep division, it's a matter of drafting.

Iceland: We agree with your summaries.

India: We agree with your summary. We add that, as far as geographical representation is concerned, when this clause is not included, in the past it led to poor balance. So it's important to include.

Ecuador: (A few technical suggestions). I join those calling for geographical representation.

Brasil: I support Costa Rica on the question of calling it a conference of the parties. I support Uruguay to take it up in a small group. Also support geographic representation principle. We have misgivings about always having this conference at the same time as the general conference, but it's OK for now. We're rediscovering the wheel.

USA: First, we agree with Costa Rica to rename general assembly the Conference of the Parties. We won't be making an article by article intervention right now. However, as drafted, particularly paragraph 3 and its subparagraphs, we think its overreaching. We have an obligation not to create hydraheaded monsters and be good stewards of UNESCO's finite resources. We believe that the Japanese proposal has a lot of merit and needs to be looked at in close proximity to the text we find before us on the screen. It would reduce expenses, which is vitally important, especially for this organization. We think its important to draw important lessons from our collective experience in dealing with the World Heritage Committee and its procedures and operations.

Afghanistan: On article 20 4(a), we support option 1, geographic distribution. We support term of 3 years for elected members of the committee.

Bolivia: Generally we support Costa Rica's suggestion.

Jamaica: We support the views expressed by Mexico, St. Lucia, India regarding proportional representation on the IG committee. But to do this, it should say 2 countries per region, for a total of, not just 24. For example, if only 24 states have ratified, then they could draw up the constitution without real regional representation. So that's the only way to assure there's regional representation on the IG committee.

Canada: Very briefly, on 21, we support the comment made by Brasil. We need to discuss the functions to ensure that this is an efficient committee.

Benin: To support Costa Rica's proposal on the name. Regarding Japan's proposal, perhaps we should ensure that this assembly meets at the same time as the General Conference. Regarding the Committee, we support equitable geographic distribution and rotation, as well as allowing the committee to set up its own adhoc bodies.

Argentina: We support the general tendency that has been expressed, including geographic representation of committee. We thought the reference of the USA to the world patrimony committee would be a good model.

Haiti: We support the clause on geographical representation, and support the suggestion of Jamaica. Developing countries and small island states would have no guarantee of a presence without such a clause.

Japan: We apologize for taking the floor again. We realize that our proposal has been misunderstood. Article 20 in our proposal has a title 'general assembly of states parties.' states parties shall meet every two years on the occasion of the general assembly of UNESCO.

Australia: Many of the south pacific member states have not been able to come to the negotiations. In this context I'd like record Australia's strong support for geographic representation in any follow up mechanism. Support Costa Rica's suggestion on the title. Japan's proposal should be seen in light of trying to make an efficient follow up body. However, as Jamaica emphasized, we have to be careful in terms of being too precise at this point. We haven't defined rights and obligations yet, so if we refer to conference of the parties, it would be only those states that have ratified the convention that could be present. So let's be careful and cautious.

Venezuela: We think that the Assembly and IG Committee should be maintained. So we agree with the majority of this plenary. We support Costa Rica on the name. We support the geographic distro. and rotation principles. We think that the IG committee should be able to work on its own budget.

Switzerland: We support principles of rotation and geographical distribution. We agree with USA on paragraph 3, article 21, especially 21.3(e). For us, a body that only has 18 states parties shouldn't be authorized to come up with measures binding on the rest of the states parties. On letter (i), there are already enough bodies involved, we shouldn't give the IG committee the power to set up other bodies. We support Japan's proposal on article 21.

Grenada: I'll be brief. We support St. Lucia, geographic representation, rotation, and possibility of setting up subsidiary bodies. We support mechanisms from Intangible Heritage.

Chair: Summary: Plenary expressed support for the creation of the 'Conference of Parties.' It should meet at the same time as the general conference of UNESCO. All this depends, though, on when the convention comes into force. Secondly, the intergovernmental committee was approved. Many delegations said this committee should be geographically representative, rotational, and membership lasting for 4 years. Regarding procedure, there are two tendencies: one suggests that rules be approved by the Intergovernmental Committee, the other that the rules be approved by the Conference of the Parties. Participation in the committee has to be states parties. Of course there can be observers, but its quite clear that the participants are States Parties.

No state has supported article 22, on setting up an advisory group. Now INCD NGO.

INCD: I'm also authorized to speak for international music council and federation of musicians. We think that strong follow up mechanisms are important. Also, we think that there should be a strong participation from NGOs. NGOs should have a rule in the intergovernmental committee itself. Our presence can assist governments. We could help identify vulnerable cultural expressions. We urge that in further consideration of article 21, if 22 is deleted, that under 21.3 as a new subsection, a role for NGOs should be found.

