Arts & International Affairs Volume 5, Number 1, Summer 2020 | Page 60

WHOSE GOVERNANCE, WHOSE GOOD?
Comparing these numbers, more funding was arguably given to projects and initiatives
under the SCA compared to projects and initiatives under SCCTA, at least for the years
2005-2007. The disparity in the percentage share of funding is evident and can be attributed
to several factors. But quite positively, this disparity had been reduced significantly
by the end of 2018. Breaking down the disbursed funding of 188.45 million pesos
to the four subcommissions, one can see that approximately 83 million pesos went to
SCA, 23 million pesos to SCD, 8 million pesos to SCH, and 74 million pesos to SCCTA.
The increase in allocated funds for SCCTA projects and initiatives shows that more
funds were disbursed outside of Metro Manila, and other big urban cities across the
country. More funding has been shared to regional and rural areas and municipalities
including ancestral sites of indigenous communities.
Unfortunately, a closer scrutiny shows that 59.5 percent of the total funding for local
cultural agencies, foundations, and organizations went to the Non-Timber Forest Product-Exchange
Program Incorporated Philippines (NTFP-EP), a collaborative network
of non-government organizations (NGO) and community-based organizations (CBO)
that acts as a mechanism that responds to the emerging needs of communities and assist
organizations working on strengthening the capacity of forest-based communities towards
a sustainable management of natural resources. Based on the 2018 Locally-Funded
Projects Under the General Appropriations Act report, the NTFP-EP received a total
of 49 million pesos of funding for initiatives such as The Schools of Living Traditions and
the Natural Indigo Dye Centre, and projects to safeguard intangible cultural heritage and
assist Filipino artisans.
This is not to devalue, belittle, or criticize the contribution of NTFP-EP to the development
of rural and highly marginalized communities in the Philippines, nor to question
its advocacy and efforts in the conservation and management of resources, and development
of enterprises that has an obvious positive impact on the communities it serves.
Instead, this is to highlight a potential problem in the mechanism and management of
funding programs of the NCCA. Why does it seem that the allocation of support goes
to a few? This question bellies the discourse on cultural governance and whether public
funding for arts and culture is equally accessed and equitably distributed, arguing for the
use of a more democratic means of cultural governance.
In the past decade, there have been several important developments in the cultural policy
in the Philippines. In 2010, the NCCA finished implementing the Medium-Term
Philippine Development Plan for Culture and the Arts (MTPDP-CA) for 2004 to 2010.
MTPDP-CA was first shaped by the Philippine Development Plan for Culture and the
Arts of 1999 to 2000. This was ratified during the administration of former President
Fidel V. Ramos on April 7, 1993. This Plan focused on three programs: Institutional
Building, Infrastructure Development, and Program Expansion. An important accomplishment
of this Plan was the strengthening of the cultural network, and the building of
cultural zones and offices, and the completion of the National Museum.
57