"Funding Free Expression: Perceptions and Reality in a Changing Landscape"

1. Funding Free Expression:Perceptions and Reality in a Changing LandscapeA report to the Center for International Media Assistanceby Anne Nelson with the International Freedom of Expression Exchange

2. 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).

4. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (United States)

5. Canadian International Development Agency

6. Danish International Development Agency

7. Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Canada)

8. Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation (Netherlands)

9. International Development Research Center (Canada)

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

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

13. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

14. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

15. Open Society Foundations (OSF)

16. The Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK)

17. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

18. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

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

20. UNESCO

21. United Nations Development Programme

23. 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.

24. Perception of Funding Trends Most (65%) donor respondents believed funding for free expression work has not decreased

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

26. Future Free Expression Funding (Next 3 to 5 years) In 2011, some (26%) donor respondents expect their institutions’ funding for free expression activities to further increase.

27. Three factors have escalated the competition for freedom of expression funds: Many donors’ administrative processes have been disrupted by massive internal reorganization Number of organizations has greatly expanded Funding is directed to newer, non-traditional freedom of expression activities and institutions

28. Funding has Increased (in some areas more than others)

29. Top Funding Institutions for Freedom of Expression – as reported in 2009 IFEX member survey The Norwegian Ministry Of Foreign Affairs The European Union The Open Society Foundation Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Knight Foundation Free Voice The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development The National Endowment For Democracy The Ford Foundation

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

31. Free Expression funding resides in widely varied portfolios -- making the totals difficult to measure. *Respondents indicated more than one category

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

33. Arab Countries Are a Recent Funding Focus

34. 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 / Balkans 2000s Africa 2011 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Looming Crises? Mexico and Central America: Narco violence China: Internet censorship and repression Hungary: Official Assault on Enabling Environment Need: Sustainability tools and management skills for all regions

35. The Funding Community is Rapidly Evolving

36. The new tech philanthropies occupy a stronger economic position than traditional U.S. media-based philanthropies. . recently funded media partnerships and freedom of expression initiatives. International Press Institute Contributed $5 Million Contributed $3 Million Index on Censorship Reporters Without Borders

37. The Omidyar Network (eBay): announced in May that it will broaden its government transparency initiatives in media. Contribute $1.7 Million Contribute $450K Contribute $2 Million Contribute $800K

38. But traditional U.S. media-based philanthropies are struggling The New York Times Company Foundation and The Boston Globe Foundation, supporters of international freedom of expression work, suspended grant­making altogether in 2009. The McCormick Foundation, a major funder for press freedom in Latin America, has scaled back operations.

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

41. Media law reform

44. Free Voice

45. RNTC’s Foreign Projects DepartmentIn April 2011, the three institutions merged into a consortium called, Free Press Unlimited

46. Donors and IFEX Members Diverge on Priorities: 2010 IFEX member survey on priority issues (in order): Impunity Media Law Reform Freedom of Information / Access to Information

47. 2010 Member Priorities (continued) Media Ethics and Self Regulation Protection Against Physical Violations Self Censorship Internet Policy – legal and regulatory issues

48. *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)”

49. The Internet Freedom community is growing – but with few connections to traditional freedom of expression groups.

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

51. 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?

52. 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 Yourself www.youtube.com Inaccessible Accessible 3547 1528

53. Conclusion Free expression groups are concerned about shifting priorities among donors and narrowing varieties and sources of funding. The landscape of free expression funding is evolving -- with arrivals and departures among donors and NGOs alike. This research points towards greater transparency in the grant process and improved communications between donors and grantees in the future. Online technology will be a significant factor in every area.

54. For More Information: CIMA Reports and Database http://cima.ned.org/ IFEX Clearinghouse www.ifex.org Anne Nelson on media: PBS MediaShift academia.edu anne.nelson@gmail.com twitter: anelsona With thanks to Dean Zambrano