Last week, at our fourth event in the Right to Culture Laboratory series, – we managed to do one of themost radical things for the cultural sectorwe were all in one room (recording below). And to talk honestly about the problems, solutions, and needs – from artists to banks, from administration to the independent sector, from companies to associations. Probably because the title touched on the sensitive topic of financing the sector, but the content did not mention the Ministry of Culture. Its representatives were also invited.

The initiative for regular meetings in order to clarify the effectiveness of public investment in culture arose from the synergy between several large-scale studies – those on the economic contribution of culture by the Observatory on the Economics of Culture and our first such Access to Culture Index for Bulgaria, which is now in its third year of “measuring”. Of course, at the heart of our collective advocacy efforts lies the passion and expertise of Diana Andreeva-Popiordanova.

We would also like to thank the Goethe Institute Bulgaria, which has embraced the idea, and all the organizations that have joined our informal coalition — each contributing the way they can. Special thanks to the Bulgarian Music Association for the organizational resources it brought to the table! And to all those who took the difficult position – in front of our skeptical sector – theExecutive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, the Bulgarian Development Bank, and the NFC, represented by its administration.

This conversation was more than needed. Experience the entire conversation in the recording:

Some of the key moments and results from the meeting:

• Our efforts were adopted. The Ministry of Culture is an uncertain ally, the NFC cannot convene its Executive Board, which renders it inoperative, but it turns out that the Ministry of Innovation and Growth is interested in one of the fastest growing sectors in economic terms. They are open to dialogue and cooperation.
• We have been invited to set up a working group, focused on creating a new funding program targeting the sector, as part of MIG.
• We understood that the NFC needs more meetings like this, but does not have the budget for it. Invite and include its representatives in such meetings—the conversation was useful in understanding the situation of the Fund’s administration and discussing improvements that would work for both sides.
• We have learned that the acrobatics of film producers are problematic for the banking system in its attempt to create special instruments to support Bulgarian cinema. Fortunately, these observations do not apply to other sub-sectors, but banks are unaware of this.
• This does not change the fact that the banking system sees us from the cultural sector as unbankable, unable to understand in this diverse landscape how you can be an NGO and also have a business activity (as one of the attendees pointed out, we are no different when it comes to paying taxes on our business activities). Low-interest instruments guaranteed by the state through a ministry are a possibility.
• Measuring the value of culture. The big question. We can thank Diana Andreeva‘s expert approach for providing us with figures that are irrefutable in terms of economic contribution. The sector contributes over 7% of GDP and has seen exponential growth since 2021, while receiving 0.5% of GDP. It turns out that culture is a very good investment. The problem is that many organizations pay this difference and bear the risks of this growth all by themselves. Let’s compare this money, for example, with the money from gambling, which is peanuts compared to the gambling “culture” that is flourishing. This requires a separate meeting. Or a protest.
• There are organizations, of course, which through their activities—unintentionally or simply because they have surpassed government officials based on their values—fulfill our state commitments to conventions and agreements that guarantee access to culture and embody its social function. They work with priority groups – young people with aggressive behavior, the elderly, people with disabilities, and many others – but with limited resources and financial insecurity, which is unacceptable for such groups. There should be resources for strategic funding for them.

But what culture? The world is in a phase where decisions to drop bombs are being made in not so private chat rooms. That is precisely why the geopolitical enmeshment we find ourselves in is, above all, a cultural war.