The Summit for Democracy recently convened in Seoul, South Korea, continuing US President Joe Biden’s global push for strengthening democracy in a year of many elections and challenges to democracy. The Summit featured a number of high-level discussions and breakout sessions, bringing together hundreds of participants from democratic governments, civil society, and the private sector to focus on the most pressing issues facing democracy. Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) led a session on national commitments to technology as a driver for strengthening democracy and combating corruption. Our panel of experts from diverse specializations discussed specific recommendations to improve safe technology use to strengthen democracy. From that conversation, three important insights stood out. 

1. A greater focus on increasing youth participation in democratic processes is needed.

Meaningfully engaging young people into democratic processes requires progress beyond appointment in superficial roles, such as those found in non-power-wielding advisory boards. This limited engagement has perpetuated a broader neglect of youth involvement in addressing political issues, exacerbating the dearth of young voices in global discussions on democracy. Additionally, this inaction likely exacerbates the existing problem of the notable shift in youth perceptions towards democracy, particularly evident on the African continent. Corruption plays an evident role here—people who have lost trust in their government are less likely to actively engage with it. To effectively bring more youth to the table, it is imperative to demonstrate the relevance and value of democratic principles in their lives and establish meaningful opportunities for them to participate in decision-making processes. 

2. Holistic, innovative approaches are needed to combat corruption.

Acknowledging that corruption transcends borders and state bounds, there is a pressing need for strategies that go beyond addressing single sectors. More advocacy is needed in taking a whole-of-government approach to government processes, such as procurement processes and processes to implement essential digital public infrastructure. Dismantling siloed practices in government and fostering transparency across sectors will enable more effective and cooperative accountability. 

Furthermore, we cannot underestimate the importance of technical assistance in combating corruption within the framework of global accountability initiatives. Technology can be a key component to a country’s fight against corruption, yet there persists a pervasive technical skill and capacity gap that makes it challenging for governments to take advantage of the tools available to them. Governments and their partners must equip themselves with the necessary technical expertise to modernize traditional systems, effectively addressing the evolving landscape of digital-based corruption and safeguarding democratic processes from external interference.

3. Technological challenges and data privacy must be considered. 

While we’ve established the potential for technology to aid governments in combating corruption, there are also risks in the adaptation of some emerging technology. There is a growing acknowledgment of both the influence and complexities inherent in platforms like TikTok and other social media platforms, which wield significant power in shaping narratives and disseminating information, particularly among youth. While these platforms can offer unparalleled reach and engagement, they are also at increased risk for misinformation and the amplification of certain, generally more privileged voices over others. Moreover, there is a crucial conversation surrounding the importance of safeguarding data privacy and storage, particularly within the context of elections and advancements in artificial intelligence. As digital technologies continue to play an increasingly prominent role in political discourse and decision-making processes, ensuring robust safeguards for data privacy becomes paramount in upholding the integrity and fairness of democratic systems.

Reflecting on the third Summit for Democracy 

So what have we learned? In an age of rampant disinformation, we are aligned in the pressing need to prioritize voter education as a means of safeguarding freedom and fostering informed decision-making among citizens. We also need to make real progress towards youth-focused initiatives and youth-driven digital ecosystems, essential for sustaining the engagement of the next generation in upholding democratic values, and indeed, for the very survival of democracy itself. Additionally, we still must broaden our perspective beyond the national level, recognizing the significant role of city governments and civil society operating at subnational levels in propelling meaningful change. Often overlooked, these entities and their partnerships play a crucial role in translating national commitments into tangible actions that bolster democracy at the grassroots level.

Lastly, the coalitions developed during the Summit for Democracy must be continuously engaged in order to stay useful. This will help avoid fragmentation and reduce the strain of resources being spread thin as funding partners support civic action for democracy. As we look ahead to the Summit for the Future, more effective global cooperation will be critical to address the many challenges facing our world.

Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) is pleased to announce that—with support from Accountability Lab (AL)—we’re developing an open-source AI tool that we hope to register as a Digital Public Good and can be used by those fighting corruption as they develop innovative digital tools. The need for the tool was identified in DG’s work with AL’s HackCorruption initiative. 

Once the tool is developed, users will be able to extract data from various types of documents. Having an open source tool for this type of work is essential to anti-corruption efforts because a lack of machine-readable data that cannot be easily aggregated adds to the opacity that can hide corruption. This tool will increase accessibility of and transparency around hard-to-access information, which will advance accountability. 

Why develop this tool?

The need for this tool was identified as part of DG’s work with HackCorruption regional hackathon teams. Several teams that participated in the South America hackathon in April 2023 discovered that they were limited in the work they could do by not having access to free tools to scrape information from documents, including government contracts. Having access to this sort of information allows anti-corruption tools to aggregate,  monitor, and identify potential corruption. 

Acting as a mentor to several of these teams, DGer Gabriel Inchauspe knew such AI tools exist, but none of them are open source and therefore, anti-corruption workers are limited in accessing them. Inchauspe and DGer Kelley Sams then collaborated with AL to obtain funding and define the scope of a project to create such a tool, which will support and ease the administrative burden faced by anti-corruption workers.

What will the tool do?

