Towards alternative modes of practice

Demands for change in practice emerged very clearly from the consultation process. They should be seriously heeded. These demands concern basic attitudes, modes of practice and funding with respect to cultural relations. They apply to the EU as well as its Member States. In particular, there is a need to adapt rules, regulations and procedures to the realities on the ground. Hence alternatives should be developed as regards the existing schemes or ‘models’ through which the EU’s cultural relations take place. This is a challenge of both content and methodology. It concerns rules of financing, accountability, administrative processes that are largely perceived as ‘bureaucratic’ as well as political considerations that often come into play, such as limitations to funding in specific crisis situations. In reality, the EU has at best very limited capacities for rapid intervention in crises, unlike both public and private actors in North America, for example, who are able to react very quickly.

On a more general level, proposals involving third country actors are all too often drafted from a predominantly European perspective. EC calls for proposals have an over-determining effect as regards project design, since themes as well as strict conditions of participation are set out in

advance. The projects that emerge are often ‘manufactured projects’.58

Too much unproductive ex ante standardisation or, worse, projects designed specifically to meet pre-established EU criteria rather than developing organically, appear to be occurring. This allows little space for innovative forms of cooperation and restricts the range of eligible projects. Hence at a recent joint ifa/More Europe workshop held in Brussels, participants pleaded for more open calls for proposals, so that third country partners themselves can be involved from the outset in project design.59 _It

flows from this that strategic planning and local empowerment should be combined, through relations of trust forged in a spirit of tailored cooperation, and by optimising the comparative advantage that exists on both sides. Hence also the idea of a code of conduct for culture in external relations. Many at the workshop also observed that there was no built-in structural commitment to cultural relations in the EU Delegations. The degree of interest shown by them was generally ad hoc, depending on the goodwill of particular individuals. In addition to a mandate for cultural relations they need also to be empowered to take non-political decisions on the basis of cultural expertise, rather than adhere to patterns of diplomacy governed by political agendas.

At a more specific level, the inquiry process led the Consortium to identify alternative ‘models’ of practice in several areas: trans-national peer-to-peer learning, financing of projects and the empowerment of local actors. In each of these areas, pilot projects could be developed on the basis of careful further reflection.

4.4.1 Alternative models of trans-national peer-to-peer learning Independent ‘eye-to-eye’ forms of collaboration would be a form of much desired ‘cultural fair trade’ and could provide valuable mutual learning experience. These partnerships could bring together artists, cultural managers, journalists, writers, etc..

Example 1

Since 2007, the ‘Tandem cultural managers exchange programme’, supported inter alia by the Bosch Foundation, Mercator, DOEN and Mimeta, has benefited cultural managers with proven professional

58 Remark made by Pooja Sood at the international conference, 8 April, 2014.

59 The workshop was part of the research project ‘European external cultural relatons: Paving new ways?’ carried out by Gaëlle Lisack for ifa and MORE EUROPE . The results of the research and the outcomes of the workshop will be made public in April 2014.

experience from countries inside and outside the EU. A decisive feature of its success is the equality of power relations in terms of who has the money, the knowledge or the capacity to deliver. Participants work together on the same footing and under the same conditions to co- create and co-produce. Each ‘tandem’ is completely free to define the project it wants to develop and each member of the tandem is equally responsible for the outcomes. The programme’s host organisation, the European Cultural Foundation, functions as a mentor and facilitator; it does not design projects for the tandems.

Example 2

From 2008 to 2012, the exchange programme for cultural journalists called Nahaufname, launched by the Goethe-Institut in 2008, sent German journalists to countries outside the EU and brought peers from these countries to Germany. The journalists were attached to a local media organisation and contributed material pertaining to their countries of origin. The same conditions were extended to all and the group created bonds that developed into a network that continues to operate today.60

4.4.2 Alternative models of financing cultural relations projects Since budgets for culture in external relations are limited, different models of funding and EU leverage for them are going to be needed. There is no evidence whatsoever that private philanthropy or investment will step in to replace public subsidy in Europe any time soon. Yet there has been something of a shift from a vision of public support to the arts that consists of giving grants or subsidies to deserving cultural projects to the idea of ‘investing’ in cultural projects that are ‘bankable’, in other words have the potential for a return on investment. This shift of emphasis can be applied to international cultural relations as well. There is scope for the forging of public/private partnerships to complement traditional funding sources. New projects need to be designed that embody new models of combining public and private expenditures. The potential is most obvious in fields such as the cultural and creative industries, and in clusters of ‘incubators’ in areas of need such as urban neighbourhoods.

