For an Open and Efficient Digitalisation of Culture (Culture Message)

[…]

Bern, 19.09.2023

Consultation response on the Dispatch on the Promotion of Culture for the Years 2025–2028

We are pleased to take the opportunity to comment as part of the consultation on the explanatory report on the Dispatch on the Promotion of Culture for the Years 2025–2028 (Culture Message).

[…]

In the field of culture and cultural heritage data, the association has maintained a working group since 2014 that promotes open data and participatory approaches among heritage institutions and addresses questions of digital transformation in the culture and heritage sector. To this end, the association organises an annual culture hackathon at which representatives of various stakeholder groups engage with issues around open culture and heritage data on the basis of concrete project ideas and prototypes.

In the second half of 2022, a number of association members also contributed to chapter 9 of the Swiss Data Alliance white paper on the EU data spaces from a Swiss perspective, which takes stock of the current situation and identifies the challenges related to the creation of a data space for culture and cultural heritage data (hereinafter “SDA white paper”). The profiles of the co-signing organisations can be found in the appendix.

Focus and structure of the response

In line with our core competencies, this response is limited to questions of data governance, data management and digital transformation in the wider sense. We do not comment on behalf of the association on the other aspects of the Culture Message; this should be regarded neither as approval nor as rejection.

The structure of our response follows the consultation questionnaire. 

Kind regards

On behalf of the Opendata.ch association

Beat Estermann, Board

Florin Hasler, Managing Director

Co-signing organisations (profiles in the appendix):

Jenny Ebermann, Executive Director Wikimedia CH

Erik Schönenberger, Managing Director Digitale Gesellschaft

1. Challenges for culture in Switzerland 

How do you assess the analysis of the current challenges for culture in Switzerland (cf. section 2 of the explanatory report)? Do you agree in principle with the objectives for the six fields of action? Are there any fundamental elements that are not mentioned? 

Ch. 2.1 – Culture as a world of work

We refrain from commenting on chapter 2.1. 

Ch. 2.2 – Updating the promotion of culture

Extending funding efforts to the entire value chain (ideation, conception, production, mediation, distribution) is urgently needed and is welcomed. However, the promotion of culture should also include the promotion of infrastructure and, with a view to making support processes more efficient, encourage collective action where it makes sense. The digital transformation opens up numerous opportunities here that are still underused today. These include, for example, making archival and documentation material more easily accessible as possible input for the creative process, platforms for placing artists, platforms for promoting performing arts productions, better networking of cultural agendas and event calendars, the provision of information on accessibility for people with disabilities, or the use of video platforms as complementary distribution channels.   

In addition, when analysing the value chain or value network with a view to a holistic promotion of culture, the areas of cultural journalism, documentation, memory building, research, and education and training must also be taken into account. In our view, an explicit mention of these aspects in ch. 2.2, where appropriate with cross-references to the corresponding chapters of the Culture Message, is indispensable for a holistic approach.

Ch. 2.3 – Digital transformation in culture

Re “Fair framework conditions in the digital environment”: The challenges of the platform economy and the associated formation of monopolies or oligopolies should be worked out more clearly. The new circumstances resulting from digitalisation should be related to the power imbalances and distributional inequalities of conventional structures. Here the Dispatch lacks analytical depth and the courage to clearly name the fundamental challenges, which would be a prerequisite for sustainable solutions. 

Re “Collecting, archiving and communicating the digital cultural heritage”: The observation that the challenges differ from sector to sector is correct in principle. However, the common challenges, the potential for synergies and the need for cooperation in connection with the documentation of cultural production, memory building and making cultural heritage usable in creative processes should be worked out more clearly. The corresponding conclusions are missing. 

The reference to the need for more intensive cooperation between cultural institutions and cultural funding bodies and for avoiding isolated solutions is welcomed. With regard to the development and operation of digital infrastructures by the public sector, reference should be made in this context to the Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment, whose principles must be systematically taken into account by public-law and publicly funded actors in the fields of cultural heritage and cultural promotion, which is only partly the case today. Officially, the Tallinn Declaration speaks of five principles; in the declaration these are in some cases broken down into individual sub-aspects. In connection with the Culture Message, we see a particular need for action in the following three areas:

• “For key public services, the principle applies that citizens and businesses only have to provide the same information to the public administration once (“once only”); at the request of citizens or businesses, the administration takes care of passing the information on internally” (Marti et al. 2022, p. 301).
  