The AI tool—a beta version of which DG plans to launch by the end of 2024—will be based on publicly available source code and will be trained on ethically sourced data, with multiple rounds of testing done to ensure that the tool is statistically unlikely to produce non-existent or inaccurate information (i.e., hallucinate). 

In the first phase of developing the tool, it will be able to capture information from documents in English that are in a standardized format (e.g., pdf, JSON, Excel, OpenContracting formatting, etc.). A planned second phase is to expand the tool to be able to extract information from documents or photo files that are handwritten and/or contain languages other than English, including those using non-Roman alphabets. 

In addition to our long history of creating and implementing technical solutions to advance transparency, DG is uniquely positioned to develop this tool given our previous success in ensuring digital solutions are used and supported for years after development. After all, many tools in the anti-corruption space exist or are being created, but fewer are used and scaled. As we develop this tool, DG is committed to ensuring the tool’s design and usability are responsive to anti-corruption workers’ needs and ultimately, strengthen anti-corruption and accountability efforts.

Stay tuned for more as the tool is developed! 

Since partnering with Accountability Lab (AL) on HackCorruption in 2023, staff from Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) and AL have mentored teams from the regional hackathons organized by AL’s HackCorruption initiative, which is aimed at leveraging innovative digital tools to identify and fight corruption. After serving as mentors to teams selected from the regional hackathons, DGers Gabriel Inchauspe and Kelley Sams along with AL’s David Sada have identified three “hacks” to mentoring anti-corruption change-makers  and ultimately, furthering transparency and accountability through the creation and use of digital tools.

1. Create a culture of anti-corruption

By organizing these  hackathons, HackCorruption aims for teams to develop technical solutions and approaches that combat corruption and that can be implemented and scaled. However, beyond these digital tools, the heart of the mission is to strengthen the culture of anti-corruption in the regions where the hackathons are held as well as transnationally. The mentorship team found that they need to remind mentees (and themselves) that while political, technical, or resource limitations can ultimately prevent teams from scaling their tools, strengthening anti-corruption culture is the most fundamental success in fighting corruption. After all, building a culture of anti-corruption work creates an environment that allows other anti-corruption efforts and initiatives to exist and flourish.

2. Clearly define the project scope and keep returning to it

Inchauspe, Sada, and Sams found that teams would sometimes deviate from the original idea they developed in the hackathons, as they faced roadblocks or problems. While projects can be adapted in response to barriers, the mentorship team encouraged their mentees to closely consider how their project was changing and why. Inchauspe, Sada, and Sams encouraged teams to ensure that their new ideas still met all requirements for the project (e.g., the solution had a transnational application as well as a regional or local one) and appropriately contributed to anti-corruption efforts (and wasn’t simply a cool technical tool). 

As projects advanced or were changed, the mentorship team also helped the winning teams ensure that they were collaborating with everyone with whom they needed to be working. For example, some teams weren’t as strong in technical development skills. Depending on the scope of the project, the mentorship team would advise these teams in subcontracting with technical developers. Inchauspe, Sada, and Sams ensured their mentees retained ownership of their projects by encouraging them to circle back to the original ideas proposed during the hackathon and communicating their vision clearly to subcontractors.

In addition to helping teams as they worked with partners, the mentorship team also ensured their mentees advanced their project management skills. After seeing one or two team members move forward with certain types of work while others didn’t know what to do, Inchauspe, Sada, and Sams encouraged teams to have different tasks assigned to each team member at any given time in order to ensure all aspects of the project were moving forward.

David Sada at a HackCorruption event.

3. Be open minded and aware of contextual differences

Just as the mentorship team had to ensure their mentees were approaching their project with technical, project management, and analytical skills, they also had to ensure that their own experiences and backgrounds weren’t limiting their mentees. 

Because each winning team was composed of individuals with different personalities who were working in a specific cultural and political context, the mentorship team learned to embrace these differences. Regarding personality differences, the mentorship team found that it was essential to identify how best each team member works, what excites and motivates them, and what they need to successfully move forward with their ideas. These discoveries were made by being in close communication with each team member and matching these discoveries against the needs of the team as a whole. 

To embrace the constraints of different political contexts, the mentorship team encouraged their mentees to understand that whatever steps can be taken in a non-receptive political system is a step toward cultural—if not institutional—capacity building for anti-corruption work. Circling back to the first hack identified above, Inchauspe, Sada, and Sams found that the most important thing isn’t if the teams are successful in implementing their technical solutions, but it’s that they keep going despite any barriers they may encounter. As part of this process Inchauspe, Sada, and Sams emphasized the need to understand the context where the solution would be implemented and the importance of adapting to what users really need.

Kelley Sams and Gabriel Inchauspe at a HackCorruption event.

What’s next?

In addition to offering mentorship to the selected teams, DG and AL will continue their collaboration by joining conversations at the policy-level on digital tools and corruption as well as developing an AI tool that DG plans to register  as a digital public good and can be used by those wanting to build anti-corruption solutions. With the most recent hackathon in SE Asia, climate financing played a particularly important role, and DG and AL look forward to joining broader conversations about how digital tools can contribute to preventing and combating corruption related to climate financing efforts. 

