> 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/5-improve-coordination.md).

# 5️⃣ Improve coordination

{% hint style="info" %}

### How to use this section

* For a quick self-assessment, see [**Checklist: Improve coordination**](/toolkit/principle/5-improve-coordination/checklist-improve-coordination.md)
* For practical examples and applications, see [**Case studies and field insights**](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights.md)
  {% endhint %}

{% hint style="info" %}

#### In brief

Principle 5 focuses on ensuring that support to independent media and media development is **coordinated, coherent, and mutually reinforcing across actors and instruments**.

In practice, this means recognising that fragmented support - across donors, institutions, and programmes - can create **duplication, administrative burden, and inconsistent incentives** for media organisations and media development actors.

When coordination is weak, actors may fund similar activities in parallel, apply different reporting requirements, or compete for visibility. This can divert time and resources away from core activities and reduce overall impact. Effective coordination helps ensure that support is **efficient, complementary, and easier to access and manage**.
{% endhint %}

### Why this principle matters

Media organisations and media development actors often operate in **resource-constrained and high-risk environments**, where administrative burden and unpredictability can directly affect sustainability and performance.

Fragmented funding and inconsistent procedures can force organisations to manage **multiple reporting systems, timelines, and compliance requirements simultaneously**, reducing the time available for journalism, capacity building, or system-level work ([*see case study 7: coordination challenges and joint responses in crisis contexts*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-7-coordination-challenges-and-joint-responses-in-crisis-contexts.md)).

Sector evidence also points to persistent challenges related to fragmentation and duplication of efforts, reflecting limited coordination across funding programmes and actors.

At the same time, lack of coordination can lead to **gaps in coverage, duplication of efforts, and missed opportunities for learning and scaling effective approaches** ([*see case study 4: governance risk and the role of media oversight in infrastructure investments*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-4-governance-risk-and-the-role-of-media-oversight-in-infrastructure-investments.md)). Applying this principle helps ensure that support is delivered in a way that **maximises impact, reduces inefficiencies, and strengthens trust between donors and partners**.

### Where this shows up in practice

This principle is most visible in how coordination is structured and operationalised across donors, instruments, and implementing actors:

* **Alignment of funding cycles, calls, and priorities across donors** may be limited, reducing opportunities for complementary or sustained support
* **Harmonisation of reporting, compliance, and due diligence requirements** may be insufficient, increasing administrative burden for partners working across multiple programmes
* **Information-sharing and coordination mechanisms between actors** may be underused or inconsistently applied, limiting visibility on who is doing what and where
* **Joint programming, pooled funding, or co-financing arrangements** may be difficult to establish or sustain, reducing the potential for collective impact
* **Use of shared data, monitoring, and learning systems** may be fragmented, limiting opportunities for joint analysis and adaptation

These challenges often arise when donors **operate in parallel without systematic information exchange**, when **administrative requirements are inconsistent across programmes**, or when coordination is **treated as optional** rather than integral to programme design. 

Evidence from coordination efforts also highlights structural constraints that can limit effectiveness in practice, including competition for funding between actors, limited incentives for donor participation, and coordination mechanisms that default to information-sharing rather than joint strategy development.

How coordination is prioritised and structured directly affects **efficiency, partner burden, and overall impact**, particularly where **incentives and participation** are **not aligned** across actors.

These dynamics are illustrated in [case study 7: coordination challenges and joint responses in crisis contexts](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-7-coordination-challenges-and-joint-responses-in-crisis-contexts.md).

### What this looks like in practice

**Do**

* Establish regular **coordination mechanisms** between donors, implementing partners, and other stakeholders
* Align funding approaches to improve **complementarity, predictability, and coverage**
* Harmonise reporting, compliance, and due diligence requirements where possible
* Use **shared monitoring, evaluation, and learning approaches** to build a common evidence base
* Explore **pooled funding or joint programming** to reduce duplication and administrative burden

**Avoid**

* Designing programmes without considering **existing initiatives or funding streams**
* Requiring partners to comply with **multiple, conflicting reporting or compliance systems**
* Prioritising individual visibility over **collective impact and coherence**
* Creating parallel coordination structures that **duplicate existing mechanisms**
* Treating coordination as a **one-off activity rather than an ongoing process**

**Consider**

* Whether coordination mechanisms are sufficient to **reduce duplication and administrative burden**
* How to balance **institutional visibility with efficiency and partner needs**
* What level of harmonisation is feasible across different funding instruments and contexts
* How shared approaches can improve **learning, accountability, and scalability**
* How coordination can be structured without **over-centralising decision-making or limiting flexibility**

> **Field insight**
>
> “Sometimes a brilliant idea has already been done by someone else 18 months ago… so having a more formal, regular exchange between European donors would be useful.”
>
> *- European Commission employee*

{% hint style="info" %}

### Key takeaway

Coordination is not an administrative add-on. It is a **core condition for effective, efficient, and credible support to independent media**.

Well-coordinated approaches reduce duplication, ease administrative burden, and improve impact, avoiding risks of **fragmentation, inefficiency, and reduced trust across the system**.
{% endhint %}

{% hint style="success" %}
**For practical examples of how coordination affects efficiency, administrative burden, and system coherence, see:**

* [Case study 7: coordination challenges and joint responses in crisis contexts](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-7-coordination-challenges-and-joint-responses-in-crisis-contexts.md)
* [Case study 4: governance risk and the role of media oversight in infrastructure investments](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-4-governance-risk-and-the-role-of-media-oversight-in-infrastructure-investments.md)

**Further reading:**

* **GFMD (2023)** – [*Transforming Media Development: Recommendations for Effective Funding and Collaboration*](https://gfmd.info/h-content/uploads/2023/09/Transforming-Media-Development--gfmd.pdf?x32453). Analysis of funding practices, coordination challenges, and sector perspectives on improving media development support.
* **GFMD (2022)** - [Coordinating media assistance and journalism support efforts](https://gfmd.info/briefings/coordinating-media-assistance-journalism-support/). Report analysing the scope and focus of media assistance coordination efforts, highlighting common pitfalls as well as best practice models.
  {% endhint %}

{% hint style="success" %}

### How this links to other principles

* [**Principle 1 (Do no harm):**](/toolkit/principle/1-do-no-harm.md) Poor coordination can increase risk, including unintended exposure or conflicting requirements
* [**Principle 2 (Increase funding):**](/toolkit/principle/2-increase-the-amount-and-effectiveness-of-funding.md) Coordination improves the effectiveness and predictability of funding
* [**Principle 3 (Whole-of-system):**](/toolkit/principle/3-adopt-a-whole-of-system-approach.md) Coordination is essential to aligning interventions across the ecosystem
* [**Principle 4 (Local ownership):**](/toolkit/principle/4-support-local-leadership-and-ownership.md) Fragmented systems increase burden on local actors and limit their ability to lead
  {% endhint %}