EU funds for culture?... What funds?
Adrian Wirth asks why more Maltese cultural entities have not tried to access EU cultural funding
You know how it is, three people get together over a bottle of whatever and one says: "Heard the one about the drama company winning an EU culture and the arts project grant?" - and they all fall about laughing? Roughly speaking, that's how a very limited scope enquiry came about.
Twenty cultural entities, seven from theatre, five each from dance and music and three from the world of visual art were sent five questions asking: Are you aware of EU initiatives benefiting your discipline? Have you applied for any and if not, why not? What's required to qualify for EU support? Would you apply if you knew where/to whom to apply? and lastly: Have you applied and been refused EU funding, told why and encouraged to reapply?
Only eight replied: Theatre producers Adrian Buckle and Patrick Vella, dancer Francesca Grima, music promoter Gaby Giacchino, musician Sarah Spiteri, ceramist Julie Apap and painters John Busuttil Leaver and James Vella Clark. Of those seven are aware of support but only two felt programmes were relevant to them. As 12 didn't reply, could it be 90 per cent felt EU funding programmes are irrelevant to them? If so then something is ill in the house of culture.
Of the three that applied not one was successful and just one is prepared to try again. This has to be a disappointing result. Perhaps part of the cause is that only the same three knew what's necessary to access the process. The positive and encouraging point is that six say they would apply if they knew how, indicating a serious information shortfall somewhere. Just one made one or more bids to Culture 2000, but all were disqualified. They still try but believe the process is focused on education and youth while our "professional" theatre disciplines are effectively excluded. Evidence indicates this isn't so, rather that processes of delivery between ministries differ significantly.
The conclusion has to be something's wrong in the delivery of EU cultural programmes - but what?
Joanna Drake, the EU representative, seems aware a challenge exists in the take-up of available funds, confirming the indications produced by the survey particularly in: "Seeing a gap in the interface between project intermediaries and applicants, especially in the provision of hand-holding, facilitating or mentoring". This support shortfall seems noticeably so in respect of NGOs and cultural SMEs outside the educational catchment. Perhaps the solution could be one of modernising bureaucratic process and practice. Meeting the EU's derogation requirements by accrediting sectorial NGOs by act of Parliament has only just occurred. Registration of authorised bodies ought now to be possible. The new challenge may be who represents whom in arts, media, drama, literature, music and so forth. A multiplicity of NGOs is probably not a desirable development. The Malta Council for Culture and The Arts will no doubt see themselves fulfilling the role of a national umbrella organisation. Will the cultural community accept that status? Time will tell.
Dr Drake affirms that: "The predominance of cultural mini micro-enterprises by EU standards with negligible financial resources means specialist consultancy advice is mostly unaffordable or inaccessible. In spite of specialist local project bid consultants' modus operandi being flexible and adapted to meet local fiscal constraints."
Mentoring and providing financial support for bid promoters to bring together their networks, an essential factor in the bid process, and to write their project bid is vital. Evidence indicates this service isn't uniformly available across the cultural community, rather that the processes of delivery between ministries differ significantly, apparently to the disadvantage of the non-educational cultural sector.
A paramount factor inhibiting bid creation and delivery by public sector funded parastatal NGOs, and enterprise SMEs, is if annual public budget allocations are returnable to government source if unspent and/or non-guaranteeable beyond the annual budget period. This makes participation in multi-year transnational cultural projects extremely challenging if not, and certainly as project leaders, impossible. The two deliverers of EU cultural funding are The Ministry of Education and the Ministry Of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.
Mauro Parascandalo, national co-coordinator of The European Union Programmes Agency within the education ministry, was quite forthcoming and open: "We recognise these challenges and believe we have identified means of bridging the knowledge gap, by providing incentives for more experienced EU fund applicants to facilitate and mentor schools, educational NGOs and others within our remit.
Those offering and accredited to provide this service shall be allocated bonus points for their own funding bids. The problem is the number of accreditable entities is limited, as we have not had adequate time to build up that expertise. Bi-annual or multi-year budgeting is no problem for EUPA".
