Assessment of Trends in the Diverse World of Mobility Funding

Trends in support schemes and programmes to promote mobility can be summarised in terms of the following changes and related imbalances.

a)     Changes and imbalances in the target groups and objectives of funding

• The targets of mobility schemes in many countries are expanding to include a range of artistic fields, such as fashion or architecture, or cultural professions, such as promoters, curators, producers, cultural managers/administrators and researchers. Artist led initiatives to promote mobility through, for example, residency programmes or the mobility activities of small scale organisations, are not sufficiently served by existing government funded programmes and schemes.
  
• Mobility is an important component of international and regional cultural cooperation agreements, be they multilateral or bilateral. In this context, mobility is seen as a tool to promote the image of a country abroad and to export culture. Such mobility measures have been criticised for mainly supporting artists or cultural professionals whose work reflects a particular or defined tradition, heritage or brand. Traditional bilateral agreements, where they exist, are seen as outdated and out of step with the practices of artists and cultural professionals.
  
• However, a shift towards the introduction of new mobility schemes aimed at promoting creativity and production as well as career enhancement can be observed. Fewer countries offer 'go and see grants' or 'networking grants'. Support for pan European networks is considered, in many countries, to be a responsibility of the EU Culture programme. Schemes which introduce artists and cultural professionals to emerging cultural markets are new and still confined to a few countries.
  
• In addition, the objectives of mobility schemes of governments, arts agencies and foundations are beginning to reflect new political objectives and national cultural policy priorities to promote the creative industries, cultural diversity or intercultural dialogue - priorities also identified in the European Agenda for Culture (2007). Such schemes are found within, for example, creative industry export strategies, international job placement schemes, or capacity building programmes.
  
• In general, mobility schemes and programmes have yet to introduce measures which would help to "optimise" mobility experiences by providing support for outreach activities with the local community, encounters with other artists, teaching or training opportunities, etc.
  
• In mobility funding, the imbalance between demand and supply remains. In many countries, mobility funds exist, but the level of resources are not enough to meet the demands from a growing number of artists and new groups of cultural professionals who want to travel abroad whether it be within Europe or to new destinations such as Brazil, India or China.
  
• Yet in some countries the number and range of mobility support measures and accompanying financial resources has been growing. The impetus for this growth has been the elaboration of new and the review of existing international cultural cooperation policies and strategies on the part of government departments and quasi-public agencies or the setting up of new bodies designed to administer incoming and outgoing mobility grants. Future evaluations of the resulting programmes will provide needed information and data on their impact and effectiveness and their potential replicability in other parts of Europe.

b)     Changes and imbalances in the co-ordination and management of funding

• Making application procedures easier and the schemes more transparent. In some countries of Eastern and South Eastern Europe, the ability to obtain a mobility grant is highly dependent on individual/personal initiative and contacts, from active cultural producers/managers or from single institutions. It is argued that organisations in these regions stand a better chance of obtaining mobility funding in comparison to individual artists. Experts also argue that there is a lack of transparency on the part of the mobility funders to provide information on the objectives or priorities of a specific scheme, or the conditions and procedures for reimbursement etc.
  
• Funding for mobility may not be identified as an explicit objective in itself, even though, in many cases, it might be an implicit outcome. Funding may be hidden within project or event budgets or in the resources allocated to cultural institutions or in schemes designed to promote exposure of artists rather than part of designated programmes or systems to promote mobility. In some parts of Europe, there are no specifically identified grants for travel, for example. Applications can be made by individual artists / cultural professionals to departments of international cultural cooperation and travel costs may be covered, but are usually issued on an ad hoc basis.
  
• In many countries there is a lack of coordination among the diverse mobility funds whether they: target various cultural professions, cultural disciplines or fields; are issued by different government bodies or agencies; or by authorities at different levels of government. This lack of coordination places a burden on individuals, groups and organisations to apply for different types of support for the same mobility activity. While the diversity of mobility funds is a challenge in one part of Europe to coordinate, it is seen as a luxury in another. A plurality of funding sources for mobility - from various government agencies or foundations - is not available in all parts of Europe, where the systems could be better described as monolithic.

c)     Changes and imbalances in the target of mobility schemes and mobility flows

• There is an imbalance in the provision of 'outgoing' and 'incoming' mobility schemes; despite the growing awareness of the value of inviting foreign artists or bringing new and diverse creative works and ideas into a country to benefit not only artists/cultural professionals, but also audiences. This gap in provision perpetuates East-West imbalances (in Europe) and North-South imbalances (globally). The main challenge identified in many countries is the lack of funds, programmes or infrastructure to receive artists from other countries.
  
