State of Community Media: National Association of Broadcasters, Association of Independent Publishers, SA Communications Forum & National Community Radio Forum comment

Meeting report

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB): state of Broadcasting Industry Report 2014

Ms Nadia Bulbulia, Executive Director, National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), in introducing the NAB and its constituent members, said that NAB represented all three tiers of the broadcasting industry. It recognized the community radio sector in terms of its broad-based membership. It was a non-profit voluntary association that worked by consensus for the masses that affected or impacted the entire industry, as well as on the issues that had reached consensus. Its aim was to ensure a broadcasting system that provided choice and diversity for audiences; created a favourable climate for broadcasters to operate within; ensured a broadcasting industry that was grounded in the principles of democracy, diversity and freedom of expression; and to ensure that broadcasters adhered to the code of conduct.

Statistics from 2001 and 2011 showed the growing access of people to broadcasting. Access to television (TV) had increased from 52.6% to 74.5%, while the statistics for radio had dropped from 72.1% to 67.5%. The statistics for cellphone had exceeded all expectations (see attached document).

It had taken 20 years for the TV audience to grow. The TV audience in 1994 was 19 million, while the radio audience was 14 million. The figure in 2014, however, was 33 million for TV and 40 million for radio audiences. The massive growth in the number of TV operators and channels, as well as commercial and community radio over the last 20 years was highlighted (see attached document). Advertising revenue had also grown with respect to TV and radio.

The research conducted by NAB did not totally account for the 217 community radio stations, but it accounted for the commercial and community radio stations that were part of its membership. The approach and methodology of the research was outlined (see slide 11 of the attached document).

The local content investment in the broadcasting industry for 2012 had been R871 million, but had grown to R1.7 billion by 2014. There had also been a growth in the number of employed staff, as well as contractors and freelancers. R3.35 billion had been invested in infrastructure, while R379 million had been invested in research and development activities over the last three years. There had also been 619 corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects, with a value of R613 million, over the last three years.

In looking forward, it was noted that although TV still dominated the industry, changes were beginning to appear on the horizon, and advertising shifts were expected. The radio environment was still very strong. It was important to be conversant with one’s audience, however, and community radio still needed to do more in that regard.

Convergence, new entrants into the industry, the licensing arrangements, lack of a regulatory framework and adaptability were the next important issues to be considered in the industry.

Ms Wilma van Schalkwyk, Senior Radio Manager, NAB, shared her experience in community radio. The community radio sector was the nurturing ground to develop standards in the broadcasting sector because it comprised mostly of volunteers who were educated and trained, and thereafter tightened up by the commercial sector. One of the challenges facing community radio was distribution cards. Another challenge was the fact that it was in competition with the commercial and public broadcasters. The quality of the product from community radio sector therefore had to be at the same level as the other sectors.

It was very difficult for community radio stations to get corporate advertising. They therefore got their income from small, medium and microenterprises (SMMEs). The community sector economic summit was not very good and the sector had suffered in terms of receiving foreign income support.

Ms Bulbulia said that the Independent Communication Authority of South Africa (ICASA) had licensed 255 community radio broadcasters. ICASA had also begun community TV licensing in 2000, and there were six licenses on air as of today. On 29 March 2010, ICASA had issued a moratorium on community TV, due to spectrum limitations. ICASA also gave a breakdown of the number of community sound broadcasting service licences across the country (see attached document).

On the allocation of licensing, ICASA noted that the demand for this form of licensing was dependent on population density, where those provinces with a relatively more dense population had a greater number of community broadcasters.

In terms of audience and revenue, community TV broadcasters had reached an average of 12 million viewers weekly; community radio had reached an estimate of 8.9 million listeners weekly; the ad-spend by government on community radio was an average of R20 million per annum, while that for community TV was approximately R10 million.  The government had committed to channeling more ad-spend to community media, especially during local and national elections.

The Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) statistics on the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) ad-spend for the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial years were highlighted. For the 2011/2012 financial year, a total of R22 million had been directed at the community media sector, which included radio, TV and print. In 2012/2013 financial year, a total of R37.5 million had been allocated to community media.

An enabling framework had been established by government through the MDDA. The MDDA funds were therefore allocated directly to community and small commercial media enterprises. The Department of Communications (DoC) support scheme funded signal distribution, and provided support for studio equipment and content development. Through the GCIS, the government had committed to increasing the ad-spend on community services. Industry associations and the industry at large were also finding ways to promote and support the community media sector.

With regard to government processes that were under way, the DoC had developed a discussion paper on a subsidy scheme for community radio. Comments on the discussion paper were due by the end of September 2015. The subsidy scheme would focus on geographic radio stations and terrestrial TV. The DoC had over the past few years contacted different consulting firms that conducted research on community radio and TV. One of such research on community radio and TV was conducted by Pygma Consulting.

NAB had consistently made submissions to the amendment process of the ICASA Act, especially with regard to the exemption of community broadcasters from having to make contributions to the Universal Service Fund (USF).

NAB was also aware of government processes in terms of the national policy review processes. An information communication technology (ICT) review panel report had been published in March 2015 and the recommendations from that report on community broadcasting spoke to the amendment of the licensing framework for community broadcasting to ensure effective oversight and monitoring of licensing and services by ICASA; the need to put mechanisms in place to ensure that community services remained in the hands of the community; as well as the need to put measures in place to ensure that the community sector of broadcasting was distinct from others and that target audiences or communities were involved in the services.

NAB and the South African Digital Broadcasting Association (SADIBA) were currently running trials on digital audio radio. The trials were both on digital audio broadcasting plus (DAB+) and digital rights management (DRM). Sentech was the signal distributor for the trials, and the results of the trials would be sent back to ICASA.

NAB community radio committee had engaged with various government and capital entities, which included ICASA, GCIS, MDDA, and the DoC. It was encouraged by the fact that community radio was receiving attention and was seen as being relevant as a medium to serve the needs of the citizens across the country.

Some of the challenges facing community broadcasting included the way the licensing regime operated and issues around monitoring and compliance. The key concern of community broadcasters was sustainability and viability, however. Since a three-tier broadcasting system had been adopted, there was a need to ensure that the system was robust and the necessary efforts and mechanisms were in place to advance the system.