Chair: To summarize, remove the advisory group. We've gone through the final clauses, ratification, etc. China has withdrawn the question of signature, the issue they had raised before. Everything else is straightforward, but we haven't yet discussed the dispute mechanism. But before we get there, Annex I should be removed from the text. In relation to Article 24, it was related to Annex III, arbitration procedure. We never got a systematic response regarding Annex III on arbitration. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't get into details now, but let's see if states want it or not. Unless there's a driving force here, which I don't see any indication of. Please go back to states and discuss Article 29 and annex 3 and 4, and we should be able to deal with it.

We have to make a report to the Director General, who will present it to the Executive Board. We option we have is to include the amended draft convention. But we don't have an amended draft convention, we have a report from the chairperson of the drafting committee. So this afternoon, the rapporteur of the plenary will give a report to the plenary about the proceedings of the plenary. Then we'll report to the Director General on how far we've got. The first part of the report is the report from the chairperson of the Drafting Committee.

Drafting Committee head: The report that has been distributed to you reflects the results of the drafting committee over the past two weeks. The committee held 10 sessions, about 40 hours. 60 drafting elements were examined, about 40 minutes for most of them and some of them over 2 hours. The work followed the instructions from the opinions of the plenary, conveyed by the president and confirmed by the rapporteur. In many cases the instructions coincided with the earlier report of the drafting committee. The work was slow. There are real differences of opinions. Eventually the delegates started to feel comfortable with the notations, and work accelerated considerably. There are a lot square brackets, used in two ways. There are systematic square brackets around some terms that are still under discussion by the plenary (goods and services, protect, etc.). Other square brackets reflect differences of opinion in the drafting. Footnotes are also used for three purposes - explanation of the use of square brackets, to indicate reservations of members of the drafting group, and also to offer useful reminders to the plenary, for example reference to other treaties that should be considered.

Chair: I have a mincing machine. The head of the drafting committee has been through a mincing machine over the past two weeks. We thank you for putting this report before us.

Switzerland: Applause for the drafting committee.

Japan: we can't leave this room without echoing thanks. But we do request that the committee examine this document for some technical inaccuracies that we notice. Perhaps after a weekend of sleep, eyeball it again.

Chair: if you have any complaints, you should write to me.

USA: We associate ourselves with the warm praise for our Finnish colleague who did a superlative [sic] job. We do want to draw attention to one instance of the use of brackets that we believe is of such fundamental interest that we have to draw it to the attention of member states. For example, there are at least 4 instances where States is not bracketed. Members of this organization have always been States Parties. Brackets even question the legitimacy of the States.

Chair (interrupts): this is a substantive matter. If its inconsistent use, then we'll look at it again. But the substance can't be raised.

USA: We are the founding members of tis organization, our DNA on this is pure [sic... wow, genetically pure. scary.] We should bracket Contracting Parties.

Luxembourg: We just want to say that there are a number of comments that need to be made, it's not substantive.

There were some comments on mistranslations.

Chair: we can't have changes. If your notes differ from this text, give it to us in writing. There were 3 or 4 people who took notes and we will check them.

St. Lucia: I'm taking the floor as vice chair of the latin american and caribbean group. (Thanks).

Senegal: on behalf of all the African countries we thank the chairman of the drafting group.

Benin: (Thanks)

Ecuador: Sometimes we forget to give thanks to certain groups. We'd like to thank the legal advisor.

China: Thanks.

Morocco: Adds thanks, including to interpreters.

Chair: Plenary reconvenes at 2:30.

Afternoon

Chair: Ass't secretary general told me that Egypt was unhappy about the progress made until now. I spoke to the Director General at lunch. The rate of progress is determined by the countries participating. Now the member states have the opportunity to discuss among themselves and their groups. I didn't know, when I became President, that there would be more than one session. My answer to Egypt's point, which is a valid point, is that the discussions that we've held so far provide the basis for bringing it all to fruition.

Luxembourg (EU): This morning we clarified our position on article 15 and some of the concepts there. We think that the question of vulnerability should be central to this convention.

Chair: I must say, you're totally out of order. There are reservations on every article. We turn now to an important aspect, which will be the basis for our report to the Director-General. I have pleasure in asking Mr. Artur Wyzinsky (sp?) to introduce the report on behalf of the rapporteur of the 2nd intergovernmental meeting.

Rapporteur's oral report of the plenary deliberations:

(Thanks the Chair extensively). The discussion throughout the process has demonstrated the importance of the convention. Progress has been made since September. This session was the natural extension of the first session. Purpose of this convention was to forward a revised draft before March 3rd. The text we discussed here included revised text incorporating comments from 88 states, 3 IGOs, and 15 NGOs.

