"Laure-Hélène Piron (The Policy Practice Director) undertook an analysis of official development assistance to media and the information environment for the Governance Network of the OECD Development Assistance Committee which was published in June 2024. The report shows that the rhetoric of governments which support freedom of expression and condemn disinformation is not matched by sufficient resources. ODA for media and the information environment has increased since 2002, reaching USD 1.5 billion in 2022, but this only represented 0.5% of total ODA in that year. When infrastructure support is excluded, ODA for media fluctuated around USD 500 million a year since 2008 (representing 0.19% of total ODA in 2022). This is despite the growth of threats facing media, such as the rise of censorship and the dominance of technology platforms.
And not enough aid directly reaches local organisations. Only up to 8% of ODA for media and the information environment (representing only 0.05% of total ODA) is directly channelled to media organisations in partner countries, such as journalists, media outlets or civil society organisations working with media or on access to information. To improve the quality and quantity of ODA for media and the information environment, the report recommends: increasing direct assistance for local public interest media; adopting a broader “information environment” lens; improving coordination between (i) digital transformation and ICT infrastructure and (ii) media and information policies and programmes; improving co-ordination and coherence between development partners (including global initiatives); strengthening the evidence base." (https://thepolicypractice.com)

"The study team used a case study approach to obtain a more granular understanding of development partners’ programmes, their results and emerging lessons. Selection criteria were: a range of countries which received the most assistance across different regions (Sub-Saharan Africa is the top region across all purpose codes. Europe is the top region for “media and free flow of information” code, which was the focus of almost all the evaluations); a range of contexts (improving and deteriorating freedom of expression, facing different types of dis- or misinformation, with different levels of capacity and prospects for economic viability for media outlets); a range of aid modalities, including core funding and peer-to-peer support. Ukraine was selected as the top recipient for media and information. Myanmar and Tanzania were included as they were among the top ten recipient countries across all the codes, which experienced opposed political trajectories during the review period. Some Western Balkans programmes were reviewed to capture the work of a wider range of development partners in Europe. Five global or core funding programmes from European donors were also examined to identify lessons from these different modalities. The case studies were analysed using existing independent evaluations or programme completion reviews provided by interviewed development partners. It was not possible to review programmes on the wider “information environment”, as only evaluations related to media programmes were shared. Overall, the team reviewed 25 programmes funded or co-funded by the EU, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the UK and the US. Programme implementers were international specialised media support organisations such as BBMA, CFI, DWA, Journalism Development Network, Media Institute Fojo, International Media Support (IMS), Internews, NHK (Japan’s public service broadcaster), and UNESCO. They sometimes operated in partnership with international NGOs, such as FHI 360, to deliver programmes which included civil society, or with specialised IT or engineering companies. Some programmes had long suppliers’ chains, such as the UK FCDO which used two international private sector companies to manage programmes in Tanzania which included media as one of several partners, and through them funded BBC Media Action and local media organisations. Very few programmes had formal agreements with regional or local organisations to act as sub-contractors. The only local direct beneficiary was the Tanzanian recipient of Sida core funding, the Union of Tanzania Press Clubs. The programmes for which evaluations or completion reports were received are summarised in Annex B. These cover most of the largest programmes in the three countries prioritised." (Methodology, page 36)