5️⃣ Improve coordination
Improve coordination of support to the media and information environment.
How to use this section
For a quick self-assessment, see Checklist: Improve coordination
For practical examples and applications, see Case studies and field insights
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.
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).
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). 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.
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
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.
For practical examples of how coordination affects efficiency, administrative burden, and system coherence, see:
Further reading:
GFMD (2023) – Transforming Media Development: Recommendations for Effective Funding and Collaboration. Analysis of funding practices, coordination challenges, and sector perspectives on improving media development support.
GFMD (2022) - Coordinating media assistance and journalism support efforts. Report analysing the scope and focus of media assistance coordination efforts, highlighting common pitfalls as well as best practice models.
How this links to other principles
Principle 1 (Do no harm): Poor coordination can increase risk, including unintended exposure or conflicting requirements
Principle 2 (Increase funding): Coordination improves the effectiveness and predictability of funding
Principle 3 (Whole-of-system): Coordination is essential to aligning interventions across the ecosystem
Principle 4 (Local ownership): Fragmented systems increase burden on local actors and limit their ability to lead
Last updated
Was this helpful?