Funding Free Expression:

Perceptions and Reality in a Changing Landscape

A report to the Center for International Media Assistance

by Anne Nelson with the International Freedom of Expression Exchange

CIMA (the Center for International Media Assistance), is a project of the Congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy. It aims to:

strengthen the support, raise the visibility, and improve the effectiveness of media assistance programs.

IFEX (the International Freedom of Expression Exchange) is a global network of over 80 organizations that support

freedom of expression. This research is based on surveys of IFEX members (2009) and donors (2011).

List of Survey Respondents

• Adessium Foundation (Netherlands)

• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (United States)

• Canadian International Development Agency

• Danish International Development Agency

• Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Canada)

• Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation (Netherlands) • International Development Research Center (Canada)

• John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (United States)

• John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (United States)

• McCormick Foundation (United States)

• National Endowment for Democracy (United States)

• Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

• Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• Open Society Foundations (OSF)

• The Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK)

• Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

• Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

• U.S. Department of State, USAID, and Middle East Partnership Initiative • UNESCO

• United Nations Development Programme

• The World Bank

List of Survey Respondents (cont.)

Seven key findings emerged from the CIMA research:

1. Overall donor funding has increased -- not decreased – over the past 3 to 5 years.

2. It is impossible to conclusively measure the amount of free expression funding.

3. Changes in the political landscape of individual countries have a major impact on freedom of expression funding.

4. Many donors are reacting to the economic pressures resulting from the 2008 global financial downturn.

Seven key findings (continued):

5. The community of free expression funders is evolving, adding and subtracting players.

6. Internal and structural reorganizations are taking place across the board.

7. Freedom of expression activity has been broadening, with the addition of emerging Internet freedom organizations.

Perception of Funding Trends Most (65%) donor respondents believed funding for free expression work

has not decreased

No

Yes

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

64.7%

35.3%

68.8%

31.3%

YesNo

But in 2009, the majority (69%) of IFEX member respondents said it has become more difficult to raise core funding

Future Free Expression Funding (Next 3 to 5 years)

Yes

No

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

26.3%

73.7%

In 2011, some (26%) donor respondents expect their institutions’ funding for free expression activities to further increase.

Number of organizations has greatly expanded

Funding is directed to newer,

non-traditional freedom of expression

activities and institutions

Many donors’ administrative

processes have been disrupted by massive

internal reorganization

Three factors have escalated the competition for freedom of expression funds:

Funding has Increased (in some areas more than others)

The Open Society Foundation The Norwegian MinistryOf Foreign Affairs

The European Union

Swedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural OrganizationKnight Foundation

The Ford Foundation

The United Kingdom’sDepartment for International

Development

Free VoiceThe National Endowment

For Democracy

Top Funding Institutions for Freedom of Expression – as reported in 2009 IFEX member survey

45.0%

15.0%

40.0%

Increased (45%)

Decreased (15%)

Remained Constant (40%)

Free Expression Funding Portfolios Have Generally Grown or Held Steady Over the Past 3-5 Years

Free Expression funding resides in widely varied portfolios -- making the totals difficult to measure.

Human Righ

ts

Govern

ance

/Democra

cy

Media

Development

Freedom of E

xpressi

on

Others

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

*Respondents indicated more than one category

Shifts in the Political Landscape (in Both Donor and Recipient Countries) Influence Funding Trends

Arab Countries Are a Recent Funding Focus

There are risks in the “flavor of the month” approach -- with massive funding surging in and out of regions.

Funding Hot Spots:

Post -1989 the former USSR / Eastern Europe / Balkans2000s Africa2011 Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

Looming Crises?

Mexico and Central America: Narco violenceChina: Internet censorship and repressionHungary: Official Assault on Enabling Environment

Need: Sustainability tools and management skills for all regions

The Funding Community is Rapidly Evolving

International Press Institute

The new tech philanthropies occupy a stronger economic position than

traditional U.S. media-based philanthropies..

Index on Censorship Reporters Without

Borders

Contributed $5 Million

Contributed $3 Million

recently funded media partnerships and freedom of expression initiatives.

The Omidyar Network (eBay): announced in May that it will broaden its government transparency initiatives in media.

Contribute$450K

Contribute $2 Million

Contribute $800K

Contribute$1.7 Million

But traditional U.S. media-based philanthropies are struggling

The McCormick Foundation, a major funder for press freedom in Latin America, has scaled back operations.

The New York Times Company Foundation and The Boston

Globe Foundation, supporters of international

freedom of expression work, suspended grant making

altogether in 2009.

Monitoring & Evaluation have taken on new importance – but donors use a daunting range of tools.

0102030405060

57.9

42.131.6

57.9

15.8

42.1

How donors monitor the impact of free expression funding

OSF’s London-based Media Program allocates about a quarter of its own $10 million annual budget to media freedom – primarily for three principal areas:

Traditional freedom of expression efforts Media law reform Journalists’ safety

Promoting Stability: Open Society Foundations support many long-term thematic and regional efforts through multiple

offices and programs.

Internal and Structural Reorganization

(can mean Disruption)

Merging Government-Funded Institutions

The Dutch government favored proposals from funding consortiums, for example:

• Press Now• Free Voice• RNTC’s Foreign Projects Department

In April 2011, the three institutions merged into a consortium called, Free Press Unlimited

2010 IFEX member survey on priority issues (in order):

Impunity

Media Law Reform

Freedom of Information / Access to Information

Donors and IFEX Members Diverge on Priorities:

Protection Against Physical Violations

Self Censorship

Internet Policy – legal and regulatory issues

2010 Member Priorities (continued)

Media Ethics and Self Regulation

Impunity

Med

ia La

w Reform

Freed

om of/Acce

ss to

Inform

ation

Med

ia Eth

ics an

d Self-R

egulati

on

Protec

tion Against

Physica

l Violati

ons

Countering S

elf-Cen

sorsh

ip

Internet

Policy

Other

02468

1012141618

Donors’ Funding Priorities for the Next 3-5 Years

Num

ber

of R

espo

nden

ts

*from respondents’ answers to survey question: “A 2010 consultation of IFEX members identified the following as the highest priority issue areas for free expression work. Which of these do you plan to fund in the coming 3 to 5 year period? (Please select as many as apply)”

The Internet Freedom community is growing –

but with few connections to traditional

freedom of expression groups.

New Technologies In Freedom Of ExpressionMedia scholars are asking: Do new technologies offer a net gain in freedom of expression?

Donors are funding new Internet freedom research and activism initiatives – such as the Oxford Internet Institute and Hong Kong University's China Media Project.

Citizen Journalism: Viable In a Censored Internet?

In 2010, the Omidyar Network granted $1.5 million to Herdict, a project at Harvard’s Berkman Institute, to record real-time data about global web accessibility and outages .

YouTube – Broadcast Yourselfwww.youtube.comInaccessible Accessible3547 1528

Conclusion1. Free expression groups are concerned about shifting priorities

among donors and narrowing varieties and sources of funding.

2. The landscape of free expression funding is evolving -- with arrivals and departures among donors and NGOs alike.

3. This research points towards greater transparency in the grant process and improved communications between donors and grantees in the future.

4. Online technology will be a significant factor in every area.

For More Information:

CIMA Reports and Database http://cima.ned.org/

IFEX Clearinghousewww.ifex.org

Anne Nelson on media:

PBS MediaShift

academia.edu

anne.nelson@gmail.com

twitter: anelsona

With thanks to Dean Zambrano