• “In the spirit of openness and transparency (“openness”, “transparency”), citizens and businesses should be enabled to manage the data concerning them in base registers themselves and to exercise a certain control over their use. Furthermore, administrative data that are useful for the economy or society should by default be provided as open data for free reuse (“open by default”) and linked to reference databases (“automatic linkages to databases”). In addition, the long-term digital preservation of public sector data and information must be ensured (“long-term preservation”)” (ibid.).
  
• “Public sector IT applications should be interoperable (“interoperability by default”). In addition, open source solutions and open standards should be used to increase the reusability of IT applications – both within the public administration and beyond (“make ICT solutions available for reuse”). Duplication should be avoided when building service infrastructures (“avoid sectoral duplication of service infrastructures”)” (Marti et al. 2022, p. 302).   

In the field of culture and cultural heritage data, the digital transformation requires deliberate steering and coordination. The concept of data spaces or data ecosystems is very helpful here. It comprises the technical and semantic integration of data and data infrastructures across organisational boundaries and the shared use of data and information systems, but also accompanying measures such as raising awareness among and training the actors concerned, building know-how and sharing best practices, jointly developing software, clarifying legal and ethical questions, and aligning the actions of the various actors with common or society-wide goals.  

Switzerland’s federal structures ensure that all regional and local interests are duly taken into account and that a certain diversity of cultural production is guaranteed. When it comes to building future-proof data infrastructures and adapting administrative processes to the requirements of a digital world, however, federalism can also act as a brake. As the SDA white paper shows, the following areas in particular require increased attention in the context of the Culture Message:

–       Switzerland’s digital memory. Stronger coordination is needed in the area of long-term preservation. In addition, the question must be clarified as to what belongs to Switzerland’s digital memory and should be preserved for future generations. The corresponding processes must be set up in such a way that data can be passed on between the cultural and creative industries and the memory institutions with as few media discontinuities as possible. 

–       Non-discriminatory access to cultural heritage. Uniform rules are needed for digitisation projects that ensure non-discriminatory access to digitised cultural assets. In partnerships between public institutions and private companies, the following minimum standards must be observed:    

a)   All digital copies generated are made available to the public institution.

b)   Secondary use of the digital copies must be guaranteed without additional restrictions. 

c)   In the interest of transparency, cooperation agreements between public institutions and private companies for the purpose of digitising cultural assets are subject to the applicable freedom of information act; non-disclosure clauses are void.

 –      Sharing event data. To promote the sharing and secondary use of event data, the coordinated development of corresponding infrastructures and the establishment of adequate data governance are required. The goal should be to build a distributed data infrastructure based on the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).

–       Dealing with platform ecologies in art and culture. Current organisational forms and funding structures are often at odds with the laws of the platform economy. Moreover, there is still a great deal of untapped potential here for (in part global) cooperation and participation.

– Once-only principle in the promotion of culture. The cumbersome and fragmented application processes, the duplication of practically identical applications and the lack of transparency for funding organisations in the promotion of culture have become an unnecessary burden in the digital age. This can be remedied by the municipal and cantonal authorities, possibly in cooperation with private funding foundations, implementing the once-only principle (see Tallinn Declaration, 2017) in the promotion of culture. Here too, it is important to rely on open standards for data exchange and on open source solutions in order to prevent dependencies on individual software vendors.

– Dealing with the colonial legacy. The collections of Swiss museums, archives and other cultural institutions contain hundreds of thousands of objects, photographs and documents whose origin is connected with colonial or otherwise problematic contexts (e.g. looted art, threatened peoples, etc.). Digital accessibility of collection inventories and archives is particularly important in this context (see ch. 2.5 re “Dealing with contentious cultural heritage”). 

Ch. 2.4 – Culture as a dimension of sustainability

We refrain from commenting on the substance of the measures and objectives mentioned in chapter 2.4. It is striking that reflections on digital sustainability and (ecologically) sustainable digitalisation in the area of cultural infrastructures are largely missing. Furthermore, there is no explicit positioning within the international discourse on the relationship between culture and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably also with regard to Switzerland’s position on the proposal to recognise “culture” as a stand-alone SDG.  

