[{"bbox": [82, 147, 1167, 533], "category": "Table", "text": "<table><tr><td>2</td><td>Activities in support of digitalisation have adverse effects on digital inclusion by widening the digital divide, in particular in remote areas with weak basic infrastructure (internet and power supply), and they increase the capacities for surveillance and repression against civil society.</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td><td>Regions with a functioning backbone infrastructure are selected.<br/>Vulnerability assessments include digital components and how they affect rights-holders, including women, youth and vulnerable groups.<br/>Several options for digital inclusion are mapped and discussed (e.g. SMS).<br/>CSO awareness and capacities are strengthened on data protection and cyber security.</td></tr></table>"}, {"bbox": [92, 535, 253, 560], "category": "Section-header", "text": "Lessons Learnt:"}, {"bbox": [92, 579, 1162, 694], "category": "Text", "text": "The proposed intervention builds upon lessons learnt from previous programmes funded by the EU, including relevant programme evaluations¹⁰, in particular the JAR Sector Reform Contract, the SUGAR project, the DGF, and the CUSP, experiences of other development partners as well as emerging evidence of what works, and what does not work in governance, human rights, accountability and anti-corruption programming."}, {"bbox": [92, 712, 1162, 853], "category": "Text", "text": "A general point relates to the need of future programmes to be carefully designed, targeted and focused in order to achieve results given the mixed record of results from previous programmes in this area. Building on the lessons from JAR and SUGAR, there is relatively strong evidence of the difficulty of achieving impact with interventions at national level, with the exception of strong performers such as the OAG. Engaging at local level with grassroots organisations and local authorities provides a more solid framework to deliver limited but meaningful results."}, {"bbox": [92, 871, 1162, 1099], "category": "Text", "text": "There is good evidence from the DGF on how this local level citizen-state engagement can be improved through multi-stakeholder forums, community scorecards, citizen assemblies and other models. Safeguarding space for citizen expression at the local level and the need to formalise these citizen engagement models are two key recommendations that have come out of reflections on similar work supported by the DGF in recent years. Importantly however, lessons from the DGF also warn against donors funding these local citizen structures too heavily to avoid them becoming too reliant on external support and unsustainable in the long-run. The complexity of engaging in projects related to elections, and the need to engage in thorough risk analysis to ensure adherence to the principle of “do no harm” are further lessons to be drawn from recent experience."}, {"bbox": [92, 1117, 1139, 1224], "category": "Text", "text": "Both JAR and SUGAR Technical Assistance Facility (TAF) anti-corruption interventions were designed without a demand side focus. Although this was somewhat remedied in the SUGAR-TAF programme during the mid-term review, the lack of a demand-side focus reduced the programme's effectiveness and equity in terms of addressing corruption impacts."}, {"bbox": [92, 1250, 1162, 1449], "category": "Text", "text": "Lessons learned from the DGF meanwhile, underscore the importance of working through and supporting coalitions and networks of CSOs. While these are not immune from political pressures, they offer an additional layer of protection which can be better maintained when their individual members face different type of challenges. The choice of supporting CSO coalitions in the form of citizen watchdogs responds to these strategic considerations. The collaboration between CSO and media needs also to be strengthened. Lessons learned from the DGF also show the value of fostering coalitions including state and non-state actors alike (the DGF-supported coalition on civic education, which includes state and non-state actors on an equal footing, is a case in point)."}, {"bbox": [84, 1498, 1142, 1604], "category": "Footnote", "text": "¹⁰ The following reviews and evaluations were considered: Financial Management and Accountability Programme (FINMAP, DIFID) annual review 2012, Final Program Evaluation of GAPP, 2019 (USAID), Final Evaluation Strengthening Uganda's Anti-Corruption Response (SUGAR) Technical Advisory Facility, 2020; DGF MTR, 2021; Justice and Accountability Reform Programme Evaluation, 2022 and Appraisal report U-GOGO 2011 (Danish Embassy)."}, {"bbox": [1026, 1681, 1142, 1705], "category": "Page-footer", "text": "Page 14 of 25"}]