Although diplomats are a critically endangered species in our war-obsessed times, this profession may legitimately boast an impressive record of achievements. From ceasefire agreements to peace settlements, from international conventions to fully-fledged treaties, they used to display mastery in reconciling the views of a variety of key actors around the world. The UNESCO Convention of 2005 on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is a vivid testimony to this brilliant record. It stands out as a landmark ode to culture, both the one inherited from our elders and the one in the making: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000142919.
Its many authors made sure that it was futureproofed by way of explicit reference to the role of ICT in enhancing the legacy side as well as the new frontier. Twenty years on, it is worth assessing how it has stood the test of time. The 2022 report on “Re|Shaping policies for creativity”, financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and released in the context of the 2015 monitoring framework of the Convention, provides a handy and comprehensive tool to this effect: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000142919
Being “SOS – Save Our Spectrum”, we shall be forgiven for parsing it through a PMSE (Programme Making and Special Events) lens.
For a good start, the report claims that the cultural and creative sectors account for 3.1% of global GDP and 6.2% of all employment.
Goal 2 is thus spelled out: “Achieve a balanced flow of cultural goods and services and increase the mobility of artists and cultural professionals.” This is a remit that the PMSE sector has taken seriously all along, with an emphasis put on the technology that best enables the creation and dissemination associated with live performances while facilitating the mobility of artists.
In the section entitled “Looking ahead: the importance of addressing culture as a global public good”, we can read this on the top of page 29: “Actively supporting the emergence of local markets for cultural goods and services and facilitating the effective and licit access of such goods and services to international markets, taking into account the expanding range of cultural production and consumption and the provisions of the Convention.” What is PMSE doing if not delivering on this perfectly articulated mission statement? Live performances do foster the discovery of domestic talent and their dissemination without frontiers. Critically, they need proper frequencies to happen.
This issue is broached again on page 58, this time form the perspective of education and training: “Programmes in cinema and audiovisual arts are least likely to be provided, despite the fact that it is the most common cultural domain for policies and measures to be applied and reported. This relatively low level of programmes on offer raises questions about how the domestic talent base will develop the necessary skills to participate fully in the global film and TV industry. The low representation of cultural management in education and training pathways is also particularly alarming. More attention needs to be paid to training the new generation of policy-makers and managers if there is to be sustainable governance of culture.” Again, it would not harm to take them to bootcamps dedicated to spectrum management since, in Europe, live performances secure 45.1% of the revenues of music artists and they simply won’t happen if an appropriate range of frequencies is no longer made available to PMSE.
In Chapter 2 “Ensuring a diversity of voices in the media”, the report argues on page 71 that
“Citizens and social groups should have access to a wide range of content of their choice and should be able to participate in their creation and dissemination.” This begs the question of the role of PMSE and the attendant spectrum needs in this respect.
Chapter 3 “New opportunities and challenges for inclusive cultural and creative industries in the digital environment” finds that “National digital strategies often fail to address the specific concerns and needs of the cultural and creative sectors. There is a need for more intersectoral governance models involving ministries of culture, communication (or those with a portfolio on media and broadcasting), trade and industry (or those responsible for copyright regulation), private actors, civil society and other relevant agents, as well as regional strategies.” The “silo approach” to culture is widespread indeed, and more damaging than you would think: digital technology is often seen as the prerogative of telecom operators and Big Tech while culture is better left to the analogue era. Nothing can be farther from the truth, as evidenced by the growing success of digital technology-loaded PMSE and videogame industries.
In the same vein, among the conclusions and recommendations listed on page 115, the report advocates that “Parties should ensure digital strategies or plans on the diversity of cultural expressions are drafted in consultation with relevant stakeholders of the cultural and creative sectors, including public bodies (ministries of culture plus authorities in communication, broadcasting, technology, trade, industry and intellectual property, arts councils and so on), as well as civil society organizations.” Civil society does matter indeed, as any industry serving the needs of consumers would testify: PMSE audiences arise from the ranks of music lovers, a community that keeps growing around the world.