Ch. 2.5 – Cultural heritage as a living memory

Re “Preservation, further development of and access to cultural heritage”: Here, explicit reference should be made to the opportunities offered by digitalisation for memory building and mediation in the areas of ephemeral forms of culture (performing arts, live music, living traditions) and in the areas of building culture and archaeology (e.g. 3D models).

The creation of an overarching substantive strategy for the preservation of cultural heritage is welcomed. In particular, it should also clarify the objectives, tasks and responsibilities with regard to safeguarding the digital memory.

Re “Dealing with contentious cultural heritage”: The efforts in the area of provenance research and the restitution of cultural heritage to its rightful owners are welcomed. The planned platform for provenance research on cultural property in Switzerland “collects and systematises research results […] on the provenance of cultural property in Switzerland”. The curation and wider accessibility of information and data on the collections concerned plays a central role and requires increased attention and adequate resources in order to enable independent (provenance) research. Both the opportunities and the risks of digitalisation should also be pointed out here. The activities already begun by heritage institutions to create common guidelines should be supported and encouraged with the involvement of the relevant actors. In this context, we refer to the “CARE” Principles for Indigenous Data Governance of the Global Indigenous Data Alliance.

Ch. 2.6 – Governance in the cultural sector

The call for strengthened cooperation and coordination in the federal context is welcomed. We note, however, that the development of digital infrastructures and the use of synergies arising from the digital transformation have so far been neglected in this respect. See in particular our comments on ch. 2.3.

Particular attention should be paid to the emerging platform ecologies, which now cover all stages of the value creation process of artistic and cultural production. There is still a great deal of untapped potential here in terms of cooperation and participation. Suitable governance structures must be created and continuously developed, with particular attention paid to data governance. In addition, the question must be clarified to what extent data and content generated through interactions and transactions on online platforms around cultural topics should be transferred to our society’s digital memory, for example to give researchers easier access to these data (keyword: impact research).

The European initiatives in the area of cultural heritage data are heading in the right direction. However, given the rather restrained participation of Swiss institutions so far, there are certain question marks. Political and strategic clarification is urgently needed here: on the one hand, Switzerland should make sure that it is not sidelined in pan-European projects. On the other hand, it should work towards positioning itself prominently at international level in those areas where Swiss actors, in cooperation with partners from abroad, can take on a leading international role. This is notably the case in the following areas (see SDA white paper, pp. 74-75): 

–        Use of Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons; 

–     Digital scholarship services; 

–     new technologies for documenting, indexing and communicating cultural practices and cultural heritage holdings; 

– Linking culture and cultural heritage data with data from other domains. 

In order to make consistent use of these opportunities, we believe the following measures are called for: 

• In the planned framework act on the secondary use of data (motion 22.3890 of the Committee for Science, Education and Culture of the Council of States), the culture and cultural heritage sector must also be taken into account as a strategically relevant area. Especially with regard to the ephemeral forms of cultural production (theatre, dance, performance, music, living traditions), the creation of an integrated data space for culture and cultural heritage data is indispensable. But such an approach could also be helpful in other areas (publishing, the art trade, etc.). In general, attention must be paid to permeability and compatibility with neighbouring data spaces (e.g. science, tourism, public administration).
  
• An in-depth analysis is needed of the objectives that the participation of Swiss institutions in the European cultural data pools (Europeana, Archives Portal Europe, etc.) should pursue for the individual user groups. At present, the benefits to be expected for the individual user groups in Switzerland are not clear enough and remain too vague. Information about the European cultural data pools and consultations with the various actors in the cultural sector (institutions, users, funders, cultural practitioners, etc.) could help  develop a common frame of reference here.
  
• The (re)integration of Switzerland into the European funding programmes in the areas of research & development and culture must be treated as a priority with a view to building data infrastructures and developing/disseminating best practices in dealing with data.  Until relations between Switzerland and the EU are normalised, alternative national funding instruments must be provided. In addition, alternative routes must be taken to promote the international cooperation of Swiss institutions beyond the EU. 

