Authors: 
Emrys Schoemaker, Senior Expert on Technology and Democracy
Rachel Chang, Inclusive Digital Transformation Consultant
Raja Chandrasekharan, DPI Safeguards Advisory Consultant

The announcement by the United Nations of multi-stakeholder working groups for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) Safeguards marks a significant step in developing a framework that is safe, inclusive and contributes to the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The  44 members of these working groups - six in total - are already assembled. They are focusing on designing a framework for the safe and inclusive implementation of DPI in countries, moving from theory to practice so that countries can find useful ways to integrate DPI in their current digital transformation efforts. 

As part of the in-country track (one of three areas that the DPI Safeguards initiative focuses on), consultations were held with UNDP Country Offices. Below are some of the early lessons  that we uncovered.
 

1. Key takeaways 

The DPI team began initial consultations with representatives from 12 UNDP Country Offices in January 2024. Out of the countries consulted, five were from Latin America and the Caribbean:  Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay; one was from the African region: namely Malawi; and the other six countries were from the Asia Pacific region: Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nauru, Samoa, Sri Lanka and Vanuatu. The initial consultation aimed to deepen the understanding of the different views of a DPI approach, the various risks and opportunities that have emerged from the use of those different approaches, and the stakeholders involved in the implementation.

One clear lesson that emerged is the importance of embedding the DPI Safeguards framework within current digital transformation efforts. There are already several of these efforts that countries have invested in. Governments are more likely to agree to adopt DPIs if they can support existing investments.

Many of the challenges in developing a useful and usable framework mirror those faced by existing, broader digital transformation efforts, and therefore a secondary and immediate benefit of integrating DPI safeguards with existing frameworks is the transfer of knowledge of what already works in particular country contexts.

Part of what makes these initial consultations a pivotal exercise are the insights gathered from questions that countries brought forth during discussions. Four pressing questions helped clarify the DPI Safeguards processes, and they are outlined below, along with the current insights gathered from consulted members. These answers will continue to evolve as subsequent consultations are conducted.
 

2. Critical questions 

Question 1: How should we think about the definition of DPI for the framework to be as useful as possible for countries?

There are already several DPI frameworks being used by countries, from the G20 working definition to DPGA/GovStack definitions, among others. The evolving definition of DPI brings varied perspectives which has implications for operationalizing. A core tenet of what makes DPI work is how countries can derive value from any given framework by adapting them to the country specific context. 

This requires flexibility in implementation strategies. Therefore, a strict, prescriptive approach to digital transformation will only make the implementation rigid and ineffective. DPI implementation can thus take place within existing processes, approaches and technologies, many of which have established risk, compliance and protection requirements laying out the foundation for success.