On page 128, a respondent from the civil society survey says that “Data remain essential to present, for example, a baseline situation, setting objectives or data indicators. It allows analysis of situations and contexts that we often fail to achieve with unreliable data. Data are essential to promote the Convention, allowing Parties to create, produce, disseminate and distribute their own cultural expressions and (…) have access to them, taking due account of specific conditions and needs.” Good public policy being evidence-based, the chase for reliable and current statistics is a real challenge for PMSE, although ministries of culture are moving faster in collecting festival-related data.
Box 4.5 on page 132 includes a clear warning about the value of genuine participatory process: “It is one thing to be consulted, it is one thing to be involved in the process, it is another thing to then see the process actually bring to fruition something that you actually had a say over.’ (Macdonald Macdee Chidavaenzi – singer, music producer and director of Eternity Productions)”. PMSE operators know a few things about the need to take the pulse of their audiences at all times if their programming is to meet with success.
Reading Chapter 5 “Re-imagining mobility for artists and cultural professionals” with a PMSE eye would emphasize the impact of wireless technology on this mobility. Granting visas is certainly a prerequisite, but so is the availability of proper frequency bands throughout a region. For instance, the 470-694 MHz band allows artists to tour Europe with their own sound equipment all along.
Last but not least, Christopher Bailey, Arts and Health Lead, WHO, provides this kind of “icing on the cake” on page 51: “With the publication of WHO’s landmark report on the subject, What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being?, a global conversation has emerged that goes beyond how the arts can be used for effective health messaging. Across the arts, the report shows evidence for how music, visual arts, dance and other forms of creative expression can positively impact recovery from physical injury, help support mental health and also contribute to social well‑being.
A growing network of research institutions around the world is not only looking at effective arts‑based health interventions and how they measurably improve health, but also the reasons why – delving into the neurology and biochemistry of the aesthetic experience.” While stating the obvious in light of most people’s experience, this formal statement from the organization that offers a global guiding light in anything related to health is obviously music to the ears of PMSE.
The above – admittedly partial – reading of the report ends up portraying PMSE as the “elephant in the room”, a behemoth of a player that is all over the place without ever being mentioned. This “bug” is not impossible to fix though. We are not suggesting to open a lengthy, time-consuming process of amending the UNESCO Convention of 2005.
We just feel encouraged to make the most of the UN system by reading on page 195 that “The Convention (or its objectives and principles) is referred to in 12 international instruments from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the Human Rights Council (HRC), the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (International Organization of La Francophonie, OIF), the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (Parliamentary Assembly of the French-Speaking World, APF) and United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG).” The ITU, a key, senior “cog” of the UN suite of agencies – at least from a PMSE standpoint given the decisive role of regular WRCs – is missing here, but there is hope. On page 220, Alexandra Xanthaki, UN Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights, writes: “In studying the relationship between cultural rights and cultural diversity with the aim of further promoting cultural rights, it is crucial for my mandate to collaborate closely with civil society and international organizations, including UNESCO. The cultural rights of individuals and communities can only thrive where cultural diversity is protected.” Furthermore, UNESCO is not unaccustomed to working in close collaboration with the ITU, as exemplified by their common Charter for Public Digital Learning Platforms: https://www.unesco.org/en/digital-education/learning-platforms-gateway/charter
Since French MP Aurélien Saintoul made explicit references to PMSE in his report on DTT last year:
https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/rapports/due/l17b2059_rapport-fond it would not be farfetched to advocate such a mention in a legislative or diplomatic instrument, but our goal is more practical and urgent: following two successive oustings from valuable frequency bands in the name of “digital dividends”, the PMSE community would appreciate it very much if a tighter collaboration between UNESCO and the ITU in the perspective of WRC-27 would keep at bay the specter of a third “digital dividend” which would prove fatal, this time, for the creation and dissemination of Europe’s culture.
Discussed and adopted at the meeting of SOS – Save Our Spectrum on May 15, 2026, in Paris.