2. Priorities of the Confederation 

Do you agree in principle with the planned priorities of the Confederation for the individual fields of action (cf. section 3.1.2 of the explanatory report)?

Field of action “Updating the promotion of culture”

Re point 1 “The Confederation (Pro Helvetia) ensures that the work phases preceding and following production are given greater consideration in all disciplines”: The areas of cultural journalism, documentation, memory building, research, and education and training must also be taken into account here. In the current wording, it is unclear whether these are included.

We consider it necessary to insert an additional point: the Confederation’s promotion of culture now also includes the promotion of infrastructure, whereby, in connection with the digital transformation, it specifically ensures the funding of projects that, with a view to making support processes more efficient, promote collective action among existing actors and facilitate the implementation of the Tallinn principles in the culture and cultural heritage sector. Areas in which such measures are urgently needed include, for example, the implementation of linked open data for event data, the elimination of media discontinuities in memory building, or the implementation of the once-only principle for cultural funding applications. To the extent that the Confederation becomes more involved in promoting cultural journalism again in the future, care must be taken to ensure that the subsidised content is published under open access licences and, where possible, linked to the corresponding event data at the time of publication.    

Field of action “Digital transformation in culture”

Here we would welcome a more active role for the Confederation, without, however, unnecessarily curtailing the competences of the cantons (see also our comments on question 3 “Cooperation”).

In the field of culture and cultural heritage data, the digital transformation requires deliberate steering and coordination. To ensure this, the Confederation should take the lead in close cooperation with the cantons:

1. To ensure the development of future-proof data infrastructures and the adaptation of administrative processes to the requirements of a digital world: The principles of the Tallinn Declaration provide the frame of reference here and are binding for public sector actors.
   
2. To respond sensibly to the challenges of the platform economy and the associated formation of monopolies or oligopolies: Several principles of the Tallinn Declaration can help ease the situation: openness / transparency, open data (open by default), linking datasets with established reference databases; promoting the interoperability of software solutions, favouring open source applications, eliminating duplication (while avoiding the formation of monopolies).
   
3. To promote cooperation in the area of memory building: The common challenges, the potential for synergies and the need for cooperation in connection with the documentation of cultural production, memory building and making cultural heritage usable in creative processes must be clearly named and a concrete action plan adopted. This must define what the “digital memory of Switzerland” should contain and who is responsible for which areas. This point can feed into the work on developing a Switzerland-wide strategy for the preservation and further development of Switzerland’s cultural heritage; however, it would be desirable to speed up the process; the challenges and the need for action have been known for years.

Field of action “Cultural heritage as a living memory”

The implementation of motion 20.3930 WBK-S (“Concept for the care of Switzerland’s cultural heritage”) must be accelerated. The corresponding Federal Council report has been due since the end of 2022.

Field of action “Governance in the cultural sector”

Re priority 2: The provision of statistical foundations and the development of monitoring of the cultural sector to enable “an evidence-based and goal-oriented cultural policy” are welcomed in principle. In this context, the associated funding measures (5.6.2 Statistics and monitoring) are also welcomed, in particular the better use of administrative data, the provision of the collected data as Open Government Data (OGD), the anchoring of OGD in service agreements with partner organisations and the creation of incentives for cultural institutions to publish harmonised open data.

With regard to priority 2, however, it is surprising that the Observatoire romand de la culture, launched in autumn 2022, is not mentioned. Coordination between the Confederation and the (French-speaking) cantons would seem sensible here. The initiative is of particular interest from the point of view of the interplay between research and the systematic provision of data for the purpose of impact research, whereby the changes brought about by the digital transformation in particular should also be taken into account.   

Under priority 3, the area of research should also be listed explicitly.

We also consider it necessary to insert the following priorities:

• With a view to the planned framework act on the secondary use of data (motion 22.3890 WBK-S), the Confederation promotes the development of data spaces in the culture and cultural heritage sector by means of corresponding start-up funding (see also our comments on the field of action “Updating the promotion of culture”).
  
• With the involvement of the various stakeholder groups, the Confederation carries out a systematic review of the objectives that the participation of Swiss institutions in the European cultural data pools (Europeana, Archives Portal Europe, etc.) should pursue for the individual user groups and adjusts its funding policy accordingly.
  
