EPA > Divers

Interview de Lorna Abungu
Directrice éxecutive, AFRICOM (2000-2006)

1. What were the major challenges that you had to overcome at the head of the AFRICOM secretariat during your mandate?

There have been perhaps four main challenges:
1. Making the transition from the AFRICOM programmes to AFRICOM, the institution;
2. The actual creation of a functioning Secretariat;
3. Programming and sustainable funding; and
4. Having a mandate which covers the entire African continent.

One of the major challenges at the very onset was ideological: to de-link AFRICOM as a new and independent organisation from peoples' perceptions of the AFRICOM I and II programmes under ICOM. This was not easy to do, either with our membership, or even with our Board members, many of whom had spent many years involved in the successful implementation of AFRICOM I and II. Having never been involved these programmes myself, it was quite easy for me to make the disconnect, and I was able to enter with a fresh vision of what the organisation could be and where it could go.

Six years later, many people still have the 'old' expectations: "we want workshops, and more workshops". I believe that AFRICOM is bigger than that: it has a larger and more important role to play on a continental and global scale. It does not need to replicate the excellent work that its partners are doing in terms of workshops and trainings (EPA, CHDA, WAMP, Samp, Africa2009, among others). AFRICOM, I believe, has a greater destiny. It has the capacity to facilitate, to lobby, to network - to share ideas and information and to beat the drum for African heritage at important international fora with top business people and politicians. AFRICOM has the potential to make African governments understand the central role that our heritage must play in national development.

At the institutional level, challenges were great but never insurmountable. Establishing a functioning membership organisation from literally nothing was no easy task; I entered an empty office space with a secretary and a messenger. To make matters more complicated, an approved but over-ambitious Programme of Activities was handed to the Secretariat, which did not include an establishment phase, as PMDA (now CHDA) had. Even our main donor over the past 6 years, Sida, recognised that the initial targets were unrealistic and they underestimated requirements for the building phase of a new organisation. It was impossible for AFRICOM to undertake most of the activities on the 1999 ‘wish list’, and in 2003 a new ‘wish list’ was compiled as a result of the 1st Conference & General Assembly. It was yet again impossible to meet these unrealistic targets by 2006. An important reason for this ‘mismatch’ between the programmes endorsed at the two Assemblies (1999 and 2003) is the lack of a strategic planning approach. This was addressed by the Secretariat in 2005 by the development of a 5-year Business Plan.

A huge challenge, as everyone in this sector knows, is sustainable funding. Few of us have been as successful as EPA with its endowment fund, and I must sincerely congratulate EPA, and its partners, for this. I believe that there is no shortage of funds to be had; but our financial and technical partners are looking for good ideas and strategic planning. If we have good ideas, show a solid base, and show our partners that we have strategic methods of achieving our goals, we will find funding. One of my priorities as Director of AFRICOM was to establish a solid institutional framework of guidelines and policies, in order to gain donor confidence. In 2000 we began with a Constitution that was based on ideal rather reality, and a small set of Internal Rules. As the organisation and its Secretariat grew, these documents proved insufficient. I am pleased that the new Director shall come into place to find the necessary tools to continue driving the organisation to greater heights, and with which to attract donors.

One of AFRICOM's most important objectives is to work beyond geographic and linguistic borders. In this, you will agree that it is unique on the continent. Let us not pretend, however, that this has been an easy task. While we all belong to one continent, each region has its peculiarities. Moreover, no matter how bi-lingual or multi-lingual one is, the difference between Anglophone Africa and Francophone Africa is not just in the linguistics: it is also in institutional frameworks and approach to management. AFRICOM, with minimal funding, a heavy governance structure, and a small and sparsely staffed Secretariat, has attempted to be everything for everyone, in every region of the continent, and in two languages. What is that, if not near-impossible?

Linked to this are the challenges of being a membership-based organisation. Our challenges ranged from the mundane issue of how to collect membership fees, to developing tangible benefits for our members. While the challenges are there, I do believe that AFRICOM achieved great success through its 2-year Museum Professional Internship Programme, its award-winning website, the annual newsletter, and through the ever-active discussion list, AFRICOM-L. Another success related to Membership has been the successful organisation of two international Conferences and General Assemblies, which brought together hundreds of members from throughout the continent.