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia — March 2024

On January 25, 2024, the governing committee—which includes Ethiopia’s Livestock State Minister Dr. Fikru Regassa—endorsed a comprehensive set of standards to guide the collection, storage, and maintenance of livestock data in Ethiopia (i.e., a data standard) that was developed through the a Livestock Information Vision Ethiopia (aLIVE) program, which the committee advises. The data standard specifically focuses on standardizing data on cattle, sheep, goats, and camels. This is a huge milestone for Ethiopia, a country with the largest livestock population in Africa.

Following 12 months of dedicated work and validation by a wide range of livestock stakeholders, the endorsement of the Livestock Data Standard marks a major milestone for both the program and for data management within Ethiopia’s livestock sector. This milestone was reached thanks to the efforts of team members and leadership at Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) and Ethiopia’s Ministry of Agriculture (MoA); with our partners, including the Livestock Improvement Corporation (LIC) and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) as well as at least 19 other partner organizations; and with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Standardization of data collection and management is crucial to enhance the quality, availability, and usability of livestock data across various information systems in the country. Implementing this standardization involves the development of and adherence to common definitions, formats, indicators, and protocols for collecting, processing, storing, and sharing livestock data among stakeholders. One significant advantage of data standardization is the enhanced interoperability of information systems which enables seamless and secure communication and data exchange between different systems. Creating system interoperability is a key component of the aLIVE program. 

Establishing a comprehensive data standard is the first major accomplishment in the aLIVE program’s ultimate goal to build an interoperable platform consolidating livestock data for better data-driven decision-making in Ethiopia. Much of Ethiopia’s livestock data collection and management systems are incomplete and inconsistent, because they have been built and adapted independently of one another. In order to address the problem of fragmentation in Ethiopia’s livestock data, the aLIVE project is enhancing the interoperability of five core livestock data systems: ADNIS, DOVAR II, ETLITS, NLMIS and AADGG.

Ultimately, setting data standards for the livestock sector will better allow for the analysis of livestock data for planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning purposes—which is vital in a country where agriculture is a critical part of the economy, accounting for about 40% of gross domestic product and 80% of exports. 

Streamlining Ethiopia’s Livestock Data to Advance Agricultural Prosperity

In addition to the benefits to Ethiopians, developing a standardized and interoperable livestock information system in Ethiopia can bring numerous benefits to the livestock sector itself. For instance, animal registration can help establish the identity, ownership, traceability, and health status of individual animals or groups of animals, leading to improved animal health management, disease control, breeding programs, and market access. Market data plays a crucial role in providing valuable insights into the supply, demand, prices, quality, and trends of livestock products and services. By analyzing this data, market efficiency, competitiveness, transparency, and profitability can be enhanced for both producers and traders. Similarly, health data is instrumental in improving animal health monitoring and safeguarding public health from animal-borne diseases. 

Co-Design and Collaboration: How the Livestock Data Standard was Developed

In order to develop the data standards, the aLIVE team held a series of co-design workshops in 2023 with the MoA, the five core livestock data system owners, and key stakeholders in the livestock sector.  

The team also held one-on-one meetings with the system owners to understand starting points and priorities for the data standards. In these meetings, the team gained an understanding of the overall data entry fields and the data collection process. The team was also able to reach preliminary agreements regarding the changes required in each data system in order to implement the new standards. After these meetings, a data standard task force (DSTF) was established comprising owners of the five priority systems, experts working with data on these systems, and staff from the MoA ICT directorate.

The aLIVE team then developed the initial data standard document by adopting international data standards (including standards from the International Committee for Animal Recording and World Organisation for Animal Health) and contextualizing the data standard to fit the data ecosystem of Ethiopia’s livestock sector.

The aLIVE program held its first data standard task force consultation workshop in Adama, Ethiopia in May 2023, during which the team presented the draft data standard document for review and feedback from various key stakeholders from across the livestock sector, including representatives from across the MoA, the Ministry of Trade & Regional Integration, the International Livestock Research Institute, and many other agriculture institutions. This feedback was then incorporated into the document, playing an important role in shaping the focus of the standards to fit stakeholder needs. For example, one key piece of feedback received was that it was important to place equal emphasis on species such as camels, goats, and sheep, in addition to cattle, which previously had been the primary focus. This feedback was particularly valuable as it prompted us to include standards in new areas, including animal grading and body conformation scores across all four species.

The second round of the DSTF workshop was held in July 2023, where the second draft was reviewed and further comments and feedback were collected. The document was then finalized at a validation workshop in November 2023.

Next Steps

The next phase in this process is familiarization and adoption of the Livestock Data Standard throughout Ethiopia’s livestock value chain. To help with this, the team is developing a data standard implementation guideline to serve as a roadmap for successfully implementing the livestock data standard across the five core livestock data systems. By following these guidelines, stakeholders can improve data collection and interoperability across systems, resulting in more efficient analysis and utilization of integrated data. 

After nearly 25 years of implementing digital solutions to support development, government, and civil society partners across the globe, Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) has learned that supplying data or digital tools alone is not enough to influence behavior change; there must also be sufficient demand for the solution, and it must fit the needs of key users. To do this requires a holistic understanding of the data and digital ecosystem in which a given solution operates and the institutional, managerial, individual, and technical factors that enable—or discourage—using data and digital solutions for better development decisions. Our flagship Custom Assessment Landscape Methodology (CALM) was first published in late 2018, outlining our approach to optimizing decision-making with data and digital solutions by comprehensively assessing the complex ecosystem of information, tools, decision-makers, power relations, and decision spaces.

