Think Tank on accountability frameworks in the documentary ecosystem

Amid an increasing strain on the documentary industry, driven by funding cuts and mounting political pressures, filmmakers—particularly those from the Global Majority—face increasingly complex experiences navigating selection and decision-making processes. To address those realities and advance integrity in decision-making, it is imperative to examine current practices and implement processes guided by clear accountability frameworks and curatorial justice. Challenging entrenched practices, however, requires sustained and intentional effort, a process that is often marked by structural impediments and diminishing resources, which can significantly hinder institutional change. Fortunately, there are many examples of practices rooted in a desire to enhance accountability. These examples remind us that numerous positive initiatives already exist, and that accountability does not always require sweeping changes or vast budgets. Rather, it begins with a willingness to reflect on existing practices and to reallocate resources thoughtfully.

To critically engage with those questions, IDFA and #DocSafe, a collaborative initiative focused on fostering safety and equity in the film industry, hosted a closed think tank in November 2025 in Amsterdam. The session brought together 28 professionals from across Asia, Africa, North America, and Europe, including representatives from festivals, markets, public and private funds, broadcasters, film support organizations, training programs, as well as independent filmmakers and curators. It was co-facilitated by #DocSafe co-founder Marion Schmidt and Mariia Ponomarova, a Netherlands-based Ukrainian filmmaker and Industry Talks producer at IDFA.

The think tank featured experience-sharing presentations, a collective selection of themes (sourced from the participants’ entered input), breakout discussions, and brief overviews of outcomes and takeaways.

Three participants reflected on their existing practices, demonstrating examples of the different measures institutions and individuals take to further accountability in their processes. A major documentary fund, whose head participated in the session, offered one such example. It highlights how questions of the filmmaker’s power and positionality—interrogating their lens and biases as a steward of a story—and ethics of their storytelling practice can be meaningfully integrated into funding application processes. Questions of accountability also extend to those holding gatekeeping and decision-making roles, including selection teams. Reviewers, for instance, engage with a set of reflective questions in their process to question their positionality and biases that they might unintentionally bring to the assessment of projects. The fund has also established a clear structure that helps challenge perspectives of the leadership and internal team. The features’ fund decision-making process, in particular, progresses through five clearly defined steps, involving independent external readers and expert peer reviewers at different stages. Those experts come from various professional and geographic contexts (often beyond funding) and bring “a difference of perspective,” which questions views held by the fund team.

The fund’s selection process is guided by transparency and intentionality, with project assessments made against clearly established criteria that are communicated transparently to all involved. The criteria reflect the fund’s core priorities and value systems, aiming to foster equity, diversity, and inclusion, broaden the range of voices and audiences served, and support projects that advance the documentary form. Those principles are also integrated in the fund’s measures of success, which incorporate inclusion targets set over fixed periods, such as supporting filmmakers from historically underrepresented and marginalized groups.

A film programmer and cultural producer, who has worked with various festivals and initiatives, discussed her working practices, shaped by the expressed need to probe the ethical dimensions of a film in “a work of grounding.” This need arose amid what she described as an industry’s assumption that documentaries are subject of ethical oversight at various points of their lifecycle. Such a presumption and “romanticization of viewing a film purely for its creative merits” could jeopardize the accountable selection processes, she argued, in particular in the face of extractive or dehumanizing narratives. In this vein, access to filmmakers’ positionality statements and other data provided at different stages could prove transformative in certain programming contexts.

Echoing the value of rigorous accountability frameworks and granularity in selection processes, another participant discussed the serious consequences that may emerge in their absence, especially in light of today’s increasingly polarized world. Reflecting on her experience as a Ukrainian filmmaker, she observed how some films carrying harmful colonial narratives hit audiences after collecting stamps of “legitimacy” with little scrutiny—be it receiving support from funding bodies, securing a premiere at a festival, or landing a distribution deal. In recent years, several widely-viewed documentaries have drawn criticism from film professionals for presenting perspectives that some argue perpetuate hegemonic narratives and power imbalances.

Meanwhile, the programmer discussed another aspect often observed in current programming practices: the detachment from audiences. As a co-founder of a grassroots collective, aimed at elevating African and Black diaspora stories, she consciously grounds films in audiences and engages them in a film’s ethical framework. This is vital to her process, she noted, as those audiences are connected to what is on screen through their lived experiences and have stakes in representation. Such audience-centered curation has transformed the collective’s programming approach, moving away from decision-making that typically rests with a single individual toward collaborative practice, marked by a sense of shared responsibility toward the portrayed communities. As part of this commitment, community members are invited to act as cultural advisors and co-curate with the programmers.

Following the experience-sharing presentations, breakout groups focused on four main themes, drawn from participants’ inputs previously shared in response to the think tank’s description. During the think tank, the attendees starred the themes that resonated most, which were then brought into discussions.

The first group deliberated on ways to support decision-makers in taking risks. Their recommendation called for establishing pools of advisors with “a strong decolonial awareness” to guide funds, festivals, and programs in their selection processes, as well as “diversifying the enabling positions” at multiple levels by involving persons from various geographies, areas of expertise, and experiences. The recommendation also advocated for greater transparency about power dynamics within boards and programming teams to prevent institutions from opting for “safer choices” out of fear of the perceived complexity and political sensitivity of “challenging programs.”

The second group tackled the question of decentralizing power outside of organizations. Among their takeaways was the need to challenge the notion of a ‘world premiere’, which they described as a “manufactured” concept born from the colonial system that underpins the “unwritten hierarchy” of festivals. The group also questioned the notion of decentralization itself, encouraging to increase points of contact with funders, festivals, and other organizations and “to make those connections flow both ways.” Should the process of decentralization occur, its purpose must also be transparently communicated, with the caveat of avoiding tokenism.

The third group reflected on the economic pressure on the film industry. Amid rising financial pressures faced by institutions, which inevitably cascade down to filmmakers, accountability comes with tangible economic costs, the participants noted. Economic investment within the industry was also examined, with the group calling for its more nuanced definition, which recognizes forms of value that are not strictly monetary: be it access to mentors and decision-makers, or creation of spaces for interaction and knowledge-sharing, which offers (early-career) filmmakers pathways to guidance and networks to advance their work.

The fourth group explored the topic of distance creating bias and limiting access. The participants addressed the industry’s disconnect from one of its core stakeholders, the audience, highlighting the importance of understanding those served through the making, funding, and exhibiting films. Various hurdles of distance and accessibility within the documentary field were also a point of discussion, with the group stressing the need to rethink the inherited industry bias, shifting from a North America/Eurocentric and “unidirectional” lens toward greater global inclusivity. Attention also needs to be paid to language barriers and supporting those for whom ‘the default to English’ may be a hindrance to participation in the industry.

The think tank emphasized the importance of centering fairness and equity in selection and decision-making processes, while acknowledging the practical challenges, costs, and resource requirements of implementing it. The discussed approaches represent just a few of many efforts that seek to translate those principles into lasting and sustainable practices in the documentary field. The issues have been previously explored by many thoughtful colleagues, and the think tank served to continue and, in some ways, re-focus the ongoing conversation, encouraging members of the documentary ecosystem to further the discussions and development of practices in industry spaces worldwide.