It was noted that although the developments and successes recorded in the broadcasting industry had begun 21 years ago, broadcasting would continue to play a critical role in the country, because the majority of the citizens had no access to multiple devices, and therefore depended on public service and community radio, as well as access to the free airwaves where they were located.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that there would still be interaction with all the stakeholders that NAB engaged with -- ICASA, MDDA and GCIS. She wanted to know what the result of the interaction between NAB and the DoC on funding and capacity building had been.

Ms Van Schalkwyk replied that NAB had raised the issue in its interactions with the Minister on different on occasions. ICASA and the DoC were looking into the provision of assistance to community radios, especially with regard to the distribution cards. However, there was a big concern facing NAB with regard to the uncertainty of the funds that came from government through the MDDA and GCIS for community radio. It would be much easier to know which funds were available for community radio and how to access such funds.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) said that there might be a need to revisit some of the issues highlighted by NAB at the communicators’ forums. He wanted to know what the qualifications for membership into the NAB were; if the NAB was not in the best position to assist ICASA in its monitoring capacity; how government departments and entities were performing with regard to the ad-spend for community radio; and how NAB assisted community radio stations that had issues with governance.

Ms V van Dyk (DA) sought clarity on the decline noted in radio broadcasting in 2011 as opposed to the 217 community radios in 2014 and the 255 community radio stations that had been licensed by ICASA; elaboration on the lack of a regulatory framework; the beginning of community broadcasting when temporary licences were issued by the then Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), which was followed by a permanent four-year licence term for both community of interest and geographic stations; and NAB’s indication of what it felt was the cause of the lack of monitoring by ICASA.

Mr G Davis (DA) wanted to know why government had decided to channel more ad-spend to community media during elections; what the NAB was doing to ensure that the editorial section of community media was not subject to political manipulation; what NAB was doing to assist community media to stand on their own as far as funding was concerned, or being able to raise funds on their own without relying on government funding through ad-spend or the MDDA; and a clarification of the discrepancy between the government ad-spend worth R4.5 million on Tshwane TV, with around two million weekly viewers, as opposed to the ad-spend of R4.4 million on SABC 3, which had 25 million viewers.

Ms Bulbulia began her responses to the issues raised by noting that NAB was an open organisation -- a voluntary non-profit association that represented commercial broadcasters, and people were welcomed to join the association at any time. Its community base was not as big as the national community radio forum, which was essentially the ground for the enactment of community radio.

It was not easy to assess every broadcasting station on its ad-spend, but NAB could conduct a detailed study on the ad-spend and support they received. NAB had, however, noticed a shift to a greater commitment by government to channeling its ad-spend through community media.

Governance issues within community radio broadcasters had been a challenge for over 21 years. This was because the sector were comprised of fluid arrangements of volunteers and committed people within the community. Often, it was about NAB raising greater awareness or understanding of the licensing required for community radio. Programmes from ICASA, consumer outreach, MDDA and GCIS programmes therefore sought to raise awareness on governance issues, technical requirements, and funding. There was still a need to strengthen this aspect of community broadcasting.

With regard to the different numbers of community radios highlighted in the presentation, it was noted that NAB’s 2014 study showed a total number of 217 community radios. This year, however, ICASA’s data showed 255 community radios in the nine provinces. The figure could be found on ICASA’s website.

The lack of a regulatory framework referred to the continued changes or developments in the sector. There were different instances of people trying to provide services without licences or by avoiding regulatory compliance. The ICT panel review had noted that there were instances where no clear policy regulatory framework existed, and it had recommended that this should be addressed.

NAB could not comment on the way government allocated funding through its ad-spend on community media. The community TVs faced challenges not only in respect of distribution of costs, but also in terms of the cost of producing content. As much as technology was used to bring down cost, there was still a need to ensure that the content was relevant, could resonate among audiences, was done in a range of languages, was done authentically, and was located within the communities.

With regard to the editorial fronts not being manipulated, there were very clear codes of conduct, licence conditions and regulations that broadcasters had to adhere to. The regulatory authorities would have to intervene if they noticed that such standards were not upheld. It was very challenging to monitor the numerous broadcasters, so there was a need to find ways of equipping ICASA to carry out its monitoring functions more effectively. NAB had identified instances where there was a misalignment on what constituted a licence condition, affirmative performance, true regulation and how to monitor compliance. Monitoring was therefore a highly complex and technical task that required a special skill.

NAB was funded by the membership fees of its members. It was not in the business of developing funding mechanism for its members. It only raised awareness, and provided induction and opportunities for information sharing on where to find and apply for funding.

There was usually an overlapping of mandates across the departments that impacted on the ICT industry, as well as the telecommunications and broadcasting sector. Key issues had been raised with respect to advertising by the Department of Health (DoH). Regulations existed to limit the advertisement of unhealthy foods and alcohol products. Issues like this impacted on the entire broadcasting system. NAB had consistently advocated for greater alignment of all departments, as well as a better understanding of their mandates.

NAB urged the Portfolio Committee to look into areas that impacted on broadcasting and its viability, as well as the ICT sector. The Committee should also consider other initiatives of DoC, and sections of the proposed Copyright Amendment Bill, which focused on regulations for broadcasting.

South African Communications Forum (SACF): state of community media in South Africa

Mr Jethro Tshabalala, SACF advisor, introduced SACF as a section 21 company that had been formed April 2001, with the main aim of broadening the growth and development of ICT, electronic media and broadcasting. It was a successor to the African Telecommunication Forum founded in 1993 and had a history of promoting meaningful participation by historically disadvantage individuals (HDIs) in the ICT industries. The Forum represented leading stakeholders in the telecommunication, electronic media, postal, information technology (IT), electronics and broadcasting industries. Its members included small and medium enterprises, and it was an organization that brought together people with a high level of technical skills and business expertise in the ICT sector. Its vision, mission, objectives and some of its members were highlighted. (See attached document).

The DoC had provided outcomes that could be attained through a thriving community media sector. These outcomes included a having a much stronger and secure sector that could help in shaping a new South Africa; encouraging and promoting nation-building and social cohesion; supporting democratic participation and responsible freedom of expression; delivering accurate and impartial news; reflecting South Africa’s language and cultural diversity; and supporting and nurturing local communities’ programme production and creative talent.