Since CALM was first introduced, we have used CALM to: 

• Assess the digital agriculture ecosystem in 17 IFAD countries and identify opportunities for strategic investment in data and digital through the Digital Advisory Support Program alongside partners Jenga Lab and Tech Change; 
• Identify data-for-decision-making needs in six countries across a wide array of sectors and decision-makers to combat misinformation from the tobacco industry through the Tobacco Control Data Initiative, a trusted and vetted data dashboard; and
• Facilitate data sharing, interoperability, and supply chain optimization through the Visualizing Insights on Fertilizer for African Agriculture program and dashboards.

Five years later, our latest white paper re-introduces CALM to help our partners, collaborators, and teammates better understand and engage with this kind of flexible and adaptive assessment methodology. This “CALM 2.0” publication explains:

• WHAT CALM’s theory of change is, including its roots in the problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA) approach to capacity-building, human-centered design thinking, and Agile software development;
• WHY we believe this is the best approach to understanding the complex digital ecosystems in which we work;
• HOW CALM’s implementation methodology aligns with its theory of change by being adaptive and co-designed with stakeholders, rather than rigid and prescriptive; and
• DEFINITIONS for key CALM terms like decision space, use cases, supply/demand/use, and incentives.

Although we’ve updated our documentation, our key message from CALM 1.0 remains the same: we assert that simply supplying data or digital tools alone is insufficient; to be truly equitable and sustainable, digital solutions must involve a systems-level understanding of incentives, decision spaces, and user needs. We hope that CALM 2.0 readers better understand what these approaches and methods are, why DG applies them to ecosystem assessments, and how they can lead to more useful and usable digital systems and solutions. We look forward to the next five years of applying and adapting CALM and developing sustainable digital tools to drive better development outcomes.

Read the entire white paper here.

Une priorité absolue pour Development Gateway : An IREX Venture (DG) est de collaborer étroitement avec les partenaires pour s’assurer que la conception et la mise en œuvre de nos programmes s’alignent réellement sur les besoins des partenaires (c’est-à-dire une approche de co-conception). Cette approche de co-conception est particulièrement vitale lorsque notre objectif est d’obtenir un consensus à travers plusieurs pays de mise en œuvre sur les prochaines étapes d’un programme donné, tout en équilibrant les priorités politiques et stratégiques de chaque pays. 

Pour contribuer à la réalisation de cette priorité dans le programme Data on Youth and Tobacco in Africa (DaYTA) de DG, nous nous sommes appuyés sur notre approche de co-conception, en l’intégrant à toutes les activités tout au long de la première année de mise en œuvre du programme. Cette démarche a abouti à un atelier de quatre jours avec les partenaires, du 30 octobre au 2 novembre, à Naivasha, au Kenya. C’était la première fois que nous réunissions des responsables gouvernementaux de plusieurs pays à cette échelle pour s’engager dans la co-conception avec d’autres partenaires non-gouvernementaux. En réfléchissant à cet atelier et au travail qui l’a précédé, nous avons identifié trois idées ci-dessous sur notre approche de co-conception avec des parties prenantes représentant plusieurs pays. 

Trois points de vue sur une approche de co-conception multinationale et multi-partenaires 

1. 1. S’efforcer d’impliquer une diversité de partenaires et adapter l’engagement en fonction de leur expertise, de leur intérêt et de leur disponibilité : Qu’il s’agisse de services gouvernementaux, de sous-traitants ou d’organisations de la société civile, chaque partenaire apporte un point de vue et une expertise uniques. Par conséquent, une approche de co-conception réussie impliquera profondément chaque partenaire tout au long du processus afin de s’assurer que leur précieuse contribution est donnée et reflétée dans la conception et la mise en œuvre du programme, en fonction de leur domaine d’expertise et de leur disponibilité. En dehors des réunions avec l’ensemble du consortium de partenaires, une étape importante de l’approche de co-conception de DG consiste à comprendre le style de communication et la disponibilité de chaque partenaire afin de comprendre et de prendre en compte leur implication dans le reste du programme.
      
