The IPO represents, protects and promotes the interests of independent South African film, television and digital media producers and, in turn, all who work in and are suppliers to the industry value chain.

Resources 

IPO NFVF Manifesto

ipoadmin

MANIFESTO OF THE INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS ORGANISATION (IPO) 

Executive Summary

The Independent Producers Organisation (IPO) advocates for the revitalization and increased support of South Africa’s audiovisual and creative industries, recognizing their significant potential for economic growth and global cultural impact. The creative industries, particularly the audiovisual sector, are powerful drivers of economic growth, with international examples such as Hollywood and New Zealand. These industries enhance a country’s global brand and tourism. There is a lack of investment in locally owned IP, which has led to foreign entities dominating the production of South African stories. The IPO calls for local ownership of IP to ensure long-term benefits for the country. The National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF) was initially created to support the industry with substantial grant funding. However, recent trends show a reduction in funding to filmmakers and an increase in administrative costs. This decline has negatively affected the production of globally competitive South African films.

This manifesto aims to reverse the declining trends in South Africa’s film industry and position it for global competitiveness, supporting long-term economic benefits for the country and its creative professionals.

The IPO Advocates for:

  1. The Creative Industries, and the Audio-visual Industry in particular, are great drivers of economic growth through the propagation of stories of a people and country which increases their brand globally and thus improves international tourism and the sale of goods and services. Strong International examples exist from Hollywood’s impact on the US economy to New Zealand’s “Lord of the Rings” dividend, Ireland’s strong creative economy impact and Australia’s brand transition from the 1950’s to today via “Mad Max”, “Crocodile Dundee”  Baz Luhrmann etc.
  1. That the industry lacks investment in the development and production of locally owned Intellectual Property. This results in our Intellectual Property being Developed and Produced by foreign streamers, broadcasters or producers, leaving South Africans as service providers in the creation of their own stories without any long-term benefit from the ownership of the Intellectual Property.
  1. South Africa’s legislators recognised this by the creation of the NFVF Act which stipulated, importantly, that “75% of the funds received from Treasury should be distributed to the Industry in the form of grants” primarily for the development, production and distribution.
  1. The legislators correctly identified that it is the Industry and not the administration that should receive the majority of funding (65-75%), in line with International Best Practice – Screen Ireland, New Zealand Film Commission etc. and National Best Practice amongst Grant Funding bodies like the Open Society Institute (OSISA).
  1. That when, in the early 2000s’  the independent film industry was more properly funded by way of a special “Film Fund” motivated for by the NFVF, we produced films that ultimately performed on the World Stage – Oscar winning “Tsotsi”, Oscar nominated “Yesterday”, Golden Bear winning -“U-Carmen eKhayelitsha” . These films both helped Brand South Africa globally and  also cultivate the best of South Africa owned IP.
  1. That conversely, with the decline in funding (relative to inflation and exchange rate) to industry, and the exponential increase in “marketing” and “administration costs” by the NFVF, until PESP, led to a decline in locally developed and produced films that have global impact.
  1. That PESP, while welcomed, in terms of short-term job creation, is not the right kind of funding to allow for the development and production of globally competitive audio-visual content.
  1. That the lack of proper funding for a National Festival to showcase our stars and films, and the disproportionately funded Awards like the SAFTAs, needs to be corrected. A tender should be issued to provinces and municipalities to compete for the hosting of the National Festival, Market and the SAFTAs and the receipt of a large investment from the NFVF of at least R10 million per annum so that we can create the equivalent of Pusan/Sidney etc. 
  1. That to reverse this negative trend the IPO will campaign for the following:
  • An increase in funding to the NFVF to the equivalent of R350 million annually, which is similar to the investment in Screen Ireland, the New Zealand Film Commission and also represents a similar amount to the current NFVF budget plus PESP.
  • The discontinuance of the PESP programme and the conversion of those funds into long term funding film makers at higher levels to enable better development and production capable of winning awards and selling on the world stage.
  • A revision of Funding caps that have been changed only once since 2001. For instance, Feature Film Production is now capped at R1,8 million – up from R1 million in 2001 and a decline in real terms when measured against inflation and exchange rates. In today’s terms based on inflation R1 million in March 2001 would be R3,46 million in today’s terms. There should be consultation on a revision including giving larger grants to more established filmmakers to further their careers.
  • Transparent and accurate reporting by the NFVF in their Audited Financial Statements of funds “paid as grants” to the industry versus funds used internally by the NFVF on its own programmes, even if for the benefit of industry. Follow International Best Practice.
  • An Industry Advisory Body composed of representatives of industry bodies which consults to the NFVF Council in the formation of its Annual Budgets and provides oversight in ensuring that the industry does, in fact, receive the funding in the proportions it is supposed to. Also works with the NFVF in identifying Industry needs.
  • For the NFVF to take the lead in working with industry to encourage Film Commissions also to spend the majority of their funds on the industry through grant making and not on their own administration.
  • For the NFVF to work with Industry in negotiating with the DTIC for reforms in the rebate administration system which is dysfunctional and investigating the possibility of a Tax Credit from SARS to replace the current rebate based incentives.
  • NFVF to commit to quarterly meetings/engagements with industry organisations, to contribute to the shaping and finding proposed solutions for filmmakers and an economically viable industry. 
  • NFVF to facilitate streamers, to provide 5% of their subscription growth to the NFVF in line with Canada and Europe legislations. 
  • Proposing that the funding structure and budget for feature films be reevaluated. The current funding cap provides strain towards filmmakers to create a film under R2 million. This sets them up for failure as creating a film within that budget is challenging and sourcing additional finance is a result of films not being completed or competing with the international market. 
  • The NFVF commits to holding quarterly meetings and engagements with industry organisations. These sessions will contribute to shaping solutions for filmmakers and fostering an economically viable industry.
  •  The NFVF will advocate for streamers to allocate 5% of their subscription growth to the NFVF, in alignment with legislation in Canada and Europe.
  • It is proposed that the funding structure and budget for feature films be reevaluated. The current funding cap of R2 million places undue pressure on filmmakers, making it difficult to produce films within that limit. This often leads to incomplete projects or films that struggle to compete with international standards due to the challenge of sourcing additional financing.