On the occasion of the 36th Sunny Side of the Doc in La Rochelle, SPI (Syndicat des Producteurs Indépendants - Union of Independent Producers) takes a look at the state of documentary filmmaking in France. Meeting in La Rochelle with Emmanuelle Mauger (deputy general delegate of the SPI) and Cyrille Perez (president of the union's audiovisual college and head of 13 Productions).

Cineuropa: How is the documentary industry doing in France?
Cyrille Perez: The situation is mixed. The good news is that last year we renewed the agreements on creation, notably with France Télévisions investing €105 million in documentaries. However, this must now be tempered by the government's austerity plan and new savings demanded of France Télévisions this year and for 2026, which are of great concern to us. We hope that this will not affect creation, particularly documentary production, which is the most fragile and least well-funded genre.

On the other hand, even though France Télévisions has increased the value of certain slots, as the budget remains constant, there is unfortunately less volume, and therefore fewer documentaries per genre, for example in Culture, Science, etc. France Télévisions has understood our concerns regarding increased production budgets, inflation, the collective agreement on personnel costs, which is a significant expense that has increased, and the cost of archives, which is not decreasing: making films is becoming increasingly expensive. However, it is important not to compromise on production volume.

The second piece of good news is the increase in funding for documentaries for France 3's regional channels and the preservation of a volume of 250 documentaries. Behind this figure are authors, directors, technicians, and an entire ecosystem across all French regions. If we reduce the volume too drastically, it will benefit established directors and impact the debut films that we at SPI are very attached to, as we need to ensure the renewal of talent.

Emmanuelle Mauger: We are also in discussions with Arte to promote the documentary genre and strengthen its place in their European offering and development strategy. Documentaries are a genre that is central to democracy. Today, we absolutely need to promote diverse content in European democracies that is meaningful and develops critical thinking.

What about funding for private channels and platforms?
CP: We have just renewed our agreement on creation (fiction and documentaries) with TF1, which will increase its level of investment slightly, which is good news. Documentaries are also starting to appear on M6, but they are still marginal. As for platforms, a diversity clause has been negotiated in agreements with them, so that there is not only fiction, but also animation and documentaries. But this clause is still insufficient.

EM: This clause varies depending on the agreements with each platform and their programming strategies. It ranges from 10% (for Netflix) of their audiovisual investments to 20% (for Apple), with 13% for Amazon and 17% for Disney. Within this commitment to genres other than fiction, there is a variable percentage ranging from documentaries (minimum 5%) to animation and even live performances. We have gone beyond what was negotiated in 2021 by ARCOM, which had to quickly conclude agreements with the platforms to transpose the European SMA Directive. The initial minimum financial commitments have at least doubled, but this is still insufficient. We now know that there has not been the expected trickle-down effect on the industry: the platforms' investment does not significantly improve the financing of documentaries in France. First, only a few very specific types of documentaries are of interest to the platforms. Secondly, they only want very local works, so it is difficult for French productions to have a global perspective when producing for platforms. Finally, in terms of editorial content, they favour documentaries about artists and public figures.

CP: Yes, about the celebrity headliners with whom the platforms sign contracts, which disrupts the French documentary practice of never paying witnesses, even when making a biopic about an artist. To get exclusives, whether with footballers or cultural figures, platforms contract directly with them, which is also a major lack of diversity because if you don't have a headline name, your documentary won't get made. The SPI is therefore calling for a renewal and real commitments to diversity, including on platforms. Despite the fact that platforms' commitments to diversity have doubled compared to the first agreements, the figure is still too low and only concerns a dozen or so documentaries or two or three series.

Can exports be a source of financing?
CP: Most of what is broadcast on French television are social documentaries, so at best they may be of some interest to French-speaking territories, but no more than that. Environmental, science and history documentaries have a better chance of being exported. But here too, we see that international sellers, who are themselves not experiencing a boom period, are offering lower minimum guarantees (MG). And when producers go directly to international markets to seek pre-purchases from foreign channels, we see that the situation for television, which we are fortunately still spared in France, is clearly difficult in many territories, which was not the case before. Their documentary budgets have decreased and instead of pre-purchasing as before, they wait to see the finished film before committing or not: the budget with which we can produce the film is therefore much more uncertain.

EM: We also believe that there is a strategic challenge in providing better support for European co-production and the development of documentaries at the Media programme level. This is because there is a challenge for democracy and for public broadcasters, as it is becoming increasingly difficult in many European countries, and because France is a driving force in international co-productions.

CP: The success of the Media programme means that it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve, with the bar for access points being raised higher and higher. Documentary is the key genre of democracy. Otherwise, we will end up with a flood of images, without reflection or perspective, or TikTok videos that we will "swipe through" in three seconds. And when we see what is happening in several countries, we need even more reflection and analysis of images.

E.M.: Even in France, there are increasing attacks on creative freedom at various levels (declining support in the regions, works arbitrarily submitted to certain commissions, hate campaigns on social media against certain films, etc.).

CP: The best way to exert pressure on creators is to cut off their resources: the power of money to prevent free speech.

EM: We are also in discussions with filmmakers to establish a minimum production budget system, which is complicated given the wide variety of economic models for documentaries. In addition, we are also discussing with documentary filmmakers the best practices to be defined for the use of artificial intelligence. Together with SACD and SCAM, we are in favour of providing information and labelling when generative artificial intelligence is used in documentary works. As documentaries are films based on reality, it is essential for the public that there be complete transparency.

What is the SPI's opinion on former public service documentary producers who move into private production (often within groups) and who would have very privileged access to public service investments?
CP: The SPI points out that in the public service, there is a duty to set an example and that all producers must be treated equally, with no special privileges. This does not prevent the fact that when two people know each other, it is obviously easier to talk to each other than when they do not know each other at all, and this is the case in all professions; it is life, the effect of networks. But we reiterate the duty to set an example.

EM: Historically, the SPI has always pushed for the establishment of ethics committees and for principles to be set out in public service contracts of objectives and means. Programme directors and unit directors in the public service must be able to leave their posts without any problems, but with a period (one, two or three years) during which they are not allowed to work in a private company whose projects they have financed, for example. Even though ethics officers have been appointed in public companies, our recommendations have not really been implemented.

CP: This is a sound and democratic principle that we demand be included in every contract setting out objectives and resources. We are not being heard, but we hope to be one day, even if the example of the former Secretary of State for Digital Affairs becoming a shareholder and lobbyist for an artificial intelligence company, when he should not normally be allowed to do so, is somewhat worrying in this regard. To have a healthy civil service life, we need to strengthen ethics and the period during which a person who has held public office cannot work with their former suppliers or clients.