      Par exemple, dans le consortium des partenaires DaYTA, nous avons de nombreux experts – à la fois au sein des pays DaYTA et entre eux – qui travaillent dans des secteurs tels que la recherche, l’université, la santé publique, la lutte antitabac, les médias et la défense des jeunes, entre autres. Le tabagisme chez les jeunes étant très nuancé, nous nous appuyons sur les connaissances de chaque partenaire dans son secteur pour créer des solutions programmatiques afin d’améliorer la création et la mise en œuvre de la politique de lutte antitabac. Par conséquent, notre principal objectif en matière de co-conception est de veiller à ce que tous les partenaires soient impliqués tout au long du processus. 
   2. Mettre l’accent sur l’équité entre les partenaires de la co-conception en créant des opportunités de collaboration entre les pays ainsi que des discussions spécifiques à chaque pays : Chaque partenaire apporte une valeur ajoutée à la co-conception ; cependant, chaque partenaire travaille également dans son propre pays et dans son propre contexte. Par conséquent, certains besoins, préoccupations ou (même) idées peuvent ne pas être appropriés pour être partagés par l’ensemble du consortium de partenaires de co-conception – en raison de contraintes de temps ou d’aspects politiques ou culturels propres à un contexte donné.Avant l’atelier de Naivasha, nous avons organisé des ateliers indépendants au niveau national, au cours desquels les équipes nationales ont pu approfondir les préoccupations, les besoins et les prochaines étapes de leur travail. Une fois réunis à Naivasha, nous avons facilité l’apprentissage croisé par le biais de séances en petits groupes mixtes et veillé à ce que diverses parties prenantes aient la possibilité de partager leurs points de vue, leurs conclusions, leurs préoccupations, etc. en séance plénière. En outre, nous avons continué à proposer des sessions spécifiques à chaque pays. Enfin, toutes les sessions ont bénéficié d’une interprétation de l’anglais vers le français (et vice versa) afin de garantir l’inclusion de tous les partenaires et l’accessibilité de chaque session.
   3. Créer des structures ou des mécanismes de gouvernance pour impliquer les partenaires au niveau national et international : L’une des prochaines étapes importantes identifiées lors de l’atelier de Naivasha est la nécessité de créer de nouvelles structures et de nouveaux mécanismes de gouvernance, tels que des comités de pilotage ou des conseils consultatifs, dans les trois pays de l’initiative DaYTA et entre eux. La collaboration coordonnée entre les structures de gouvernance de trois pays sera une nouvelle opportunité pour DG, mais nous avons vu les avantages que ces types de structures peuvent avoir sur l’engagement des parties prenantes dans des pays spécifiques. En particulier, lors de la mise en œuvre du programme TCDI de DG, un conseil consultatif technique a été créé en RDC dans le cadre de la recherche sur le commerce illicite. Étant donné que cette structure a permis d’engager de manière significative les parties prenantes techniques du gouvernement et des universités, et que les structures de gouvernance constituent une pratique exemplaire dans le secteur, nous avons convenu que la mise en place de structures similaires pour DaYTA dans chaque pays serait le meilleur moyen de poursuivre l’élan amorcé lors de cet atelier et de fournir des points de contact actifs pour les mises à jour et le retour d’information tout au long de la mise en œuvre.

Restez à l’affût de nouvelles informations à mesure que DaYTA progresse dans le processus de co-conception, crée de nouvelles structures de gouvernance et entame des recherches primaires sur le tabagisme chez les adolescents !

A top priority at Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) is collaborating closely with partners to ensure our program design and implementation truly align with partners’ needs (i.e., a co-design approach). This co-design approach is especially vital when our goal is to garner consensus across multiple countries of implementation around next steps in a given program, while also balancing individual countries’ political and policy priorities. 

To help realize this priority in DG’s Data on Youth and Tobacco in Africa (DaYTA) program, we built upon our co-design approach, integrating it into all activities throughout the first year of program implementation. This culminated in a four-day workshop with partners on October 30 – November 2 in Naivasha, Kenya, which was the first time we’ve convened government officials from multiple countries at this scale to engage in co-design along with other non-governmental partners. Reflecting on this workshop and the work preceding it, we’ve identified three insights below on how to co-design with stakeholders representing multiple countries.

Three Insights on a Multi-National, Multi-Partner Co-design Approach

1. Strive to engage a diversity of partners and tailor engagement based on their expertise, interest, and availability: From government departments and subcontractors to civil society organizations, every partner brings a unique perspective and expertise. Therefore, a successful co-design approach will deeply engage each partner throughout the process to ensure their valuable input is given and reflected in program design and implementation, based on their area of expertise and availability. Outside of meetings with the full consortium of partners, an important step in DG’s co-design approach is understanding individual partner’s communication style and availability in order to understand and address their involvement throughout the rest of the program.
   
   For example, in the consortium of DaYTA partners, we have many experts—both within and across DaYTA countries—who are working in such sectors as research, academia, public health, tobacco control, media, and youth advocacy, among others. Because tobacco use and youth is so nuanced, we rely on each partners’ insights from their sectors to create programmatic solutions to improve the creation and implementation of tobacco control policy. Therefore, our primary goal in co-designing is ensuring that all partners are engaged throughout the process.
2. Emphasize equity across co-design partners by creating opportunities for cross-country collaboration as well as country-specific discussions: Each partner brings value to co-design; however, every partner is also working in their own country and in their own context. Therefore, some needs, concerns, or (even) insights might not be appropriate to share across the entire consortium of co-design partners—as a result of anything from time constraints to political or cultural aspects that are unique to one context.
   
   Prior to the workshop in Naivasha, we facilitated independent country-level workshops in which country teams could dive deep into the concerns, needs, and next steps of their work. Then once convened in Naivasha, we facilitated cross-learning through mixed-country breakout sessions and ensured that a variety of stakeholders had the opportunity to share their insights, findings, concerns, etc. in plenary. Additionally, we continued to provide opportunities for country-specific sessions. Finally, across all sessions, we had English to French (and vice versa) interpretation to ensure all partners were included and each session was accessible.
3. Create governance structures or mechanisms to engage partners at the country and cross-country levels: One important next step that was identified during the workshop in Naivasha was the need for new governance structures and mechanisms—such as steering committees or advisory councils—in and across the three DaYTA countries. While collaborating across governance structures in three countries in a coordinated manner will be a new opportunity for DG, we’ve seen the benefit these types of structures can have on stakeholder engagement in specific countries. Specifically, in implementing DG’s TCDI program, a technical advisory board was formed in the DRC as part of the illicit trade research. Due to the success of this structure in meaningfully engaging technical stakeholders from government and academia, as well as the fact that governance structures are an industry best practice, we agreed that having similar structures for DaYTA in each country would be the best way to continue the momentum started at this workshop and provide active touchpoints for updates and feedback throughout implementation.