SACF also looked into the state of community broadcasting, and referred to a DoC statistic that denoted the extent of the growth of community broadcasting over the past 22 years. There had been a major shift in the sector’s regulations and policies since 1994. There were five community TV stations that reached an average of 12 million viewers per week, one of which had received support from DoC. There were in excess of 210 community radio stations, which had an average of 8.7 million viewers per week. The majority of these community radio stations had received support from the DoC. The growth in audiences and advertising in this sector that was propelled by an increase in the number of community radio and TV stations, was a result of the DoC’s support for the sector.

The DoC’s support initiatives which focused on community radio were highlighted. These initiatives included infrastructure for newly-licensed MDDA stations and the upgrading of the existing ones; content production for the MDDA; signal distribution subsidies by Sentech; and content production and capacity building by the IKAMVA national e-skills institute. The DoC had also contributed an amendment to the Electronic Communications Act (ECA) which exempted community broadcasters from contributing to the Universal Service Fund (USF).

The observations of the SACF on community broadcasting in South Africa were outlined. (See page 11 of attached document).

SACF observed that the DoC, together with the other agencies like ICASA, MDDA, Sentech, Ikamva institute, and the Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA) were working towards the improvement of community broadcasting. There was still a need to consider ways by which the private sector could be involved in assisting community media in order to assist with enablement, possible funding, development of mechanisms, and support for community broadcasters in order to achieve the objectives of the national agenda. There was a need to start a discussion that would look into how the vast technological and financial resources of the private sector ICT industry could be leveraged to assist the development of community media.

SACF also considered the draft community broadcasting support scheme. It considered the nature and scope for community radio and TV in terms of their broadcasting infrastructure, signal distribution subsidy and transmission, content product, and capacity building. The broadcasting support scheme would identify the nature of projects to be funded, and consider new support areas with the potential to promote and enhance media access to the communities. The recommendations made by SACF on the suggested expansion of the scope of support was outlined. (See page 14 of the attached document).

Three core issues in the emerging policy environment that related to the community broadcasting sector were identified. They included how to ensure that the sector was distinct from others, and that target audiences were involved in the services; how to ensure community-based content and the availability of programming across a wide range of platforms and devices, and how communities could distribute their content across these platforms; as well as how to ensure that non-profit entities were sustainable and viable. The policy review panel on community broadcasting had made recommendations on the identified issues and also identified areas of policy recommendations which included the reach of community broadcasters and the role of open access TV; strengthening licensing and monitoring; as well as funding and sustainability.

The panel had noted that many of the licensed community TV channels were in partnership with private players and operated local commercial services. ICASA licensed these channels without developing regulations for the sector and in the process, worsened the challenges faced. Private partnerships were possibly the result of the challenges faced with regard to the funding of community TV services, considering the available resources, and government’s insufficient resources to support community TV services across the country had resulted in inequitable access to such services. The recommendations that emanated from the above observations of the panel were also outlined. (See page 17 of the attached document).

The panel also made recommendations on how licensing and monitoring of community broadcasters could be strengthened. These recommendations were outlined. (See pages 18 and 19 of the attached document).

With regard to funding and sustainability, the panel recognised that there was a need to coordinate different support programmes for the community broadcasting sector across government, so as to ensure that no duplication existed and resources were used effectively. This would include coordination between MDDA and other community broadcasting support programmes within government departments, as well as content or programming funds in other content entities. The panel recommended support mechanisms and approaches in this respect. (See page 20 of the attached document for the recommendations).

SACF had made recommendations which included the need for the amendment of the Electronic Communications Act (ECA), to provide for an extension of the turnaround times for decisions on registration of class licences, which would enable the regulators to scrutinise applications properly; the empowerment of ICASA to refuse applications that had not met the requirements relating to community participation, as set out in Section 50 of ECA; the empowerment of ICASA to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a class licence if the licensee had repeatedly violated legislative, regulatory or licensing requirements; the empowerment and capacity-building of the community broadcasting sector by tasking the Ikamva National e-Skills Institute to develop course curriculum for community broadcasters on corporate governance, financial literacy and the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), as well as entrepreneurship and business skills; and consideration of the development of a framework for open access TV. (See pages 21 to 24 of the attached document).

Discussion

Ms Van Dyk wanted to know what the correct statistics for community radio were, seeing that the first presentation had made reference to 217 community radio stations and 255 licensed radio stations, while SACF had referred to an excess of 210 radio stations. How were the three core issues that had been identified being addressed?  Was funding the appropriate solution to address the issues identified as problems facing the community broadcasting sector? She asked for clarification on whether there were no licensing frameworks for community radio at the moment, and about which community TV station had received support from the DoC.

Mr Tseli wanted to know who were responsible for funding the SACF. What contribution was SACF making to assist government communicators with respect to capacity building? What was SACF’s view on community radios’ continual reliance on government? Should licenses continue to be approved for community radios when no support was being provided for them?

Ms M Matshoba (ANC) wanted to know if the Department had the means to encourage its members to promote internships for South African youths and if so, how the youths could acquire the necessary skills to be part of the programme.

Mr M Ndlozi (EFF) said he was yet to see a process that would bring together the necessary linkage for a proper transformation to occur between broadcasting, journalism and art, especially at the local community level. It was necessary to aggressively promote local content which was not subject to corporate or government interest. Conversations with filmmakers and people in charge of documentaries should be occurring at the local level. Social media was actually leading a transformation of content at a faster rate than some sectors of broadcasting. It all boiled down to a transformation project that would bring the local content producers into a conversation.

He wanted to know what the cost of communication was, especially since it could mean more access to the internet, and the need for a reduction in the amount charged by telecommunication service providers for data usage; clarity on the recommendation made by the panel to phase out individual community TV licences; what TV stations were supported by the DoC; clarity on the recommended mechanism and approach made by the panel with respect to tasking the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to develop a specific framework for music royalty payments to the South African Music Rights Organization (SAMRO) by community broadcasters; as well as how the review of MDDA funding would come about.

He said the concept of transforming the industry would begin with community media. There was a need for a united conversation, on not only ownership or licensing, but also on the content of broadcasting at the local level.

Mr Tshabalala addressed the issues raised by first referring to the statistics on community radio. The figures and statistics of community radio had been received from the DoC, and it had been assumed that the DoC had done its research properly.