Example 1

The Dutch NGO HIVOS and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) are together providing pilot funding to support ‘incubator’ projects. One such project is a programme to set up and strengthen incubators for the cultural and creative Industries in the South-Mediterranean region; the programme will combine grants and investment incentives in order to help cultural entrepreneurs establish themselves as start-ups. It is also providing leverage in the process. HIVOS is seeking to facilitate new models of funding ranging from matching funds to crowd-funding. In collaboration with other partners, a creative investment fund will be set up, augmented by the core funders as well as by private investors interested in the initiative.

Example 2

The Marseille-based association Aide aux Musiques Innovatrices (AMI) is working under its DYNAMO platform with the French Government’s Caisse des Dépôts et des Consignations on an experimental scheme to provide publicly guaranteed loans to cultural organisations and artists. Here again, the idea is to convince private individuals to invest, rather than just give money away as a donation. The public guarantee is used to attract such investment. This model will make it possible to share private and public guarantees using matching arrangements and low interest rates. This project is being developed initially for micro-credits in France and if it is successful it could become international.61 _(Cultural

operators familiar with the proposed Creative Europe programme 2014- 2020 have suggested applying the Creative Europe Guarantee Fund to culture in external relations).

Another area of demand is for re-granting through local institutions. The EU could work through local service providers in implementing projects across a larger area involving several (smaller) cultural actors on the ground, rather than operating on an individual project basis. For example, in the field of culture for development, the programme of the Norwegian culture and development NGO Mimeta aims to encourage decision makers in Africa to set up funds to assist emerging service providers.62

Similar pleas are being made with respect to grants. First, for smaller ones: cultural operators are often deterred by the scale of some EU

61 http://www.amicentre.biz/-DYNAMO,59-.html, http://www.amicentre.biz/IMG/pdf/AMI_ Dynamo-depliant-8.pdf

grants – even the process of filling in applications can be daunting. Quick access to small grants is also needed for project development. Many operators observe that the creation of local foundations to channel funds could help avoid slow and cumbersome bureaucratic processes. This is particularly necessary in order to respond quickly to crisis situations in which local cultural players do not necessarily wish to receive funds directly from the EU or a governmental organisation.

Equally recurrent was the idea of targeting new players, mostly private investors. It was suggested that the EU could test brokering platforms with the finance community so that cultural projects become part of the profile for investment; it could also broker public incentives for private cultural investment (e.g. in African and Arab countries) or facilitate the creation of local funds independent of government influence and managed by local players.

4.4.3 Alternative ways of empowering local actors

Many examples of collaboration between established cultural organisations and/or foundations and local actors were cited during the consultation. There are potential models using different kinds of expertise. The EC could attempt to develop such new modes of cooperation and elaborate a pilot project for this purpose.

Example

A three-year cooperation project between the Sundance Institute and the Arab Fund for Culture (AFAC), carried out with the support of other donors, has empowered local documentary film makers.63 _The

key characteristic of the project was shared trust and clear rules of cooperation. The Sundance Institute supported its partners financially and by allocating one expert in each jury for the selection process. AFAC was able to operate freely, starting with the definition of calls for proposals. Sundance provided technical support on request. Through access to festivals it facilitated contacts in the film market. Exchanges between professionals created positive long-term impact. The scheme also enhanced the credibility of AFAC, making it easier for them to

find other funding for the project after the end of cooperation with the Sundance Institute.

4.4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are overarching challenges that require new attitudes as well – a new ‘culture’, as it were, of measurement and benchmark based assessment – if they are ever to become meaningful tools. Many institutional initiatives fail for lack of such tools with which to identify roadblocks and wrong turnings. No such tools have yet been developed at EU level. The need for such mechanisms would be particularly strong in the case of any newly launched EU strategy for culture in external relations, hence their design and elaboration must be made part and parcel of the process.