A reply from The Ministry for Tourism, Culture and The Arts is still awaited.
Twenty cultural entities, seven from theatre, five each from dance and music and three from the world of visual art were sent five questions asking: Are you aware of EU initiatives benefiting your discipline? Have you applied for any and if not, why not? What's required to qualify for EU support? Would you apply if you knew where/to whom to apply? and lastly: Have you applied and been refused EU funding, told why and encouraged to reapply?
Only eight replied: Theatre producers Adrian Buckle and Patrick Vella, dancer Francesca Grima, music promoter Gaby Giacchino, musician Sarah Spiteri, ceramist Julie Apap and painters John Busuttil Leaver and James Vella Clark. Of those seven are aware of support but only two felt programmes were relevant to them. As 12 didn't reply, could it be 90 per cent felt EU funding programmes are irrelevant to them? If so then something is ill in the house of culture.
Of the three that applied not one was successful and just one is prepared to try again. This has to be a disappointing result. Perhaps part of the cause is that only the same three knew what's necessary to access the process. The positive and encouraging point is that six say they would apply if they knew how, indicating a serious information shortfall somewhere. Just one made one or more bids to Culture 2000, but all were disqualified. They still try but believe the process is focused on education and youth while our "professional" theatre disciplines are effectively excluded. Evidence indicates this isn't so, rather that processes of delivery between ministries differ significantly.
The conclusion has to be something's wrong in the delivery of EU cultural programmes - but what?
Joanna Drake, the EU representative, seems aware a challenge exists in the take-up of available funds, confirming the indications produced by the survey particularly in: "Seeing a gap in the interface between project intermediaries and applicants, especially in the provision of hand-holding, facilitating or mentoring". This support shortfall seems noticeably so in respect of NGOs and cultural SMEs outside the educational catchment. Perhaps the solution could be one of modernising bureaucratic process and practice. Meeting the EU's derogation requirements by accrediting sectorial NGOs by act of Parliament has only just occurred. Registration of authorised bodies ought now to be possible. The new challenge may be who represents whom in arts, media, drama, literature, music and so forth. A multiplicity of NGOs is probably not a desirable development. The Malta Council for Culture and The Arts will no doubt see themselves fulfilling the role of a national umbrella organisation. Will the cultural community accept that status? Time will tell.
Dr Drake affirms that: "The predominance of cultural mini micro-enterprises by EU standards with negligible financial resources means specialist consultancy advice is mostly unaffordable or inaccessible. In spite of specialist local project bid consultants' modus operandi being flexible and adapted to meet local fiscal constraints."
Mentoring and providing financial support for bid promoters to bring together their networks, an essential factor in the bid process, and to write their project bid is vital. Evidence indicates this service isn't uniformly available across the cultural community, rather that the processes of delivery between ministries differ significantly, apparently to the disadvantage of the non-educational cultural sector.
A paramount factor inhibiting bid creation and delivery by public sector funded parastatal NGOs, and enterprise SMEs, is if annual public budget allocations are returnable to government source if unspent and/or non-guaranteeable beyond the annual budget period. This makes participation in multi-year transnational cultural projects extremely challenging if not, and certainly as project leaders, impossible. The two deliverers of EU cultural funding are The Ministry of Education and the Ministry Of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.
Mauro Parascandalo, national co-coordinator of The European Union Programmes Agency within the education ministry, was quite forthcoming and open: "We recognise these challenges and believe we have identified means of bridging the knowledge gap, by providing incentives for more experienced EU fund applicants to facilitate and mentor schools, educational NGOs and others within our remit.
Those offering and accredited to provide this service shall be allocated bonus points for their own funding bids. The problem is the number of accreditable entities is limited, as we have not had adequate time to build up that expertise. Bi-annual or multi-year budgeting is no problem for EUPA".
A reply from The Ministry for Tourism, Culture and The Arts is still awaited.