SACF members were mostly from ICT operators within the ICT space. The convergence of technology through the internet and development of video on demand had brought ICT operators into partnership with Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) operators to foster the enablement of infrastructure. There was, however, a need to consider a convergence due to the development of video on demand, such as YouTube, the download of content to devices, and so on. Members of SACF were therefore entering into the broadcasting space from this angle.

The present regulation and policy was faced with the issue of separating broadcasting and telecommunication. It was important to consider a convergence approach and a means to regulate international content.

SACF was funded by its members and its main objective was to achieve the objectives and aspirations presented by its own members. Some positions within the forum were consolidated by the group for easier understanding.

The Forum assisted or influenced its members to contribute to higher learning. SACF members were already contributing to various institutions in terms of providing telecommunication skills and development. SACF as body did not fund institutions, but individual members followed the requirements according to the legislation of South Africa with regard to making contributions.

SACF did not say there was no proper licensing framework in South Africa. Instead, its approach considered convergence and open access TV. Most community broadcasters were privately operating on a commercial basis, and this deprived the local content of community broadcasting media. It was for this reason that SACF proposed an open access broadcasting approach, instead of the individual approach. The open access approach would provide the infrastructure needed by broadcasters to utilise in the distribution of their content.

With regard to music loyalty and transformation, SACF said that its members were part of the national ICT review panel and it supported the recommendations made by the panel, of which music loyalty was one.

In terms of assisting youths through training and learnership, SACF acknowledged that it was part of the broadcasting industry and it followed the laid down regulations. The forum had developed a coordinating structure that implemented the recommendations of the panel in that regard.

With regard to the review of the MDDA funding, it was pointed out that the convergence of ICT had necessitated a consideration of a policy that would impact community broadcasting, as well as a convergence of technology that would improve the industry.

Ms Bulbulia said that the most accurate statistic on the number of the licensed community radio stations was the one given by ICASA. With regard to the transformation agenda, there was a need for a closer relationship between the DoC and the Department of Arts and Culture. There was a lot of overlapping of departmental mandates in terms of regulating content. It was important to ensure a much closer alignment and clarity of mandates between departments, especially to address the gaps that existed within the industry. It was also important to note that it would take a lot of research capacity to evaluate and assess how much local content was actually happening.

The Chairperson said that most of the issues raised by the first two presentations would be addressed better at a joint committee that would include the relevant stakeholders.

Association of Independent Publishers (AIP): state of community print media sector

Ms Mbali Dhlomo, President of AIP, said that the presentation would focus on the state of the small commercial media and community print media sectors of South Africa.

AIP was a national non-profit organization that looked after the collective interests of the grassroots print media sector of the country. ‘Grassroots’ would mean individually-owned publications that had started on their own without any assistance from major industries or companies, and which were mostly circulated in rural and peri-urban areas. These publications spoke directly to communities in townships and rural areas, and were mostly published in indigenous languages.

Because of various challenges faced, the AIP currently had 200 publications now but in six months’ time, it would be 180 and in five months’ time after that, it would be 230. A map showing the spread of the publications throughout the country was highlighted. (See attached document).

Ms Louis Vale, Executive Director, AIP, said that the map showed a total of 210 publications. These were funded through cooperatives, or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). There were ten new publications in the total. Only 41 of the 210 publications had been funded by the MDDA. 34 publications in the community-owned print media section were funded by the MDDA. Examples of such publications were Shamaringa (an African continental art magazine), Amandla, and a gender magazine in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). Some of these magazines were over 40 years old, but most of the old newspapers were white-owned. However, the majority of the newspapers shown on the map were black-owned. There had been quite a growth since 2006, even though these independent publishers had not been funded by government. It had only been possible through the effort and passion of individuals in the community to support information sharing.

Ms Dhlomo added that the map reflected the vibrancy of the industry, especially since technology had not taken over the rural communities as much as it had done in the urban areas. Therefore, the readership in the communities was still strong.

In terms of grassroots publications, AIP said that it had about eight million copies of publications circulated per month, and this translated to a readership ranging between 20 and 25 million per month. 70% of the publications were black-owned. Gender equity was at very low level, as only 21% of the publications were owned by women in South Africa. Distribution was predominantly in rural areas countrywide, and most independent publishers carried out their own distribution.

In terms of verification methods, some AIP members were accredited with the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC). Verifications were also done by grassroots-ABC, which focused on independent publishers. Verification of printers had begun recently in order to have proof of the number of publications printed.

The major challenge faced in terms of printing press ownership was cost. Only about three to five independent publishers owned printing presses in the country. Private sector advertising was also a challenge for independent publishers, as they were found mostly in publications circulated in urban areas.

A sample of all the publications by members of the AIP was highlighted. (See page 5 of the attached document). There were award-winning publications amongst them. These publications also covered a wide range of issues, such as investigations, religious matters, and general interest issues.

Ms Vale added that the content of these publications was vast, as they contained the real story of South Africa, and cut across all regions of the country. The issue of local content was not an issue in community print. The main issue was to identify the real stories being told and to consider those who were telling these stories.

Ms Dhlomo made reference to critical definitions in the independent publishing sector. Definitions were very critical in this sector as they affected the sector when issues of advertising arose.

With regard to community newspapers, it was important to note that ownership rested in the hands of the communities themselves. These publications were run by a non-profit organisation (NPO) and they were accountable to the community. Local newspapers were owned and managed by the major media groups in the country. Small commercial or grassroots newspapers on the other hand, were owned independently of government. They were not supported by government in the running of the business. They were run under a registered entity and majority of them were accredited by the AIP.

The first challenge encountered in the sector was the lack of advertising support from the GCIS and government. Preference was often given to mainstream or commercial publications, and advertising support was mostly afforded to community radios. Grassroots print media had not received the necessary support that the AIP desired it to have. AIP was of the opinion that the publications it represented were the ones that talked directly to the communities. The information these publications carried was of utmost importance for communities to gain access to.

To further buttress the challenge mentioned above, the AIP had requested ad-spend statistics from GCIS, which in turn had given an ad-spend of two financial years to the AIP. The community ad-spend for the 2014/2015 financial year showed that no support had been given to community print in April 2014. In September 2104, R1.3 million had been allocated as ad-spend for community print, while only R7 000 had been given in October 2014. The challenge noticed from this ad-spend was a lack of consistency. There was basically no planning for community print media and this made it difficult for independent publishers to operate, even though mention had been made that 30% of budget should be directed towards the community media sector.

