Successes & challenges: cyber capacity building coordination | IGF 2023

Report

The analysis emphasises the importance of better understanding and coordination among countries when it comes to supporting capacity building in specific regions. It argues that in order to avoid duplication of efforts and overloading of recipient countries, a more coordinated approach is needed.

The analysis also highlights the crucial role of political buy-in for the success and sustainability of cyber capacity building initiatives. It states that without the government seeing capacity building as a priority, it becomes challenging to gain traction and achieve desired outcomes.

Another key point raised is the need to break down cyber capacity building into more specific categories.

The analysis suggests that traditional cyber capacity building, capacity building for crisis response, and capacity building for conflict or post-conflict recovery can be considered as subcategories. By doing so, it becomes easier to define and address the specific needs and challenges in each area.

Insufficiencies in coordination of capacity building efforts can lead to poor sustainability measurement, according to the analysis.

It argues that donor countries and recipient countries may lack effective measurements for longer-term sustainability efforts. This can result in one-off efforts or effects, with impact measurement focused on specific projects rather than holistic outcomes.

In contrast, the analysis also highlights the positive impact of longer-term programs and sustainable recommendations in capacity building.

It suggests that building a longer-term capacity building program in a region could enhance sustainability. Additionally, both donors and implementers could benefit from developing and adopting broader measurements of impact beyond individual projects.

Insufficient domestic coordination is identified as a potential challenge in capacity building efforts.

The analysis points out that multiple departments within a single government may conduct different types of capacity building efforts, potentially complicating coordination. Recipients might also be overwhelmed by multiple offers and struggle to designate the appropriate point of contact. This lack of coordination can lead to complications and inefficiencies in capacity building.

The analysis recommends that coordination and trust-building between countries prior to crisis assistance can enhance the effectiveness of capacity building efforts.

It states that countries that have provided assistance in a crisis often had a previous relationship, highlighting the importance of trust and prior coordination. Mechanisms such as Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and institutionalized responses, such as the European Union’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) framework, are cited as examples that can increase the effectiveness of coordinated responses.

Crisis response is seen as an opportunity for countries to gain political visibility and set up new coordination mechanisms to enhance sustainability.

The analysis mentions the establishment of the Center for Cybersecurity Capacity Building in the Western Balkans as an example of leveraging crisis response to create new mechanisms. It suggests that the crisis response capacity building type and the broader cybersecurity capacity building can complement each other depending on the context.

Progress is reported in international-level discussions on addressing cybersecurity issues.

The analysis highlights the existence of working groups on incident response and cyber diplomacy as part of the Global Foreign and Cyber Expertise (GFC) platform. It also notes that different communities meet and discuss in informal settings at the international level, indicating ongoing efforts in addressing cybersecurity challenges.

Challenges still exist at the domestic level depending on the country and culture, states the analysis.

It points out that different departments in the government may have varying understandings of cybersecurity. Additionally, community engagement varies depending on the maturity of a particular stakeholder group. This suggests the importance of considering context-specific challenges and cultural nuances when designing and implementing capacity building initiatives.

Civil society organizations and think tanks are highlighted as crucial actors in bridging different communities.

The analysis emphasizes their role in involving as many stakeholders as possible during the planning and designing of specific projects. Their involvement can help ensure a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to capacity building.

The analysis also suggests including recipients in the design phase of projects.

Providing a bigger inception phase, where stakeholders can engage and provide input, can help create ownership and increase the chances of successful implementation.

Lastly, the analysis calls for designing a typology that accounts for contextual considerations in cyber capacity building.

It argues that the evolving landscape in terms of agencies, stakeholders, crises, and conflict or post-conflict situations should be taken into account. This would enable a more nuanced and tailored approach to address the diverse needs and challenges in different contexts.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of better coordination, political buy-in, and sustainability measurement in cyber capacity building efforts.

It also highlights the need for longer-term programs, domestic coordination, and trust-building between countries. The analysis recognizes the progress in international-level discussions and acknowledges the challenges at the domestic level. Additionally, it emphasizes the role of civil society organizations and think tanks, as well as the involvement of recipients in project design.

Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders involved in enhancing cyber capacity building efforts.

Report

During the discussion on cybersecurity, speakers emphasised the significance of the human element in protecting computers against cyber threats. They stressed the need for individuals with the right values, ethics, and technical skills to be involved in the field. Cybersecurity is ultimately about good people safeguarding computers from bad actors.

Insufficient coordination and a lack of clarity in project objectives were identified as challenges in implementing cybersecurity initiatives.

When beneficiaries lose sight of project goals midway, misalignment in project delivery occurs. This issue can be compounded by competition among donors and a lack of clarity in defining project needs. To address this, speakers advocated for improved planning and better coordination among states.

States should clearly articulate project needs and roles to donors, facilitating better alignment of objectives and successful project implementation.

One proposed solution involved a three-layer mechanism for effective coordination in cybersecurity efforts. This mechanism consists of a cybersecurity council, smaller groups for peer review, and the Ministry of Economy and Digital Development, each with defined roles.

This approach was regarded as efficient and conducive to better coordination, ensuring project objectives are met. The role of clear policies formulated by the Ministry of Economy and Digital Development, which help translate plans into action, was also highlighted.