Keep an eye out for more insights as DaYTA moves forward with the co-design process, creating new governing structures, and beginning primary research on adolescent tobacco use!

Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) is pleased to announce that following the success of our Tobacco Control Data Initiative (TCDI) throughout the past four years, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given DG funding for an additional four years in order to implement the second phase of the program: TCDI 2.0! 

In part one of this blog, we explored the many accomplishments achieved during TCDI 1.0 as well as a few lessons we learned along the way. In this second part, we’ll detail the scope of TCDI 2.0 as well as our next steps; however, most importantly, we’d like to announce that we’ve chosen the Center for the Study of the Economies of Africa (CSEA) to be our sustainability partner throughout TCDI 2.0. We’re pleased to partner with CSEA on TCDI 2.0 and look forward to advancing the work that was done in TCDI 1.0. 

What was TCDI 1.0?

Launched in 2019, TCDI 1.0’s primary aim was to supply governments, civil society, and academia with improved access to country-specific data to better inform tobacco control policy. The program built individual websites for six countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Zambia. Each website includes country-specific data on such things as tobacco control legislation, tobacco use, and health impacts of tobacco use. This data was gathered from different sources, including primary data collected through TCDI and publicly available secondary data.

TCDI 2.0: Sustainability and Growth

During TCDI 2.0, the three primary goals will be to ensure that the six TCDI country-specific websites developed in TCDI 1.0 are updated with the most recent data, government officials remain a critical stakeholder in using the websites in policymaking, and an African institution manages TCDI by year four. With these goals in mind, TCDI 2.0 will consist of two phases: a mentorship phase and an expansion phase. 

Phase 1: Mentorship (Years 1 and 2)

One of the key lessons learned during TCDI 1.0 was that building trust amongst tobacco control partners is crucial in creating a community in which data is not only shared across stakeholders but widely accepted. Specifically, we found that trust is created through continual engagement with stakeholders. Therefore, DG’s priority for the mentorship phase of TCDI 2.0 will be to integrate CSEA within this community and ensure that trust is established between CSEA and our tobacco control partners in each TCDI country. 

With that goal in mind, we will facilitate a series of engagements with different stakeholders and CSEA to build connections while also building their capacity on existing programmatic processes. Additionally during this mentorship phase, DG will continue to lead on content updates and conduct primary research on the prevalence of tobacco use in selected locations/provinces/regions in certain TCDI countries (i.e., conduct prevalence spot checks survey). 

Phase 2: Expansion (Years 3 and 4)

During phase two, DG will act in a supporting capacity, while CSEA will lead program activities, including updating the existing TCDI websites and expanding into an additional country which will be selected by the end of year two.

Throughout this expansion phase, DG will support CSEA in drawing upon the successful approaches used in TCDI 1.0, specifically by guiding CSEA in employing a user-centered approach in which stakeholders are at the heart of website development. This approach will include involving users in everything from identifying data gaps to reviewing the website content. This user-centered approach will ensure that the data on the new TCDI website meets the stakeholders’ needs and improves users’ interaction with the platform. In this phase, CSEA will conduct the second round of prevalence spot checks. 

Next Steps

DG and CSEA recently held a kick off workshop which provided an avenue for both teams to create a foundation for the work over the next four years. The purpose of this workshop was for both teams to streamline their understanding and expectations of the program as well as provide some capacity building on the processes used in the first phase of the program, which will also be used in TCDI 2.0. The team also developed a prevalence spot check protocol that will be used in the two phases of TCDI 2.0. 

In the coming weeks and months, DG and CSEA will continue to track the impact of the TCDI websites and data. In TCDI 1.0, impact surveys provided insight on how the data was used and how we could further improve the websites. In TCDI 2.0, we would like to discover the ways in which TCDI has changed activities within civil society organizations, academia, and government policymaking.

As we enter TCDI 2.0, we’re looking forward to partnering more closely with CSEA and deepening and expanding our tobacco control work. Stay tuned for more as the program continues! 

Digital public infrastructure (DPI) is a growing strategic priority for governments throughout the world as they seek to modernize service delivery, increase inclusion, preserve privacy, and strengthen decision-making in the digital age. This comes at a crucial time when access to digital technology has expanded, but the digital divide remains a source of inequality driven by numerous political, social, and economic factors.  

From DG’s more than 20 years of experience in creating, delivering, and adapting open source and open data solutions, we’ve learned several best practices on how to make technology accessible and sustainable while prioritizing engagement from open source communities—these practices can be applied to building and implementing DPIs. In this blog, we’ll explore what DPI is, DG’s approach to DPI, and three best practices that can be used to ensure DPIs are effective and advance inclusion. 

