Posted on April 12, 2010
The heritage sector continues to be left out of key development strategies by government because it is not organised enough to participate in the processes that may impact on the sector. This is true in the case of skills development, for only organised employers and organised labour are the recognised key stakeholders. This framework is modelled on the assumption that in every sector of our society, employers seek to increase productivity in the workplace, while employees want to ensure that they can grow and build careers in the workplace. This set the tone for the drafting of the Skills Development Act of 1998 (SDA) that informed the establishment of Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETA). SETAs have a mandate to facilitate the implementation of skills development activities such as Learnerships in the sectors within their scope. Linked to the SDA is the Skills Development Levies Act of 1999 (SDLA), which entails the payment of skills development levies by industry, so as to ensure that SETAs can carry out their mandate effectively.
The funds from levies paid by industry are channelled through to SETAs according to their respective sectors: this of course poses the first challenge as sectors differ in size and revenue. A small SETA such as the Media, Advertising, Publishing, Printing and Packaging Sector Education and Training Authority (MAPPP-SETA), whose sub-sectors include cultural heritage, is expected to perform as well as big SETAs, such as the Manufacturing and Engineering Sector Education and Training Authority (MERSETA). The latter encompasses the automotive industry amongst others, and collects billions of Rands from contributions that are made by companies in the manufacturing and engineering industry. Clearly, there are no such companies in the case of cultural heritage; instead, practitioners are usually confined to academic institutions, NGOs, government agencies, while others work as consultants. As a result, skills levies that are collected by the MAPPP-SETA from companies in the cultural heritage sector are almost negligible, as most of the organisations that cultural practitioners work for do not pay levies to the SETA.
The levy paying companies are required to submit Workplace Skills Plans (WSP) and Annual Training Reports (ATR) that the SETA uses to gather information regarding skills needs in their respective industries. This information is used to develop a Sector Skills Plan (SSP) that will list scarce and critical skills across the sectors. Upon submission of the WSP and ATR, companies can claim back 50% of the levies that were paid to a SETA. This is the mandatory grant that is paid out in acknowledgement of the training that takes place within the workplace, as reported in the ATR. Because there are no levies paid to start with in the case of cultural heritage, there is no space for the sector to report on skills needs and so no funded training in the workplace. The remainder of the funds is then used by SETAs to implement strategic training interventions in the form of discretionary grants that may be targeted at non-levy paying companies, NGOs and the unemployed. These interventions are, however, subject to various processes that entail calls for tenders and lengthy board approval processes. SETA boards are also formed on the basis of the participation of organised employer and organised labour.
The board formation process for SETAs is meant to ensure that the employees are involved in strategic decision-making processes that affect their lives in terms of personal development. Labour is somewhat empowered here as they now share the boardroom with the employer to strategise on the development of the sector as a whole. In the case of cultural industries we witness yet another challenge as there are very few recognised unions that may represent organised labour in a SETA board. Strategies are thus implemented without the full contribution of workers in the cultural industries. As a result, budget allocation enables the development of only those sectors that are allowed effective representation. The option of representation by the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) in the MAPPP-SETA board does not suffice as government structures only have one seat in the board, therefore limited influence. Yet another challenge is in the form of government officials from DAC that are neither practitioners nor consumers of the cultural industries, and thus may not fully understand the needs of the sector.
It is clear that the model for SETA funding marginalises the cultural heritage sector by the way in which government uses a one-size-fits-all approach in dealing with skills development and the funding thereof. Sub-sectors such as craft are not organised in the way that large employer bodies or federations are, but, there is no disputing that this sector contributes enormously to the national GDP. The absence of trade unions or organised labour in this sector should not mean that crafters may not be included in the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS), which SETAs are collectively implementing. Perhaps it is time that practitioners who work in the cultural industries consider organising themselves into structures that can be a formidable force in addressing the needs of the sector. Cultural industries may also need to address the limited sense of business acumen amongst practitioners, as it ensures that arts and culture will continue being viewed as the 'second economy', rather than an organised business.
It has been argued elsewhere that this kind of a shift may stifle the creative nature of the sector and that it may be prudent rather to lobby that government recognises formations other than organised labour and organised business in the new skills development landscape. Professional bodies, practice-specific associations and networking platforms do exist in the sector; however, there is no room for them to participate as it is a question of economics, in the form of monetary contributions to the SETA coffers. The amount of levies contributed tends to be proportionate to the amount of power and influence that a sector will have. Companies and sectors that contribute the largest levies also tend to feel entitled to the power they wield within the various SETA structures. They are also unwilling to share the levies they contribute to SETAs with smaller non-levy paying sectors. The MAPPP-SETA has such large levy-paying industries, for example the Printing and Packaging sectors, who are largely involved with the technical side of the production of media. It will take some time for these sectors to acknowledge the bigger picture in the form of a value-chain that usually begins with a creative process.
Xolelwa Kashe-Katiya is an Archival Platform correspondent and Education and Training Quality Assurance (ETQA) Manager at the MAPP SETA. She writes in her personal capacity.