During the first days of the meeting, there was a significant discussion of process. The chair urged plenary to reduce the number of options and consolidate the text. Chair proposed a 3 part debate to plenary, dividing up the draft text into 3 areas to be discussed one after the other. Also mentioned the inevitable cross-cutting issues. It was agreed that a majority of the crosscutting concepts would be discussed by plenary at the end of the process. Chair also suggested that, where necessary, ad hoc working groups be set up to report on the various positions, where conflict existed.

The creation of the working groups assisted the meeting in certain key areas: int'l cooperation, the definition of protection and cultural goods and services. Also groups were set up to discuss the federal question. The working group on international cooperation was able to review 12,14,16,17, and 18. Collaboration between 50 states came to consensus on key elements of the convention. Discussed vulnerability, poverty, small island states. Other groups had challenging debates, but have helped us identify the core areas for further discussion.

The dialogue in plenary on the issue of protection showed us how consensus on protection would help us move forward in other ways. The gap between the various positions has been narrowing. The plenary was able to forward requests on many articles to the drafting committee. The committee has been able to turn this into a consolidated text on the first 11 Articles. Narrowed a great number of options for objectives to 9, and 63 suggestions for principles to 9. This is significant progress. Plenary was able to complete a comprehensive review of the text.

Work on article 1 led the committee to recommend 9 objectives, including two new ones, including interculturality. Principles 1&2 were merged, transparency deleted (covered elsewhere), new principle on national sovereignty. Regarding definitions in article 4, those linked to crosscutting concepts require deeper conversation. Discussion on rights and obligations generated intense conversation and some rapprochement between states and underscoring areas for further negotiation.

Areas not covered: delegates wanted more coherence on int'l cooperation, by proposing new article 12 moved to section on rights and obligations. Article 13 was supported by the plenary. Chairman suggested the article refer not just to creators, but to all involved in the creative process. New proposal 14 was based on old article 17. This included reference to assisting developing countries. New para 15 was added dealing with vulnerable forms of expression, specifically those at risk of extinction. Regarding original article 8, delegates want to continue discussing it at the next session.

On article 15, delegations requested that we not create heavy new institutions. Consensus that the UNESCO secretariat and the UN institute of statistics be the bodies for info gathering and dissemination.

Text of article 13 and 19 have to be considered together. Delegates expressed preference to modify article 13, to maintain flexibility with where the forum should be. Article 19, while some support A or B, others want a third way that sees complimentarity and mutual support between existing int'l instruments.

On follow up bodies, 20-24, plenary wants general assembly, called the 'conference of parties,' which should meet at the same time as the UNESCO general assembly. Also should be an intergovernmental committee, geographical representative, rotating membership every 4 years. Two tendencies about the rules of this committee. Only States parties can be members of the committee. It was suggested that these be reviewed.

On article 22, there was no support for the maintenance of the advisory group. On 23, remove reference to advisory committee.

Regarding the dispute settlement mechanism, should be addressed during the next intergovernmental meeting.

Informal discussions held on article 25 to see whether regional economic integration bodies could sign on to the convention by making reference to 'contracting parties' rather than 'states parties.' This remains a debate.

Article 26 on accession, option 1 was supported.

Article 27, original text was retained.

Article 28, original was supported, although some wanted to increase number of ratifications to 40, it remains 30.

Article 29, on federal states, general support to maintain subparagraph A in its original version. Subparagraph B needs a working group and future discussion.

We must be realistic. There are clear divergences that must be bridged. These differences illustrated by the great number of footnotes. I believe there's a genuine will in the room to continue dialogue towards an effective convention.

(long applause)

Chair: That long applause represents a great vote of confidence in the power of your summary of two weeks' work!

(applause)

Chair; What recommendations do we make to the Director-General, who is waiting to hear from us? How are we going to continue to work? What kind of text do we send by the 3rd of March? Where do we go from here?

Costa Rica: The group of 77 and China met in order to discuss the preoccupations we had during the meeting of the last two weeks. As a result, we consider it imperative to call for a 3rd intergovernmental meeting. We would ask you to prepare a consolidated text, taking into account the results of the working groups, drafting meetings, and plenary discussion, to use during this next meeting. This work should be done with the involvement of the Secretariat, the drafting head, and the legal council of UNESCO. We know that this work will be done with transparency and taking into account the comments of all of us here. This text should be circulated to all the governments as soon as possible. (Thanks everyone extensively).

Chair: Costa Rica has proposed an additional session of the IG meeting, and the preparation of a consolidated text. This proposal is now open for discussion.

Brasil: We're in favor of a new session of this group. We are on the Executive Board and we will ensure that this idea goes through. On the second point, of course we trust you. It's your task to pull together all the bits and pieces, we are looking forward to the president's text.