The DPI-DPG Connection: DG’s Approach to DPI

While DPIs have the potential to be a game changer for any country—especially low- and middle-income countries where estimates suggest they can help accelerate economic growth by 20-33%, many countries are early in their journey and far from realizing these economic gains, as evidenced by monitoring of country-specific DPI progress. Fortunately, as countries develop DPIs, they can draw on proven digital public goods (DPGs) to build their systems. Many funders are focusing on creating these DPG building blocks—an example is The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funding for MOSIP and Mojaloop. 

DPGs can be used to create or improve a country’s DPI, because they are software, AI models, standards, or content that are open-source (meaning their source code, design, and/or data sets are publicly available and can be replicated, modified, and shared freely) and are often interoperable and scalable, according to the Center for Digital Public Infrastructure. 

At DG, we’ve developed two DPGs: The OC Portal and the Aid Management Platform, which have been used by more than 30 national and subnational governments globally. Through our work in developing these DPGs as well as creating and implementing other digital and data solutions, we’ve learned time and again that technology has the potential to make systems more inclusive; however, the design and implementation of such technology can also create or reinforce power imbalances. From our commitment to ensuring that our solutions are designed and implemented to increase inclusion, DG has learned these three best practices which can be applied to creating and implementing DPIs.

1. Foster private and public sector collaboration on digital services

Building a DPI allows the private sector and government to collaboratively roll out DPI building blocks, including digital tools for identity verification, payments, and data exchange. For example, the India Stack was established to build digital platforms as a public good and foster a collaborative environment for both public and private sector entities, which has helped to bring hundreds of millions of citizens into the formal system and onto a path of technological disruption. This possible collaboration is a marked shift from traditional approaches in which governments owned the full-service delivery mechanisms. Such private and public sector collaboration requires trust and healthy competition; however, to establish trust and healthy competition, both sectors must deeply understand national interest and individual organization needs and agree upon a balance between both. 

Balancing needs is something that we have successfully navigated in our Visualizing Insights on Fertilizer for African Agriculture (VIFAA) program, which is aimed at supporting policymakers and private sector access to fertilizer data across eight countries. In VIFAA, we have seen improved private and public sector collaboration throughout the program, but particularly in Nigeria where both the private and public sectors knew the value of investing in and improving countrywide fertilizer data sets (available here: africafertilizer.org). DG supported the development of data sharing mechanisms such as non-disclosure agreements and governance protocols that facilitated the active sharing of foundational datasets necessary for Nigeria’s fertilizer policy and availability. 

2. Ensure citizens derive value from their data

In order for individuals or groups to effectively engage with systems, including DPIs, they must trust the actors behind said systems. We’ve found that one of the most vital ways that governments can create trust in (and through) data systems is by actively demonstrating specific benefits to the public. 

In our agriculture work, we see smallholder farmers increasingly using digital technologies (i.e., AgTech) to increase their profits and production, improve processes, and reduce risks. Unfortunately, these farmers often face data practices which can undermine their trust and adoption of digital tools—which prevents them, and society, from fully engaging and accessing the full benefits of these tools. 

A study that we did on farmer-centric data governance was based on the premise that AgTech providers must address unbalanced power dynamics by meaningfully involving farmers in the processes of ownership and governance of their data (i.e., the creation and participation of data governance approaches). In the study, we found that different implementations of fair and equitable data governance models can increase farmer participation while guarding farmers against potential disadvantages and exploitation. More work can be done to study, understand, adopt, and scale innovative approaches to participatory data governance across all sectors, which will ensure the maximum impact of DPI investments. In the meantime, through our farmer-centric study, we know that citizens are individually and collectively more likely to engage with and trust a system if they understand and see the demonstrated benefits it can afford them. Ensuring that the value of a DPI is clear to all stakeholders will likely increase engagement with it.

3. Prioritize interoperability, data governance, and data exchange

Finally, to ensure the successful implementation of data and technical solutions, DG has found that prioritizing interoperability, data governance, and data exchange can help increase efficiency and prevent redundancy in a given system. After all, effective governance of digital infrastructure requires frameworks for data sharing, data integration, and system connections to safeguard cyber security, citizen privacy, competition, and consumer protection. 

DG’s understanding of interoperability, data governance, and data exchange has led us to such work as our aLIVE program, in which we have partnered with Ethiopia’s Ministry of Agriculture to create data standards, governance protocols, and open source technical architecture to establish interoperability between five existing government platforms related to the country’s livestock sector. 

In building DPI, interoperability, data governance, and data exchange are essential to allow each component of the DPI to smoothly operate independently and collaboratively. In other words, such DPIs will allow regulators to regulate and innovators to innovate. Given the proliferation of digital systems—typically created in different software languages, with different data models, and with varying levels of openness in licensing and use—over the past 20 years, holistic approaches to establishing the standards, governance, processes, and technology for data exchange present one of the most complex and important tasks for the DPI movement.

What’s Next?

At DG, we’ve long prioritized ensuring data and digital solutions are tailored to specific country needs and always with the final person using the system in mind—and DPIs provide an opportunity to do this on a new scale. After all, we have reached an inflection point in digital development where public-serving institutions can achieve more with technology than ever before (while also being less trusted than ever to do so in a just, equitable, and efficient way). At their best, DPIs center people and their rights, focusing on citizen technology access, engagement, and empowerment. We’re excited to see the potential good from DPIs come to fruition, and to help ensure this happens, we’re committed to our longstanding mission of supporting the use of data, technology, and evidence to create more effective, responsive, and trusted institutions. 