• The Confederation seeks the rapid (re)integration of Switzerland into the European funding programmes in the areas of research & development and Creative Europe. Until cooperation with the EU is normalised, alternative national funding instruments will be provided to promote the participation of Swiss institutions in EU projects and the international cooperation of Swiss institutions beyond the EU.  

3. Cooperation 

Do you welcome strengthened cooperation in cultural policy between the Confederation and its partners (cantons, cities, municipalities, cultural associations and private cultural funding institutions) (cf. sections 2.6 and 3.1.1 of the explanatory report)?

Strengthened cooperation and coordination between the actors mentioned is urgently needed. The National Cultural Dialogue as a coordination instrument between the cantons and the federal levels must be critically evaluated against the background of the challenges and goals of the Culture Message. A multi-stakeholder approach would be welcome. Care must be taken to involve civil society actors and other holders of knowledge in the field of digital transformation (e.g. the Opendata.ch association; Swiss Data Alliance; the Digitale Gesellschaft association; universities) in the process. 

In this context, we would like to point out that the consistent implementation of various principles of the Tallinn Declaration would promote cooperation between the various administrative units and other actors. In particular, the implementation of open data by default, prioritising open source solutions, linking datasets to common base registers, and harmonisation and standardisation have such an effect. The implementation of the once-only principle is also inconceivable without cooperation between the various administrative units. While the Confederation, the Conference of Cantonal Governments (CdC) and various cantons and cities all commit to the Tallinn principles in their relevant strategy documents, concrete implementation often still falls short. As the Swiss Federal Audit Office found in 2018 with regard to the implementation of Open Government Data at federal level, the implementation of formally adopted strategies by the public administration is not optional but mandatory. We take the view that this also applies to the other principles of the Tallinn Declaration: where these are not yet included in the relevant strategy documents of cantons and cities/municipalities (concerning e-government, digital transformation, etc.), this must be remedied urgently. The principles mentioned must then actually be implemented. So far there is no indication that this has been a topic within the National Cultural Dialogue. References to corresponding coordination with Digital Public Services Switzerland are likewise absent from the explanatory report on the Culture Message. We would welcome it if the Culture Message set out how the Confederation intends to proceed, in close cooperation with its partners, to consistently implement the Tallinn principles in the culture and cultural heritage sector, to review the progress of implementation and to report on it transparently.

4. Amendment of the Nature and Cultural Heritage Protection Act

We refrain from commenting on question 4. 

5. Amendment of the National Library Act 

The proposed amendment of the National Library Act ensures that the National Library can fulfil its mandate to collect and communicate in the digital age as well. To this end, a legal deposit rule for digital Helvetica is to be created. Do you agree with the proposed revision of the National Library Act (cf. section 6.3 and annex 3 of the explanatory report)?

The new legal deposit rule for non-physical Helvetica (“Dépôt légal numérique”) is welcomed in principle. 

How to deal with social media content and private publications on the internet (blogs, websites) needs to be clarified. To the extent that social media or informal online formats have replaced classic journalistic content, these should also be preserved for posterity. This applies in particular to the reception of cultural production (experience reports, reviews, etc.). However, the semi-public nature of much of this content is likely to pose challenges with regard to the protection of personality rights and privacy, which must be addressed accordingly.

Appendix

Below you will find the profiles of the organisations co-signing this response:

Digitale Gesellschaft

Digitale Gesellschaft is a non-profit, broadly based association for civil rights and consumer protection in the digital age. Since 2011, as a civil society organisation, we have been committed to a sustainable, democratic and free public sphere. We defend fundamental rights in a digitally networked world. Digitale Gesellschaft informs and advises individuals and institutions on consumer and legal issues in the digital space. The non-profit organisation assesses the consequences of technology with regard to their possible impact on fundamental and human rights and offers services, software projects and workshops on digital self-defence.

Wikimedia CH

Wikimedia CH is a non-profit association that brings people together with the aim of spreading free knowledge for a neutrally informed and open society. The organisation enables volunteer Wikipedia authors to share knowledge and connects them with the Wikimedia universe. Recognised by the Wikimedia Foundation as a chapter, Wikimedia CH remains a financially and legally independent entity subject to Swiss regulations and laws.