AIP had proposed solutions to the above mentioned challenge. GCIS should offer regular, consistent advertising support to the community print media sector, in the sense that there should not be gaps as seen in the ad-spend, where support was given in a month and not in another month. GCIS should utilize the available provincial cooperatives that had been set up mainly to alleviate the challenge of unavailability of provincial representatives, to ease communications between government structures and independent publishers. Government should hold regular meetings with the grassroots community media sector in order to get first-hand information on the happenings in the sector.

AIP had gathered print verification certificates from printing companies to prove that publications were printed and the figures of such publications were accurate.

Other challenges facing the sectors were highlighted. They included the lack of use or promotion of indigenous languages; the lack of language diversity in municipalities when publishing their newsletters and other publications, as it had been noticed that most of these publications were published either in English and Afrikaans, as opposed to publishing in the various languages of South Africa; a lack of coordination and cooperation among Chapter 9 institutions with regard to communicating their services to communities; and the shortage of libraries in rural areas, which had led to communities not being able to access reading materials in the rural areas.

The proposed solutions to these challenges were that sustainable advertising support should be given to the community print media sector, as this would strengthen and improve literacy and numeracy skills within communities. Chapter 9 institutions should use grassroots print publications as vehicles for passing on their messages and taking their services to people on the ground. There was an urgent need for government to teach rural communities about the provisions of the constitution, and community media (both print and electronic) were perfect to convey such educational messages to the community.

Another challenge raised was the lack of funding for the small commercial and community print sector at the MDDA. Over the past few years, no funding had been distributed to the small commercial print sector. This in turn had stifled the media diversity and media development of the sector. The proposed solution to this challenge was that funding for the MDDA should be spread across both print and the electronic sectors, instead of having funds that were ring-fenced exclusively for electronic media. The funding structure and reporting model for the small commercial print sector should also be reviewed.

Ms Vale said that capacity building was another challenge facing the sector. AIP was playing a big role in capacity building. This year, AIP had been concentrating on the integration of more print and the use of social media to grow readership and to divert attention of the readership back to newspapers. It had also been conducting financial mentoring this year. It had been observed that workshops and training on financial issues and government issues did not work. AIP was therefore looking at the method of individuals going out to offer financial support.

There was a low frequency of governance issues in the sector, and this was because publishers had put in their investment and they looked after such investments properly. Regional annual general meetings (AGMs) were being held and they included training for members of the sector.

Things that would be done in 2016 included an election reporting workshop, which would be regionally based across the country. Newspaper layout and getting the right type of financial support for community print media in terms of information-sharing by the GCIS, were other areas that would be looked into in the coming year. It was also essential for these publications to be published in the right languages.

Issues of advertising were important not only in terms of the funding, but also in terms of sharing the information with a lot of people. Information sharing would contribute to an expansion of the sector.

Discussion

The Chairperson sought clarity on AIP’s accreditation process; the current state of printing costs and other printing issues and how such issues were being handled by AIP; the source of the local content and how such local content could be assessed in order to ensure that the content was actually local.

Ms Dhlomo replied on the issues around local content by citing her operations in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). She had a team of freelance journalists that resided in areas where the publications were circulated. These journalists would go out to capture stories and send these stories to her for publishing. This was the major way by which local content was sourced. Some publications relied on internship students that went out to capture stories for publications.

Mr Moses Moyo, Deputy President, AIP, said in addition that one of the things used for publications was the WhatsApp reporter, where people sent stories and pictures to a WhatsApp group. These pictures and stories were then verified to gain better understanding of the story. Newsrooms were often located within the community and members of the community could walk in freely to report a story or share information.

Mr Patrick Rudolph, Board Director, AIP, said that community issues received preference in their publications.

Ms Vale said said that local content was not an issue in the community print sector. The people in the community helped with the reporting.

On accreditation, there was the Audit Bureau of Circulation, and there was also a certificate that one had to pay an auditor to do, but that was expensive. AIP had set up a grassroots ABC certificate that was much cheaper than getting an auditor to do the certificate every quarter. AIP had also formed a partnership with the printers so that they could send verification details on specific publications that would identify the print run and free printing, which was basically the same as the certificate. AIP was however managing to get external verification on all its printers.

Ms Van Dyk wanted to know why AIP believed the government should place 30% of the budget in community media. She asked if the GCIS worked directly with community printers, or made use of middlemen, as well as the problems that could be created in this regard if GCIS worked directly with community printers. What was AIP’s position on advertising procurement agencies? Did AIP conduct readership research into the community print media sector?

Mr Davis spoke on the anomaly observed within the print media sector, where parliamentary questions revealed that the GCIS had spent R10.2 million last year on the New Age newspaper to reach 153 000 readers, while AIP’s presentation noted that grassroots publications had reached 25 million readers and only R7.5 million had been spent by GCIS on it. The Minister had been questioned on this anomaly and her response was that the funding of the New Age newspaper was part of the commitment to diversity, transformation and grassroots publishing. It would be better to fund independent publishers rather than spending a huge amount of money on one newspaper with fewer readers. He wanted to know if AIP agreed with the Minister that more should be spent on the New Age than on independent publications, and if not, what it was doing to address the anomaly. What could the Committee do to assist in addressing this anomaly?

Mr Tseli wanted to know what to know what the total amount budgeted as ad-spend for DoC was, and the amount allocated to municipalities; if the MDDA was currently allocating funds exclusively for electronic media; how AIP defined a real community print medium; and what clear proposals AIP could give on sourcing for local content and avoiding duplication of stories by various publications.

Ms Van Schalkwyk wanted to know if AIP conducted training and internships in order to reduce the huge unemployment rate within the community framework.

Ms Matshoba wanted to know how AIP would implement the various proposed solutions in order to ensure effective community media, and if journalists in this sector were ‘Jacks and Jills of all trades’.

Mr Ndlozi wanted a follow up on government spending, particular with regard to the difference between national government expenditure and local government. There was a need to make an important argument about the importance of print media. Reading was different from the other forms of broadcasting and it produced a different result in terms of intellectual contribution. In order to make a transformation in improving the indigenous languages, focus must be put on improving the written forms of these languages, as opposed to the spoken languages alone. Writing had been historically proven to have some form of superiority in intellectual cultures.

