The recent notice by the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) alerting the Kenyan creative economy community of mandatory licensing, seemingly oblivious to how transactions in the creative industry take place, calls for a national conversation on the board's relevance and the suitability of its current office holders.
Such a conversation should be guided by a review of the current creative economy in the country and the purpose of best practices in creative content regulation.
The KFCB notice read: “Five days remaining for all filmmakers within Kenya to obtain filming licences. A filming licence for a full-length feature film cost Sh15,000; short features/stills, dramas that are at most 40 minutes cost Sh5,000.”
The board acknowledges that first, licensing supersedes utility, which is a misnomer because not all films produced locally are commercially driven, just like we have community radio stations that are not profit-oriented.
READ MORE
Mudavadi asks Joho to withdraw new maritime regulations
PS Mwangi orders for fining of all unlicensed miners
By creating a punitive mandatory licensing regime, KFCB is simply confirming that as the rest of the world moves towards a dynamic licensing regime of creative products based on utility, it is still tied to an extractive and punitive regime.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Second, the board has the monopoly to generate licence fees without due regard to public consultation and evidence of how the fees are arrived at, what the fees will do to support the industry and how these fees aid in enforcing moral guidelines. There was no consultation process with industry stakeholders on an appropriate costing regime and which film categories required paid licensing.
Government bodies organise public consultation forums where stakeholders debate and submit memoranda on any proposed costing regime. The Communications Authority of Kenya, from which KFCB draws some donated mandate, has been at the forefront of engaging stakeholders in each step of regulation and costing adjustments.
But KFCB seems to have developed its own autonomy in thought and best practice and, therefore, is simply imposing costs without due consultations.
The two aspects therefore call for deeper introspection of the current creative economy in the country and whether this country is going to look at KFCB's remit, with its board full of clergy as opposed to specialists in the creative economy and cultural anthropologists who can actually support the development of a vibrant cultural and creative sector that contributes more income, expands employment opportunities for young people and gives room to new forms of expression within agreed classification standards.
A recent review of the Istanbul Creative Economy Report 2015 revealed that Turkey, with a strong Islamic culture and tradition, has a vibrant creative ecosystem. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development database on creative industries, Turkey's exports reached $7,361 million in 2012. The study highlighted Istanbul's leading position in Turkey's cultural landscape. From TV series, Turkey exports to over 100 countries, generating an estimated yearly income of $250 million.
TURKISH CINEMA
Similarly, Turkish cinema is overtaking foreign movies in terms of box office revenue, showing the increased interest of the industry in local values. The report goes further to explain that the shift towards more value-added manufacturing is also opening new job opportunities for creative designers, which contributes to making Istanbul a hub for designers and fashion.
The same report depicts Africa as a "net importer of creative goods" as opposed to an exporter, despite the abundance of content and talent. It therefore goes without saying that the proponents of punitive licensing have not taken time to consider how such measures delay Kenya’s participation in the global creative economy.
For reasons that are emotionally charged as opposed to tangible economic data, KFCB has avoided being a thought-leader in licensing broadcast, digital and creative products. It hardly produces any evidence to back its edicts and regulations, and has perfected intimacy with the religious fraternity which, sadly, no longer retains the authority to dictate or shape the country’s moral agenda.
This current impasse could therefore be resolved by a combination of policy actions and public debates. At the policy level, the Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology should consider suspending the notice and advising KFCB to constitute public consultations on this licensing regime.
At the same time, there is need for a national study that is informed by current trends in the global creative economy to shape our approach to regulation of creative content from film, digital and broadcast media products.
