Dear Editor,
I happily note the award of the Guyana Fund for Cultural and Creative Industries (GFCCI) and would like to congratulate this first batch of awardees. I wish to offer just a bit of clarity on the development of the current fund. When the political administration changed in May of 2015, Barrington Braithwaite, Burchmore Simon and Sonia Noel were at the forefront of a small group of stakeholders, themselves practitioners in various sectors of the creative industries, who lobbied the new government to put in place some sort of financing mechanism for the development of the creative industries.
In part as a result of this lobbying and the proposals submitted, the original concept for the Fund as presently constituted would have been taken to Cabinet for approval by then Minister with portfolio responsibility for Culture, Nicolette Henry during budgetary preparations of around June 2017, with the intention of the fund being created in the 2018 budget, the original proposed amount being $30 million.
There were three main objectives as envisioned:
● To strategically invest public expenditure in the development of the creative industries.
● To stimulate the production of high quality creative work across the sectors covered.
● To recognize and reward individuals and entities involved in creative industry development in Guyana.
For whatever reason, the expenditure was pushed back by a year and allocated $20 million.
With regard to the presumed ‘novelty’ of the fund, the reality is that the $20 million budgeted for the Creative Arts is not new to Guyana and is in fact dwarfed by its predecessor, the annual $100 million Sports and Arts Development Fund which ran for about eight years under the direction of the PPP/C’s Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport, Dr. Frank Anthony. The key difference between the two mechanisms has to do with the accountability and transparency governing the allocation.
In a May, 2013 white paper, ‘Areas of Inquiry into and Initial Recommendations for Reform of Management of the National Arts Fund’, one I shared with the then Parliamentary Opposition and other stakeholders, I focused on accountability issues as were then associated with the Sports and Arts fund from an arts perspective. In the Summary Narrative, I noted that “The National Sports and Arts Fund represents an ostensibly generous commitment by government towards the development of both subject areas, sports and arts. However, several factors skew the reality of how the fund is spent and the impact it has as developmental mechanism… Issues of planning, fairness and accountability continue to be raised with regard to the management of the Fund as a whole, with specific regard to several key individual funding areas under its aegis.”
When the political administration changed in 2015, it is little wonder that one of the initial forensic audits commissioned by the new administration focused on the Fund, if only for the years 2012-2014. As was covered extensively and comprehensively in the media, the audit revealed that over half of the $300 million allocated and expended during the period under audit could not be properly accounted for, and that ‘governance’ of the fund was the responsibility of a triumvirate consisting of the then Minister, the Permanent Secretary and Director of Culture.
In the 2013 white paper, I made the observation that, “There are numerous examples available in the public domain with regard to the establishment of functional, policy-based public arts funding in other jurisdictions. The four principle tenets common to those are independence; openness; accountability; proactivity… The NAF therefore should ideally be subject to the sort of planning, scrutiny, and monitoring and evaluation of its programmes as any other area of public expenditure. Currently, this is a situation that does not prevail and which should be rectified by concrete, decisive measures.”
It should be noted that the revelations of the forensic audit notwithstanding, there has been no censure against any involved party relative to the mismanagement of the Sports and Arts Development Fund.
My initial recommendations in 2013 were as follows:
“Decoupling – a separate Arts funding from the current lump sum Sports and Arts configuration creating a budgetary allocation for the National Arts Fund.
Mandate – establish a specific developmental mandate for the Fund, based on the four tenets above, with a strong research component. This should be in the context of a revised and updated National Cultural Policy.
Legal Establishment/Semi-Autonomy – establish the Fund as a semi-autonomous entity via Act of Parliament, with a model based on established best practices, including the British Council as well as the US National Endowment for the Arts, with specific consideration for Guyana’s heritage preservation and cultural industries development imperatives.”
Of the three steps outlined above, the GFCCI as presently constituted accomplishes two. In the ‘Draft Framework National Cultural Policy’ (February, 2017) a Creative Industries Development Commission is proposed to, inter alia, “Establish a national mechanism for the financing of cultural and creative industries, from the individual artist to sector corporations.”
The next step is establishing precisely such a mechanism, whether under the aegis of a specific, legally constituted independent fund, or as managed by a creative industries development commission or authority.
It is critical to note that while the current fund is a first significant step towards the establishment of a sustainable, accountable and transparent mechanism for arts financing – one that the administration should be proud of – it is one that took years to initiate. We cannot afford similar glacial movement in taking the next step.
In the two years since the original concept note was submitted to Cabinet, the Caribbean Development Bank has started its own similarly designed Creative Industries Innovation Fund (CIIF) and the region has been engaged in finalizing the modalities that will govern our access to millions of euros under Protocol Three of the EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partner-ships Agreement in the next EDF, a negotiation mechanism within which we continue to be under-represented.
If it is that we do not pay adequate, timely attention to the development of our national capacities in creative industries innovation and infrastructure, we unnecessarily deny ourselves optimum development in a critical area. By end of year, Guyana should see national consultations on the Draft Framework National Cultural Policy as well as several derivative initiatives/proposals and I urge, in advance, all stakeholders to be part of the process.
Yours faithfully,
Ruel Johnson
Cultural Policy Advisor
Government of Guyana