Ms Dhlomo replied that AIP had made a presentation in July 2015 at the provincial communicators’ forum in KZN, which had addressed the ways by which provinces supported community media. The presentation had reflected some of the issues regarding support even at the national level. From the beginning of the year till June, R350 000 had been given to eight publications as opposed to all the statistics of other government departments. This did not mean that AIP did not approach these departments for specific campaigns that would need provincial coverage. However, independent publishers were less supported.

With regard to the definition of a real community print media sector, it was noted that a community print publication was similar to a community radio station, as it was owned by the community. It was an entity owned by the community, and not by individuals. Profits made from the publication would therefore be ploughed back into the community.

Ms Vale said that it was difficult to make a distinction between the national and provincial figures, as far as spending on advertising was concerned. AIP had given national figures. The figures often depended on the relationship between the paper and the community or the municipality on getting advertisements in such papers. Municipalities often had relationships with some newspapers, and advertised in them.

The information received from GCIS on ad-spend came very easily. However, AIP acknowledged that it should have requested that the statistics on ad-spend should be in comparison to the national ad-spend. There was currently no legislation and policy on the proposed 30% on community media. AIP had to emphasise the issue of the information provided by those adverts, and how such information was circulated.

GCIS did not work directly with newspapers. Instead, it worked through advertising procurement agencies. There were issues around advertising procurement agencies, being a very volatile sector, because it dealt with a 10% commission on 30% of government ad-spend. AIP therefore opted for provincial power, since some of the advertising procurement agencies charged incredibly high amounts of commission. There was also a lack of transparency on the amount being charged to these agencies as opposed to the amount spent in the newspapers.

With regard to the New Age newspaper, government had a choice in deciding which newspaper to advertise in. However, consideration of real media diversity would definitely include independent newspapers, because they were rural and tended to be from economically disadvantaged rural areas.

There was one publication that had developed a working class newspaper. AIP had not considered the costs of printing, but dealing with the community media meant that all classes would be dealt with.

AIP had three members of staff and ten voluntary board members.

The MDDA funds were indeed ring-fenced and exclusively utilised for various communication sectors. For instance, the money that came from broadcasting went back into broadcasting. There was, however, no MDDA funding for print at the moment.

Most newspapers worked a lot with students on internships, and they paid such students as freelancers. The work was therefore not for volunteers. AIP conducted a lot of internships and in-service training.

It was true that in some cases, journalists had to be the Jacks and Fills of all trades, by acting as the publisher, the owner, the marketer, the advertiser, and so on, especially in a three-person organization which was often the case in the sector. Some journalists also shared offices and shared the expenditure that accrued from there.

The big thing about newspapers in indigenous languages was that they were used by the educational system. Newspapers in indigenous languages were often used in examinations, especially for matric and Grade 12. There was usually a section on journalism and communication, and only indigenous language-newspapers could be used.

Major local news could only be covered in the local newspapers. It should be noted that community newspapers were growing at both national and provincial levels.

With regard to the duplication of stories in community newspapers, this was not a frequent occurrence. Usually, communities advocated and reacted to the same issues, based on the various happenings.

Ms Dhlomo said that AIP did not agree with the Minister’s position on spending more on transformation and diversity to the detriment of independent publications. It had made several propositions to the Minister, which had not yet been responded to or worked upon. The Portfolio Committee could assist AIP by understanding its sector as a grassroots sector that stood on its own, and help in getting the needed support for community print media sector like that provided to the broadcasting, radio and TV sectors.

Mr Ndlozi wanted to know if government had a choice on who to advertise with; and if AIP had a proposal to the Committee on how to make government advertise with independent publications, since it had been reiterated that advertising was crucial to the survival of these newspapers.

The Chairperson replied that AIP had already requested the Committee to assist in getting support from government. It was important to sustain the printing sector by having the appropriate mechanisms.

Mr Moyo reiterated that AIP’s request was for the GCIS to support its sector, since it would benefit not only the publishers, but also benefit government in getting conversant with the happenings in the community.

Ms Vale said that AIP had conducted a baseline study on how other governments supported media diversity in their countries in terms of best practice. There was no evaluation, but some countries had provided printing subsidies across the board. AIP promised to make copies of the baseline study available to MPs.

National Community Radio Forum (NCRF): state of community radio in South Africa

Mr Yenwayo Kutta, Deputy Chairperson, NCRF, introduced the forum and the delegation to the Committee.

Mr Johannes Dire, National Secretary, NCRF, began the presentation by introducing the forum, indicating the role of NCRF in advocating community radio, the mission, vision, as well as the composition of its leadership. (See pages 2 to 9 of the attached document). The NCRF had a membership of 156 community radio stations across the country. It had a membership of 15 stations in the Free State, 14 in Mpumalanga, 19 in Gauteng (which was one of the congested provinces in terms of community radio), 16 in the Western Cape, 21 in Limpopo, ten in the Northern Cape, 18 in North West, 22 in KZN, and 21 in the Eastern Cape.

The national leadership of NCRF had prioritised six main pillars that would advance the organization. These were organisational renewal, diversification and development of community media, sustainability of the organisation, professionalisation of community radio, strengthening stakeholder relations, and eradication of the volunteer system/creation of jobs.

With regard to the first pillar -- organisational renewal -- NCRF would be hosting its first national policy conference that would focus on redefining the current organisation, creating a more constituency-based organisation, as well as ensuring that the existing provincial leadership was not only coordinating existing structures but was part of the legal framework. NCRF would also like to align its strategic goals to its new framework that would make sure it reflected the four main components that were not previously in existence. These included brand communications, research, business development and training. (See page 22 of attached document).

In terms of the second pillar, NCRF had discovered that a stage had been reached where the mainstream media could not continue to ignore the existence of community broadcasting. It was no secret that community radio covered audiences of over 9.2 million at present. It therefore intended to encourage an understanding between the entire community media sector that would ensure a working together of all sectors that would result in media diversity and, in effect, strong community media within the country.

The third pillar basically dealt with internal issues within the NCRF, which boiled down to the need for the organisation to maintain its growth from strength to strength since its 22 years of existence. It also had to do with having the necessary financial capacity to carry out its functions, which would ensure an enabling environment for the community radio sector.

The fifth pillar spoke to NCRF’s intention to prioritise relationship building, especially in academic institutions, since most of its members benefitted in this regard. It also spoke to the creation of job opportunities for the communities.

