> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://oecd-media-support-principles.gfmd.info/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://oecd-media-support-principles.gfmd.info/toolkit/principle/2-increase-the-amount-and-effectiveness-of-funding.md).

# 2️⃣ Increase the amount and effectiveness of funding

{% hint style="info" %}

### How to use this section

* For a quick self-assessment, see [**Checklist: Increase Funding**](/toolkit/principle/2-increase-the-amount-and-effectiveness-of-funding/checklist-increase-the-amount-and-effectiveness-of-funding.md)
* For practical examples and applications, see [**Go Deeper: Case studies and field insights**](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights.md)
  {% endhint %}

{% hint style="info" %}

### **In brief**

Principle 2 focuses on ensuring that funding for independent media and media development is **adequate, predictable, and adapted to the realities of the media sector**.

In practice, this means recognising that media organisations and media support actors operate under **economic, political, and technological pressures** that cannot be addressed through short-term or highly restricted funding alone. Different types of support — including core funding, project funding, and emergency support — play complementary roles.

When funding is limited, fragmented, or overly rigid, it can **undermine sustainability, distort incentives, and weaken editorial independence**. When designed well, funding can strengthen the resilience, plurality, and long-term viability of the media ecosystem. These dynamics are illustrated in [case study 2: funding instability and system-level dependency](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-2-funding-stability-and-system-level-dependency-rfe-rl.md).
{% endhint %}

### Why this principle matters

Independent media and media development organisations require **stable and appropriate financing** to function as professional institutions and public-interest actors.

Short-term or narrowly defined funding can create **cycles of dependency**, limit strategic planning, and shift attention away from editorial priorities toward administrative compliance. It may also exclude smaller or local actors that lack the capacity to navigate complex funding systems ([*see case study 6: local leadership and adapting compliance frameworks*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-6-local-leadership-and-adapting-compliance-frameworks.md)).

These challenges are consistently reflected across the media development sector. Organisations report that short funding cycles, fragmented support, and complex compliance requirements limit their ability to plan, invest, and operate sustainably (*see* [*State of Media Development report*](https://akademie.dw.com/en/the-state-of-media-development-vis-%C3%A0-vis-the-oecd-principles/a-71897327)).

**Emerging models** also demonstrate that funding structures can be **designed to support editorial independence** while maintaining accountability, for example through intermediary mechanisms that separate funding decisions from editorial processes. 

At the same time, funding interventions can shape the media market. **Funding approaches that are not sufficiently aligned with the principles risk** distorting local media markets, creating dependency, or undermining sustainability.

Applying this principle helps ensure that funding contributes to **pluralistic, independent, and economically viable media systems**, rather than creating fragmentation or unintended market effects.

### Where this shows up in practice

This principle is most visible in how funding decisions shape the viability, independence, and sustainability of media actors:

* **Funding modalities** - including the balance between core and project-based funding, and between short-term and multi-year support - can limit the ability of media organisations to plan, invest, and operate sustainably
* **Eligibility and access requirements** may exclude smaller or local actors, particularly where administrative thresholds or compliance expectations are not adapted to context
* **Compliance and reporting requirements** can create disproportionate burdens, diverting resources away from core journalistic activities
* **Coordination across donors and funding instruments** may be limited, resulting in fragmented support or overlapping funding streams
* **Crisis and emergency funding mechanisms** may be absent or insufficiently accessible, reducing the ability to respond to rapidly changing conditions

Across multiple survey cycles, media organisations have highlighted that managing multiple short-term grants and reporting requirements can divert significant time and resources away from core journalistic work.

These tensions often arise in balancing flexibility and accountability, speed and due diligence, and independence and donor priorities. How these trade-offs are managed has direct implications for sustainability, market dynamics, and editorial independence.

These dynamics are illustrated in [*case study 2: funding stability and system-level dependency (RFE/RL)*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-2-funding-stability-and-system-level-dependency-rfe-rl.md).

### What this looks like in practice

**Do**

* Provide a **mix of funding modalities**, including core, project, and emergency support, adapted to context
* Use **multi-year and predictable funding** where possible to enable planning and institutional stability
* Ensure funding supports both **media organisations and media development/support actors**, recognising their interdependent roles
* Adapt eligibility, compliance, and reporting requirements to **partner capacity and context**
* Coordinate with other donors to improve **coherence, predictability, and coverage**
* **Design funding mechanisms** that **protect editorial independence**, for example by ensuring a clear separation between funders and editorial decision-making.

**Avoid**

* Relying exclusively on **short-term or project-based funding** for structural challenges
* Applying **uniform funding models** across different media markets and political contexts
* Designing funding in ways that **influence editorial priorities or undermine independence**
* Creating **administrative burdens** that exclude smaller or local actors
* Introducing funding that **distorts local markets or displaces existing actors**

**Consider**

* What combination of funding modalities is needed to support **both immediate needs and long-term sustainability**
* How funding decisions may affect **market dynamics, competition, and incentives**
* Whether current funding structures allow media organisations to maintain **editorial independence and audience trust**
* How to balance **flexibility and accountability** in different operational contexts
* How funding can strengthen the capacity of local actors to **access and manage funding directly over time**

> **Field insight**
>
> “Short-term funding cycles make it difficult to retain staff or plan beyond immediate outputs. We spend more time applying than building something sustainable.”
>
> *- Media development practitioner*

{% hint style="info" %}

### Key takeaway

Effective support requires not only increasing funding, but ensuring that it is **structured, coordinated, and adapted to the realities of media systems**.

Well-designed funding strengthens sustainability, independence, and resilience - and avoids the risks of **fragmentation, dependency, and unintended market distortion**.
{% endhint %}

{% hint style="success" %}
**For practical examples of how funding design affects sustainability, access, and system-level outcomes, see:**

* [Case study 2: funding instability and system-level dependency](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-2-funding-stability-and-system-level-dependency-rfe-rl.md)
* [Case study 6: local leadership and adapting compliance frameworks](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-6-local-leadership-and-adapting-compliance-frameworks.md)

**Further reading:**

* **DW Akademie (2025)** – [*State of Media Development*](https://akademie.dw.com/en/the-state-of-media-development-vis-%C3%A0-vis-the-oecd-principles/a-71897327). Sector-wide analysis based on surveys and interviews, examining funding models, coordination, localisation, and system-level approaches to **media support.**
* **Dragomir, M. (2025)** – [*Funding Without Strings: The Case for IJ4EU’s Investigative Journalism Support Model*](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2025.2596819). Analysis of funding design approaches that protect editorial independence while supporting investigative journalism.
  {% endhint %}

{% hint style="success" %}

### How this links to other principles

* **Principle 1 (Do no harm):** Funding design choices can introduce risks, including unintended consequences for safety, independence, and local markets
* **Principle 3 (Whole-of-system):** Funding must align with regulatory, technological, and market conditions to be effective
* **Principle 4 (Local ownership):** Access to funding and funding design directly affect the ability of local actors to lead and sustain their work
  {% endhint %}