Check out the second blog in this series here. 

In 2019, Development Gateway: An IREX Venture (DG) began the Tobacco Control Data Initiative (TCDI). This four-year program—our first in the tobacco control sector—was funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and implemented by DG in partnership with the University of Cape Town’s Research Unit on the Economics of Excisable Products. 

The aim of this first phase of TCDI was to supply governments, civil society, and academia with improved access to country-specific tobacco control data in order to support better tobacco control policy design and implementation. As we reach the end of the first four years of TCDI, we reflect not only on what we accomplished throughout the first phase of the program but the lessons we learned along the way. We share five key lessons below on how to organize and deliver work as effectively as possible.

Expanding into Tobacco Control: What We Did in TCDI 1.0 

Throughout the past four years, some of our key accomplishments in TCDI have included: 

• Interviewing more than 120 individuals in order to assess the factors incentivizing data use, identify trustworthy data sources, and discover the biggest data gaps in the tobacco control data landscape; 
• Holding eight validation workshops through which we confirmed the stakeholders’ priorities on tobacco control data and confirmed which data gap(s) we would address through primary data collection; and
• Hosting 18 co-design sessions in which we’ve worked with partners to integrate their suggestions into our data visualizations and content. 

DRC Co-Design Workshop in July 2022.

All of this work culminated in DG creating and launching six country-specific TCDI websites between June 2020 and November 2023. Each website provides information specific to one of the six TCDI countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Zambia.

The information on the websites—which includes data on tobacco use, tobacco control legislation, tobacco trade, etc.—was tailored to meet the specific country’s needs. By providing context-specific data, each website allows those working in the tobacco control sector to make data-driven decisions which, in turn, will allow for more effective tobacco control policies and actions.     

From left to right: Dorcas Kiptui (Kenya – Ministry of Health), Winnie Awuor (DG), Anne Kendagor (Kenya – Ministry of Health) and Rachel Kitonyo-Devotsu (DG) at the Kenya TCDI website launch in April 2023.

In creating and gathering data for these websites, we were able to identify several gaps in tobacco control data. This revelation led us to conduct primary research in multiple countries simultaneously—a first for DG—which is being integrated into the TCDI websites. 

Reflecting on TCDI 1.0: Lessons Learned

Throughout our implementation of TCDI, we relied on several of the co-design approaches that DG has implemented throughout our history, including frequent interviews with stakeholders, co-design workshops, and understanding stakeholder insights in order to more effectively use data to inform policy and advocacy. By employing these strengths in the tobacco control sector, we learned five lessons that can be applied across sectors.

1. 1. Challenge your assumptions: When we began working in tobacco control, our first assumption was that most data we collect or that would be needed by our stakeholders would relate to passing new tobacco control legislation. However, what we found—particularly in the case of Ethiopia—was that data on enforcement of existing laws was much more valuable than passing new legislation, since the most significant gains can be achieved through strengthened policy implementation. 
   2. Put as much thought into governance structures as you do into technical design – Through TCDI we also learned the importance of building clear governance structures alongside technical activities like data collection. For example, in Zambia, we created a steering committee so that key government stakeholders would be kept informed on primary research activities and could approve the research protocol at key stages. However, we did not apply that strategy across all TCDI focus countries, and instead updated our government counterparts on an ad hoc basis. In certain cases, we received feedback that our focal points in the Ministry of Health felt that they weren’t involved enough in the process—which required our team to reach out to them and restructure our communications. In the future,  such challenges can be avoided through a clear governing structure such as a steering committee in each country. 
   3. Building trust in data is critical: In creating trusted websites with key data, we found we couldn’t just focus on the data: we also had to focus on building relationships. As we discussed in this blog, when we started TCDI, DG was unknown in the tobacco control sector. By having partners, like Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and others in the tobacco control community, introduce us to Ministry of Health counterparts and longstanding tobacco control advocates, we became known and trusted. Through these efforts and with strong official support from the Ministries of Health in each TCDI country, we’ve released each TCDI country website with strong public and official support. 
   4. Federation leads to efficiency and stakeholder responsiveness—as long as you’re communicating with each other: The overall strength of the TCDI program largely came from the strength of each individual “sub” team. The TCDI team includes six country teams (one for each TCDI country), a tech team, and a research team. Through this “federation,” teams were able to independently manage everything from website development to research collection. To facilitate easy handoffs between “sub” teams, we relied on tried and true practices in agile project management, including thrice-weekly scrums, weekly sub-team meetings, and virtual coworking sessions. Through these formats, the teams communicated frequently and shared lessons learned between parallel team members.
   5. Sustainability isn’t built in a day: When we initially created our sustainability approach, we anticipated a number of challenges inherent in finding long-term success. Finding an organization that had a presence in the key TCDI countries, operated well remotely, boasted a strong research portfolio in tobacco control, and had a strong software development team was like finding a needle in the haystack. After difficulty in finding an organization with a similar profile to DG, we changed our approach to sustainability. We redefined roles and responsibilities and asked for advice from other organizations that had successfully transferred long-term ownership of programs to other organizations. As a result of this effort, we’re pleased to announce that DG will be working with The Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa during the second phase of the program: TCDI 2.0, which is being funded by an additional four-year grant from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We explore what this phase of the program will look like in the second part of this blog.