Russian Federation: We share the views that were just expressed regarding the path forward. We support the proposal from the G77 supported by China to convene a third meeting of IG experts. Also we support the creation of a consolidated text.

Costa Rica: as a point of clarification, this was not a proposal from Costa Rica, but came from the G77 and China.

Switzerland: We fully associate ourselves with the proposal.

Japan: We look forward to receiving the consolidated text as soon as possible.

Mexico: We join the proposal expressed by Costa Rica in name of the G77 and China.

Barbados: We fully support the proposal.

Luxembourg: We support.

Canada: Wholeheartedly endorses the proposal.

Morocco: Joins the support for the proposal. We need to be careful about languages that are NOT being used in this meeting. For example the Arabic translation was clumsy.

Chair: We'll correct that. There's seems to be consensus on holding a third meeting. The Executive Board will take the final decision on that matter, but we can be sure that our suggestion will be heeded. Concerning the consolidated text, this is an important development. The consolidated text will include Articles 1-11 that have been discussed for the past two weeks. Secondly, plenary discussed many of the provisions of the convention with a large degree of consensus, which will be reflected in draft form. There will also be a draft of the Preamble, which we didn't discuss. The only thing outstanding will be Appendix III and IV, and the Dispute settlement process. The President will work closely with the Chair of the Drafting Committee, the Rapporteur of the Plenary, and the Secretariat. When all this is ready, it will be circulated to the member states as well as the IGOs, NGOs, and specialized agencies. Let's end with possible dates for the third session.

We ask the secretariat to prepare a text of the recommendations you've made.

Coffee Break

President of the Liaison Committee for NGOs: The NGOs and the Liaison Committee, which is the body elected by the NGOs for our relationship with UNESCO, welcome the recognition expressed by many member states of the contribution of NGOs to the draft text. This has been constant throughout the drafting, and on article 11. We are reps of civil society, artists, musicians, publishers, all the creatives, without who we couldn't even talk about cultural diversity. There have been some 20 NGOs from the North, the South, the East, the West, from all corners of the globe. We represent thousands of different people, even if the representatives often come from the North. This is due to financial considerations. All these thousands of organizations, which we rep, urge states to keep working together with the NGOs to further nurture the relationship that we developed through these two weeks. We would not want this to end here, or with the approval of the convention. We want it to be followed up. Thanks chairman, rapporteur, etc. Also the secretariat. The cooperation we have is exemplary, and we hope it can serve as a model.

Costa Rica: Gratitude for what we just heard, and stress the importance in my country of involving civil society.

Chair: You have a copy of the recommendation in front of you. Remove the word draft.

Next meeting, the third session, will be the 17th May to Saturday, 4th of June (? This is probably a mistake, either by the Chair or by me. Most likely dates would be two weeks from Monday May 23rd till Saturday, June 4th).

USA: I can't speak in the name of 77 countries, or several countries, I can only speak for one country, the USA. We've been very impressed by the collegiality shown here. I felt like a chef, with my own team, playing different instruments. We hope that made a good sound. We'd be pleased to continue with the negotiations.

Chair's final speech: More than 500 delegates from States, IGOs, NGOs, reflects the intensity, quality, and interest in this convention. We've made progress, there've been frustrations (blah blah blah). We're not negotiating Weapons of Mass Destruction or territory, we're not negotiating something of vital immediate strategic interest to states. We're negotiating something different.

Collective consciousness that reflects itself in communitarian activity is outside of Anglo Saxon tradition. Margaret Thatcher once said 'there's no society, there's only individuals.' This convention makes it clear to me that without the recognition of collectivity, our world's cultural wealth can easily become imperiled. For example, all the great traditions of the Renaissance painters were deeply connected to religion, which is a collective tradition. In the same way, the Greek orthodox tradition of Icons is related to a collective, village-based tradition. For me, the link between culture and individual and collective dignity is important. In my view as a lawyer, it's the conception of dignity from which all other rights flow. Dignity has a primary role to play in the new EU constitution. The South African constitution recognizes Justice, Freedom, Equality, and Dignity. Let's not forget in the Annex that creativity is not only firms, but also non commercial traditions. As we learned from the tsunami, in Aceh, boatmaking is part of the cultural expressions. Many of these are very fragile.

We should therefore recall the JoBurg summit on Sustainable Development when we take the negotiations forward.

As Chair, you've charged us with a heavy responsibility, which we'll do following instructions of Plenary. I charge you to remain flexible. Diversity should become an instrument of cooperation rather than an instrument of subordination and domination, as it was before. The discussion of power is not really relevant here (?!)

Conclude with sincere thanks.