📑 Case studies

Narrow training programmes with little systemic impact

In several regions, donor-funded initiatives have focused heavily on journalist training without addressing underlying structural issues such as distribution monopolies, legal harassment, or business model fragility. Participants noted that while workshops can be useful, they often fail to improve the broader environment in which journalism operates. This illustrates the risk of focusing narrowly on capacity building while neglecting the enabling ecosystem.

Link

---

Platform dependency and unintended consequences

In parts of Asia and Eastern Europe, donors funded digital media projects that relied heavily on Facebook and Google for audience reach. While initially successful, these outlets became dependent on platforms that later changed algorithms or introduced restrictions, causing sudden traffic collapses. This case underlines how donor support that strengthens dependency rather than resilience can unintentionally harm local ecosystems.

Link

---

Holistic support through coalitions

In Zimbabwe, a coalition coordinated by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) worked with multiple donors to develop a joint media development strategy. By pooling resources and aligning priorities, they were able to cover legal reform, safety, distribution, and financial sustainability together, rather than funding these areas in isolation. This demonstrates how ecosystem-level interventions can create multiplier effects.

Link

---

Lebanon’s post-crisis media fund

After the Beirut port explosion in 2020, international partners joined forces with local organisations to launch a pooled media support fund. This addressed immediate emergency needs while also investing in longer-term organisational recovery. The initiative shows how systemic interventions can respond to shocks while also reinforcing structural resilience.

Media Oversight and Global Gateway Partnerships

Media Oversight and Global Gateway Partnerships

Context

Global Gateway is the EU’s flagship investment programme for infrastructure, aimed at mobilising €300 billion for energy, transport, digital, health, and education projects worldwide. While the initiative highlights Europe’s commitment to sustainable development and global competitiveness, stakeholders have warned that the EU’s credibility also depends on ensuring these funds are subject to scrutiny.

Some delegation members have argued that the EU needs to be more explicit in demonstrating its commitment to transparency by enabling independent media to hold power to account. Large-scale infrastructure projects are highly vulnerable to corruption, mismanagement, and elite capture. If local communities perceive EU-funded projects as opaque or benefiting only a few, the EU’s reputation as a promoter of rule of law is at risk.

Why it matters

Embedding support for watchdog journalism alongside Global Gateway projects would strengthen transparency and accountability. This could be done through existing mechanisms, by earmarking resources for investigative reporting, training journalists on infrastructure monitoring, or funding media collaborations that track procurement and delivery. Doing so would not only safeguard EU investment but also align with the EU’s broader governance and democracy agenda.

💡Infrastructure and media support should not be treated as separate silos. A whole-of-system approach means ensuring that flagship investments like Global Gateway are accompanied by support for independent scrutiny, thereby demonstrating that the EU holds itself to the same standards of transparency it promotes globally.

Building Local Compliance Capacity through Risk-Sharing Partnerships

Context As part of the Digital Democracy Initiative (DDI)—a joint EU–Danish programme launched in 2024 to address technology-enabled gender-based violence—donors invited proposals that could strengthen women’s digital rights and safety. Competing bids included a seasoned international consortium and a coalition of feminist and women’s rights organisations from Latin America with deep local networks but limited experience managing EU funds.

What Happened The local consortium won the grant, despite submitting a less technically polished proposal. The evaluation panel prioritised contextual knowledge, grassroots legitimacy, and the potential for institutional growth over procedural perfection. Recognising that the local partners would require support to navigate EU compliance systems, the EU and DANIDA designed an accompanying support plan that included mentoring, financial reporting guidance, and peer exchanges with other grantees.

Why It Matters The decision signalled a new form of partnership: one that treats compliance and capacity-building as part of the outcome rather than a prerequisite. Rather than penalising partners for limited experience with EU systems, the donors framed administrative strengthening as an intended result of localisation. The feminist network’s work on survivor-centred reporting and safe digital spaces has since demonstrated that trust-based support can both deliver impact and expand local capacity to meet EU accountability standards.

✅ Summary — Key Takeaways for Implementers

• Short-term training isn’t enough. Focusing narrowly on workshops without tackling legal, financial, or structural barriers limits long-term impact.

• Dependency weakens resilience. Donor projects reliant on major platforms collapsed when algorithms changed, showing the risks of external dependence.

• Coordination multiplies results. Joint strategies in Zimbabwe and pooled recovery funds in Lebanon proved that collective, systemic action delivers durable change.

• Accountability strengthens credibility. Linking media support to initiatives like Global Gateway ensures transparency and reinforces the EU’s governance commitments.

• Partnerships build capacity. The Digital Democracy Initiative showed how mentoring and shared risk turn compliance into a development gain, not a barrier.

• Lesson: Sustainable media support demands ecosystem thinking — connecting capacity, accountability, and coordination to foster true independence.