2. What remains to be done, according to you, and what should be the priorities?

This is a difficult question, and I certainly would not want it to come out that I am dictating a way forward. I have served my two mandates as Director, and the future direction clearly lies in the hands of the new Director and new Board. During my six years, I was extremely privileged to work with so many wonderful people to build up the organisation and its vibrant network of young (and old!) heritage professionals. What remains, to be done, in my opinion, is to maintain (and build upon) the solid foundation that has been established to date to gain confidence among technical and financial partners, and among AFRICOM's members.

AFRICOM, I believe, is first and foremost a networking organisation; networking relies upon communication. I therefore feel that improving the communication infrastructure (in terms of online accessibility) in African museums and heritage institutions – which will in the end enable heritage professionals to access information – should remain a priority of AFRICOM. A million and one workshops, trainings and other important events can be organised in Africa and elsewhere, but unless we improve and expand the communications network, it will always be the same small group of people who benefit. To this end, the Secretariat developed a 2-phase project that aims to link African museums to the world through the development of technical/online capacity and through the development of digital content (especially for smaller museums). I do hope that funding will eventually be found for this ambitious project.

3. What should be the priorities of African museums today?

AFRICOM has always touted Alpha Konaré message that the European model of museums in Africa must be broken, and that African museums must be relevant to the communities they serve. I believe many museums in Africa have achieved, or are in the process of achieving this. This is a priority and should remain a priority. Equally, however, I believe that African museums can only achieve this through strong, honest, and able leadership.

Over the years, we have concentrated on technical training of museum personnel. Thanks to the efforts of ICCROM's Prema programme, many African museum professionals have been trained in conservation and collection management techniques, among others. The subsequent birth of EPA and PMDA (now CHDA) have also resulted in continued technical training and academic and professional development. WAMP, Samp, Africa2009 and other heritage organisations on the continent have been equally instrumental in various trainings. I am pleased that more and more African museum professionals have recently been able to pursue more management-based studies, for example at the APMHS (African Programme in Museum and Heritage Studies ) post-graduate course in Cape Town.

Our new generation of African museums needs a new generation of visionary leaders, and it is up to the various players in the heritage sector in Africa to see that this happens.

4. How do you see the complementary relationship, or synergies, between the different players/organisations/NGOs that are working with museums in Africa?

This is a very important question. I am generally a team player, and I have always felt very strongly that the different players working with museums in Africa should have a complimentary relationship and must work together and not against each other. In 2002, at the initiative of the Division of Cultural Heritage of UNESCO, some of us were called to a meeting: 'Enhancing Cooperation in Cultural Heritage on the African Continent'. Represented were: AFRICOM, WAMP, EPA, PMDA, ICCROM/Africa 2009 and ICOMOS.

Despite the resolutions that we hold regular meetings to foster this cooperation, and that we share resources and information, I feel that not enough has been achieved. This is sad, because we all have distinct functions, and should never be seen to be (or feel ourselves to be) in competition with each other. AFRICOM, in particular, is not a training organisation, and should never be seen to be in competition with training centres such as at EPA, CHDA and Robben Island Museum Training Programme (RITP), among others. Despite this reality, competition and suspicions continued over the years, in some ways hampering what could have been more mutually beneficial relationships amongst us all.

All this said, I do think that AFRICOM has achieved a level of success in encouraging complimentary relationships and in mobilising people and common interests. This can be seen through the impressive turnout of partner organisations from Africa and beyond at the two General Assemblies, and by the fact that AFRICOM actively disseminates news and opportunities from partner organisations within its network.

The reality is that all of us are competing with the same financial partners for already meagre financial resources: we share, among other things, the problem of establishing sustainability. Thus it is against our own interests to duplicate efforts. I feel very strongly about this, and I hope that in the years to come, we can see all the partner organisations sharing skills, experiences, and information, without fear of rivalry – in the understanding that each organisation has a distinct and very important role to fulfil in the heritage sector on the continent.