Recipient Perceptions of Media Development Assistance: A GFMD Study

"While...previous research endeavours have targeted the donor side of the discussion, this GFMD study has sought to capture the perspectives of the journalism support and media development community itself."

Founded in 2005, the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) is an international network of 190 journalism support and media development organisations joined in the goal of fostering viable and independent journalism and sustainable and pluralistic media environments. In November 2018, the GFMD embarked on a 2-month study of how members of its community perceive donor policies and procedures. A potential tool for future advocacy, this resulting report discusses the context in which this study takes place, presents findings, and offers a series of recommendations with the goal of helping to shape future discussions on aid effectiveness and responsiveness.

As outlined in the report, the study "took place against the backdrop of long-standing debates regarding the status of journalism support and media development within the overall structure of official development assistance (ODA). This has included a sense among the GFMD community that donors sometimes underestimate the importance of media as a sector in and of itself, akin to sectors such as health or education, which requires its own dedicated strategies and commensurate budgets. This misunderstanding can be complicated by a tendency of some donors to align their ODA with the priorities of recipient governments (which rarely rank media freedom and independence among their own top political concerns), though at times it may also be balanced by the efforts of media and journalism stakeholders to articulate their own demands."

The 38 organisations that responded to the online survey reflected the size and geographic diversity of GFMD membership. Organisations operating at the international level represented 24% of respondents, followed by respondents from Asia (18%), Eastern Europe/Southeastern Europe/Caucasus (18%), Sub-Saharan Africa (16%), the Middle East/North Africa (11%), and Latin America/the Caribbean (8%). The largest number of respondents represented small organisations, with 45% operating with a budget under US$500,000 per year.

Survey respondents were asked a series of questions on the key challenges they face in the provision of funding and the kinds of changes they would like to see that might help to alleviate such challenges. These responses were further supplemented by input gathered through interviews with GFMD members. Selected findings:

• GFMD members emphasised that although donor understanding of the sector has improved in recent years - including a shift away from the instrumentalisation of media to achieve other development goals - there is still a concern that funding for the field remains constrained by limited human capacity and low levels of media-specific expertise within donor agencies.
• Most journalism support and media development organisations (79%) operate on short funding cycles of up to 2 years. Short-term funding cycles and administrative burdens often make these organisations less effective, trapping them in a cycle of perpetual fundraising for and reporting on small, short-term grants.
• Interviewees linked short funding cycles to the difficulty of demonstrating impact. This includes, for example, what they perceive as expectations from donors to show quick results, which may not be possible when addressing entrenched cultural or social norms. Some expressed interest in transforming the focus on logframes, theories of change, outputs and outcomes, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data to more effectively tell the story of results and impact over time, including the suggestion to offer post-grant funding to measure impact after the initial funding ends.
• When asked the top 5 improvements they would like to see from a planning perspective, respondents expressed a desire for higher funding levels (66%), greater consultation with media and journalism stakeholders in country (55%), stronger coordination between donors and the journalism support and media development community (55%), and quicker responsiveness to changing needs (47%).
• 37% of respondents recommended additional focus on research and learning, which was cited by a number of interviewees as well. They would like to see not only stronger articulation of success stories and lessons learned, but also other opportunities to honestly examine failure and to creatively explore new approaches, strategies, and solutions.

Some of the other findings:

• GFMD members welcome the international recognition of media and journalism issues within the overall international development agenda, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), noting the common language it provides and the accountability tool it may offer. However, some members cite risks, such as in viewing SDG 16.10 too narrowly. They suggest that 16.10 should be seen in the overall context of Goal 16 - that is: peace, justice, and public institutions - to ensure that media-related assistance continues to look at the fuller enabling environment of laws, policies, and actors that ensure plurality, safety, and viability.
• A common theme running through this study is that the challenges are wider than just the media landscape and instead encompass the "information ecosystem" and its place in worldwide trends towards the closing of the civic space. This connects not only to additional threats to freedoms of association and assembly but also to concerns about fragility and instability.
• Some GFMD members observe a conceptual shift from media development to journalism support, including efforts to ensure the existence and health of counter-narratives. Others do not see misinformation as a media issue, per se, and fear that a focus on addressing "fake news" can complicate the ability to penetrate other key needs and issues and "remain far too reactive to specific egregious instances, rather than offering a comprehensive or systematic approach. Common interventions such as support for journalism protection, fact checking, and media literacy may address some of the symptoms, these stakeholders argue, but they do not tackle root causes or change the overall dynamic. Investigative journalism efforts, for example, remain limited if they do not also address the immediate needs of citizens, empower civil society to follow-up findings, or ensure an effective judicial response."

In seeking to provide a foundation for moving forward, the study offers the following recommendations:

• Strengthen communication, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration at all levels by, for example:
  • Holding annual meetings for donors and implementers at the international, regional, and sub-regional levels;
  • Conducting joint needs and impact assessments in recipient countries;
  • Encouraging opportunities for co-design between and among donors and implementers;
  • Creating dedicated pathways for local organisations to access decision-makers; and
  • Building networks with allies in civil society, academia, and the private sector.
• Explore creative options for restructuring the administration of funding, with a focus on advocating to and within donor agencies to: provide longer-term funding; support organisational operational costs; reduce the burden and expense of bureaucratic and reporting requirements; mitigate the negative consequences of large funding mechanisms; invest in building the capacity of local partners; and offer incentives for stakeholders to work together.
• Promote an informed and responsive vision for the sector by:
  • Institutionalising knowledge within donor agencies;
  • Developing strategies for media development and journalism support;
  • Supporting research and learning;
  • Anticipating future challenges in law and policy, technology, market trends, and politics;
  • Bridging gaps between higher-level conceptual conversations and on-the-ground realities; and
  • Ensuring that audiences remain at the heart of assistance efforts.