It was important to note that since the establishment of community radio 22 years ago, it had been used as a tool that encouraged development by making use of volunteers as part of the system. It had been observed that community radios were now paying better than some commercial mainstream media. The sixth pillar therefore focused on the need to ensure good leadership or management and an individual chain that would be accountable and respectable in every community radio in South Africa, since volunteers were being done away with due to the professionalisation of community broadcasting.

Good governance was one of the key challenges facing the sector. This challenge had paralysed many broadcasters, and 82% of community radios were facing governance challenges today. Identified reasons for this challenge included the non-availability of a policy and regulatory framework, gaps within the legislation, and power, ownership and control.

In considering the first issue of non-availability of a policy and framework, it was pointed out that ICASA rules provided that members who failed to provide an annual audited statement would be reported to the committee by the monitoring officer for adjudication. Many of the community radios had two structures, or a board, and this was caused by project initiators and station managers in some cases. Some project initiators insisted on getting things done their way, or else they would call their own meeting and create conflicting structures. In other words, many project initiators were believed to own the projects and therefore had a right over who got on the board or not. The election of the board was also subject to abuse because it was open to everyone who resided within the broadcasting area of coverage.

The second issue was the failure of many boards to ensure strong leadership and also to ensure that board members were correctly capacitated to the projects.

With regard to the third issue of efficient administration, it was pointed out that many of the station managers had not been efficiently trained to ensure efficient administration of the projects. Some of these managers had no secondary management that would ensure a good value chain in the project.

Issues of financial management remained a key concern.

The Companies Act had a major gap in terms of recognizing the non-profit making organisations in the media sector, both in respect of governance and administration. For example, there was a community radio station where a member of the board insisted on being a director on a full-time basis on a particular project. This was compelled by the provisions of the Act with regard to directorship.

Because most projects were controlled and owned by communities, many of the managers used this to control the communities. Many projects were strongly influenced by managers who ensured that board members agreed with them. The present situation was that many unlawful and unconstitutional community meetings had been convened and people had been replaced. Some of them had been removed with motions of no confidence, and this was not provided for by the constitution. Some station managers had been allowed to chair AGMs in order to ensure that the person who managed the station had control over the entire project.

The MDDA provincial funding framework had been conducted in the past three years, where provinces had been given money to ensure development and coordination by the provinces, but different structures had been created. The provinces have been required to have tax clearance certificates, and in order to do this, they have had to register their companies, which has posed a legal challenge to the entire organization.

NCRF appreciated the introduction of the MDDA Act by the National Assembly in 2002, as this had created an enabling environment. Currently, the MDDA had funded more community projects than any other entity in the country.

The key challenges that faced community radio in general were reflected upon. ICASA was one of the main challenges. ICASA had licensed many community radios in 2012/2013, but the licensing had not been well researched. For instance, there were five community radios in North West, situated in quite a small distance from each other, whereas an opportunity could have been given to many vast provinces like the Northern Cape to have their own community radios.

Another challenge was reflected in Section 50 of the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005, which provided that an applicant should assume to be licensed after failing to receive a response from the regulator within 60 days. Most community radios took advantage of this provision. Regulators had also not been reactive to any circumstances that had arisen in this regard.

ICASA had also licensed trusts as community radios, and it was difficult to understand how a trust could be part of community development projects, since a trust was regulated by the Trusts Act.

As of today, community media was faced with a congested space, where community radios were located next to each other. This created a huge challenge for relevance and sustainability. The solution to this problem could be addressed only by the regulator.

The second key challenge was the issue of value-added tax (VAT). In terms of the VAT Act, once a turnover of more than R1 million was made, one would be compelled to be a registered VAT vendor. Community radios who made a turnover of more than R1 million were expected to register for VAT. This created a problem, because the vendor did not collect VAT for the financial year but they would now be expected to pay VAT for that financial year. Usually, GCIS would not pay VAT for those community radios that had registered for VAT. These radio stations would be expected to pay for VAT from their pockets.

The third key challenge facing the sector was the media buying organisation that had been established. Many of these organisations were very rich because they sourced funds from specific companies and bought legal space in community radios. Often community radios became the biggest losers in the deal. Many of the biggest companies were the media buyers. Although the national government was using the GCIS for media buying, provincial governments were at the forefront in terms of patronising media buying organisations. To ensure that job opportunities were created and poverty alleviated, media buying was not totally objected to. NCRF recommended instead that the amendment of the MDDA Act should include media buying, and ensure that media buying organisations paid an annual percentage to the sector.

The fourth challenge was about the South African Music Rights Organisation (SAMRO), formed through the SAMRO Act of 1972. Community radio was not in existence in 1972. Community radio was therefore compelled to pay royalties to the singers. The main issue was the need for a clear understanding on how these royalties were collected, so that the continued sustainability of community radio would not be affected. It was also important to improve the royalty payment method and collection from community broadcasters.

The last challenge was the issue of the South African Audience Research Foundation (SAARF). The SABC had left the Foundation two years back because it believed that justice was not being done to the audience ratings. Community radio was now facing the same problem. In the past three years, community radio had gone back to a listenership of nine million, and the NCRF was of the opinion that the rating was not fair. The method being used by SAARF did not cover community radio. SAARF had used landline telephones to conduct its research for a quite a number of years, and many communities did not have landline telephones for the purpose of that research. NCRF believed that community radio should be given fair research to allow for fair competition. There was a new research forum known as the Broadcast Research Council of South Africa (BRCSA) that conducted research for the SABC.

NCRF was affiliated to its international body, known as AMARC International, which was a world association of community radio broadcasters. The Deputy Chairperson of NCRF had been elected as the Vice-President of AMARC International at the last general assembly held in Ghana this year, and therefore represented South Africa in the community broadcasting sector.

Discussion

Ms Van Dyk requested more information on media buyers.

Mr Tseli wanted to know what radio stations constituted the 2% that was not represented in NCRF; the reason for the continued issuance of licences to community radios without providing the necessary support; what NCRF was doing to address issues of governance within community radios so that they could comply with the necessary regulations and get the necessary support from government; and how government departments and parastatals were supporting the forum in terms of the 30% target for the sector.