• Levels of funding can dictate target destinations and mobility flows. While a significant number of schemes leave the choice of country/countries open to applicants/recipients, the levels of funding may set limits on the choice of country an artist or cultural professional can travel. Mobility associated expenses in other countries - from daily allowances to production related costs - may be beyond the reach of artists and cultural professionals from some European countries.
  
• Brain/talent drain continues to be a major and constant issue in some countries. Mobility is often a means of survival, not a choice. This is due to insufficient support or local infrastructure to keep artists and cultural professionals at home. Many artists / cultural professionals argue that breaking into international markets remains difficult and is mainly achieved through personal contacts and connections to a diaspora community. They see emigration rather than short-term mobility as an opportunity for them to advance their careers.

d)     Changes and imbalances in support for trans-regional mobility

• The number of trans-regional mobility support schemes is beginning to increase. Regional multilateral government strategies with a cultural mobility dimension have been a part of a longer term strategy of the Nordic Council of Ministers for example, and have appeared recently in other parts of Europe through the Visegrad Group, Ars Baltica or through the activities of the Anna Lindh Foundation in the Euro-med region. For many of the smaller countries involved, such regional programmes provide artists with an opportunity to promote their creative works "abroad" and an opportunity to create a more localised network that may be easier and more affordable for them to reach.
  
• In some countries of East and South East Europe, mobility funding from pan-European or foreign foundations and cultural institutes has been a main source of mobility support for artists and cultural professionals to travel and engage in exchanges or production projects with their colleagues within their region, in greater Europe and beyond. More recently, their focus of attention has been placed on supporting the mobility of artists and cultural professionals around the Euro-Med region. As some foundations and cultural institutes begin to withdraw their mobility funding support from regions of South East Europe, a gap will be left for national authorities/agencies and perhaps EU-funded programmes to fill.

e)     Addressing imbalances through better information, networking and legacy formation

• Country-wide information dissemination is key! While the information landscape has considerably improved in reach years, it remains patchy. National experts argue that information on national or local mobility schemes is sometimes difficult to find and the criteria for assessing applications is hidden. Although there may be several funding schemes available in a particular country, many artists/cultural professionals may not be aware of their existence. National online information systems which are comprehensive, well structured and transparent are only available in some parts of Europe.
  
• The promotion of pan- European mobility through transborder cooperation platforms and projects has been at the centre of the European Commission's culture and other programmes involving multiple partners and countries. It has been suggested that if the EU and other funding bodies ceased their support for mobility driven networks or platforms, there would be a great possibility that the first stage of 'dialogue through mobility', i.e. initiating cross-border contacts and exchanges with colleagues from different countries and cultures, would come to a halt. The result would be further inequalities in the mobility flows of artists and cultural professionals across Europe.
  
• Many artists and cultural professionals are not yet sufficiently networked into what's going on elsewhere in Europe; whether due to language or other barriers. Those who do not belong to a network - be it a professionally organised network or an informal network - face difficulties in establishing contacts at regional, pan-European or international levels which is usually a prerequisite to build partnerships or cooperation projects and hence foster production or research oriented mobility.
  
• Mobility experiences need to be widely shared with other artists or cultural professionals. Generally, the experience of international encounters and travel is often wasted. If artists/cultural professionals shared their insights and experiences directly with their peers through, for example, workshops it could provide greater benefit than the submission of an official report. Such activities could also be seen as providing pre-travel training to those artists/cultural professionals planning trips abroad and provide them with intercultural competencies needed to work in another cultural environment.
  
• There is a lack of instruments to measure mobility flows and evaluate the outcome of mobility programmes. While many government agencies publish data on the grants they issue, e.g. on the number of artists, the amount they receive, their destination, or on the use of the grant (output), there are limitations in using short term economic indicators to measure 'mobility success' in terms of input (e.g. mobility funding) and immediate output (e.g. physical movements, new projects or co-productions), rather than assessing longer term outcomes.