Ms Matshoba wanted to know why there were few women on the NCRF board. NCRF should focus its attention on a long-established committee for radio stations in Guguletu that had tried to no avail to establish a radio station for more than five years. Were volunteers paid a stipend? How did NCRF engage its stakeholders in order to work closely with them? Was it NCRF’s policy to allow individuals to open their own radio stations whenever they deemed fit? Could NCRF assist provinces, especially those in the rural areas, to understand how they could register for tax clearance, and how to obtain such certificates?

Mr J Kekana (ANC) wanted to know what would be needed to create a conducive environment for community radios to operate. The Committee was initially of the opinion that all the organisations and forums had agreed with ICASA to give licenses to individuals as far as the opening up of community radio was concerned. However, the NCRF presentation had clarified this misconception. NCRF and the other forums that had presented earlier were advised to balance the gender issues noticed in its leadership. Transformation in the media arena should be discussed regularly. He wanted to know what NCRF’s thoughts were on transformation, especially with regard to the media arena.

Ms D Tsotetsi (ANC) wanted to know what NCRF’s criteria were for appointing board members; if NCRF had the capacity to enhance operations for the radio stations; how often NCRF conducted oversight in the various provinces, and especially in the rural areas; a breakdown of the transformation issues, especially with regard to gender issues and other issues that would ensure progress in the transformation policy; what the provision of legislation was on the proximity of radio stations; how much power was vested in other members of the board to prevent conflict from arising between management and the board; and if there had ever been consequences or action taken against indiscipline among members of the board.

Mr Patrick Kikine, National Chairperson, NCRF, clarified the challenges faced by NCRF. The NCRF was categorised into two: community of interest licence and geographic licence. The main challenges came from the geographic licensing. This involved defining what constituted a community. For example, the AGM was opened to everyone, and often it was the person with the loudest voice that had his or her views recognised. The result could sometimes not be palatable. Issues like this had been discussed with regulators such as ICASA. Other issues emanated from this basic issue. NCRF was trying to address the issue as a forum. It had tried its best to organise meetings with the regulator, in order to address such issues.

Mr Kutta said that NCRF did not want handouts. Instead it wanted government support in speaking to other departments to advertise with this sector. The sector would grow with more advertising.

With respect to addressing the congested space, NCRF felt that there was a need to ensure that only one community radio was situated within one district municipality.

Having a discussion with ICASA would help in addressing some of these issues.

NCRF did not have the power to grant licences to radio stations. Applications went to ICASA, and ICASA was responsible for granting the licences.

He said there might be a need to engage with ICASA to discuss the criteria for electing board members. This would curb the situation of the election of board membership being a free for all. There was currently no regulation that provided for criteria for the election of board members. However, some instances had occurred where stakeholders had been asked to nominate people who were then interviewed by contracted interviewers who considered their qualifications before they could be elected into the board.

The committee formed by the leadership of Guguletu might not be necessary anymore. Nevertheless, NCRF would engage with the leadership in order to ensure an effective operation of the leadership, and then identify ways in which Guguletu could participate in the community radio sector.

With regard to women’s representation, it was noted that the electoral processes remained a challenge in any organisation. Electoral processes were coming up with different conditions. NCRF committed to addressing the gender issues identified in its electoral processes.

Mr Dire said that media buying companies were companies that were used to source advertising from different media houses. They served as middlemen between the service providers and the NGOs.

In addressing the proximity of community radios, it was pointed out that a moratorium would not address the problem. Rather, a merger of two or more community radios within the same community would solve the problem. The merger should ensure that resources were optimally utilised.

In terms of NCRF’s representation of 98%, and an explanation for the remaining 2%, he said membership was voluntary and without restraint. NCRF could not compel membership on people if there were areas of conflict of interest.

With regard to the issues of non-compliance, the presentation had focused extensively on the gaps in the legislative framework, as this was one of the main challenges facing the sector. ICASA itself did not have a regulation that governed how members were elected. This made it difficult to come to an agreement within the sector, as there was no legal basis.

One of the discussion documents for the upcoming NCRF national policy conference that dealt with the issue of women, suggested that research should be conducted on the number of women who were currently in a position of leadership and had capacity within the sector, and it should be weighed with just electing women. The conference would be able to address the effect of the research and draft policies that would govern how women should be elected in future.

Most community radios paid salaries. Part of the NCRF agenda was to create job opportunities for the community radio sector, and not just make it a volunteer job.

NCRF conducted oversight more frequently than regulators. Its members were always present at every community radio AGM.

In terms of the proximity of radio stations, it was noted that the Electronic Communications Act had suggested that there should be no other community radio within a frequency of 10KMZ from another one. However, in reality, there were many community radios, where Sentech was saying there was no frequency, but licences had been issued by ICASA. There would be an internal dialogue between NCRF and the regulators to harmonise these issues.

The Chairperson sought clarity on the licensing of trusts as community radio stations.

Mr Dire replied that the criteria for issuing licences to the trusts by ICASA were unknown. However, when legal issues arose, the Electronic Communications Act would become secondary to the Trusts Act. The Trust Act dealt with issues of administration that were quite different to the communication sector. There were about 10% of community radios that were registered as trusts in the country, and had been issued licences by ICASA.

The Chairperson said that the programme of the Committee was to engage on the issues of community radio stations. The Committee intended to visit KZN, and the NCRF presentation had highlighted the fact that a lot was going on as far as community radio was concerned. The Committee might, however, need to partner with some of the organisations that had presented earlier in carrying out this oversight visit.

The issue of GCIS had become critical. However, the breakdown of the provinces highlighted in the presentation had helped a lot in clarifying the issues.

The issues around the entities of the DoC had also been highlighted in some of the presentations. The Committee would still engage with the Department in addressing all the issues that had been raised.

Issues around ICASA had also been prominent in all the presentations. In addressing all the numerous issues raised, it would be important to consider the viability of the proposed solutions.

The election of the vice-president of AMARC had been a huge achievement for South Africa. It also emphasised the work that was being done here.

Ms Tsotetsi said that there should be no selective criteria for electing women into positions of leadership.

Committee matters

The minutes of 8 September 2015 were considered and adopted..

The Chairperson gave feedback on the issue of ICASA. A sub-committee had been mandated at the last meeting to sit and bring back a report to the Portfolio Committee. A meeting had been scheduled for 20 October 2015. Deliberations ensued on the vacancies.

The meeting was adjourned.