Another crucial aspect discussed was the need for a people-centric approach and a re-evaluation of the cybersecurity architecture.

Reducing the complexity of tools and rethinking the overall architecture are necessary steps. Speakers emphasised the importance of focusing efforts on strategy rather than merely adding layers of security to a faulty system. There should be a substantial effort invested in rethinking the ecosystem to ensure effective cybersecurity.

Throughout the discussion, it was noted that adapting project timelines to accommodate the speed of learning and the dynamic nature of cyber threats is often challenging.

Donors may face difficulties synchronising their contributions with the rapidly evolving needs of the field, resulting in a focus on acquiring tools rather than developing the individuals involved. Therefore, speakers called for a greater focus on the people in the cybersecurity process, prioritising their training and education alongside procurement of tools.

In conclusion, the discussion underscored the vital role of the human element in cybersecurity.

It stressed the need for individuals with the right values, ethics, and skills, alongside improved coordination and clear project objectives. A three-layer mechanism, supported by coordinated policies, can enhance coordination, and a people-centric approach, along with a reassessment of the cybersecurity architecture, may lead to more effective protection against cyber threats.

Speakers called for greater attention to be given to the development of individuals in the field, emphasising their training and education as essential components of cybersecurity initiatives.

Report

The Budapest Convention plays a crucial role in cybersecurity by providing a legal basis for capacity building programs. These programs aim to ensure consistency and sustainability in equipping countries with the necessary knowledge and skills to combat cyber threats. A key feature of these programs is their emphasis on localized training, where trainees become trainers themselves, cascading the knowledge to others.

This localized approach expands the reach and impact of capacity building efforts.

The Budapest Convention also highlights the importance of South-South Cooperation, where individuals from different regions participate in the capacity building program. For example, an African judge in Ghana may train judges in Kenya, fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing.

This approach strengthens partnerships and promotes a collective response to cybersecurity challenges.

Regional cooperation plays a vital role in capacity building as well, facilitated by the Budapest Convention. Countries, such as Albania and Montenegro, collaborate to collectively address common cybersecurity challenges, sharing resources and expertise.

This regional approach enhances collaboration, stability, and the effectiveness of capacity building initiatives.

The establishment of a point of contact in each country, compliant with international law, is strongly advocated. The 24-7 network provided by the Budapest Convention ensures a stable point of contact, enabling effective coordination and communication during cybersecurity incidents.

This promotes international standards and legal obligations.

While a separate legal basis for capacity building programs is not immediately necessary, better utilization of existing legal frameworks is recommended. Utilizing existing treaties that already have capacity building programs ensures sustainable and coordinated efforts.

Donor countries have a significant role in supporting capacity building.

Drawing lessons from past development experiences can enhance demand-driven capacity building in cybersecurity at the national level. By leveraging these experiences and knowledge, countries can improve their capacities and contribute to international cybersecurity goals.

Overall, the Budapest Convention serves as a foundation for capacity building programs in cybersecurity, promoting localized training, South-South Cooperation, and regional cooperation.

It emphasizes the establishment of stable points of contact and the utilization of existing legal frameworks. Donor countries can improve capacity building efforts by learning from past experiences and improving capacity at the national level, ultimately contributing to global cybersecurity goals.

Report

The proliferation of cyber capacity-building efforts has resulted in challenges in aligning strategies, priorities, and activities among donors, recipients, and implementers. These efforts aim to improve cyber resilience and skills in the face of increasing cyber incidents, state-sponsored attacks, and cybercrime.

However, the sheer number of initiatives has created difficulties in coordinating and harmonising these efforts.

To address these challenges, a roundtable discussion is being organised, involving representatives from various sectors, such as the internet governance forum, government officials, civil society, technical community, recipients, donors, and implementers of cyber policy.

The objective of this discussion is to assess the achievements and difficulties in coordinating cyber policy activities. The outcomes of this discussion will be formulated into a policy brief, which will serve as a guideline for stakeholders involved in the field of cyber capacity building.

In the realm of cybersecurity, it is crucial for project deadlines to adapt to the learning speed of the individuals involved.

Human learning speed often falls behind the strict timelines set for cybersecurity projects. Thus, the focus should shift towards prioritising people and knowledge over rigid deadlines. This approach will ensure proper skill development and overall project success.

Political willingness and transparency are essential aspects of cyber capacity-building projects.

Governments are investing substantial financial resources in these endeavours; however, political will from donors is necessary to secure funding. Additionally, transparency in the use of funds is crucial, as it provides stakeholders with an understanding of how the financial resources are being utilised.

Cyber capacity building not only serves as a means to enhance technical capabilities but also as a diplomatic tool to strengthen partnerships.

It can be utilised to foster collaborations and build relationships between nations. This perspective highlights the multifaceted nature of cyber capacity building, extending beyond technical aspects.

The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise offers numerous mechanisms for improving coordination in cyber capacity building.

These mechanisms include the Clearing House Mechanisms, regional donor meetings, and the publicly available Cyber Portal, which collects data and information related to cyber capacity building projects over the years. Despite these resources, there is a need for increased awareness and effort to enhance global coordination in cyber capacity building.

Inefficiencies and duplication of assistance can be avoided through effective communication and coordination.

Examples from Cambodia demonstrate the importance of proper coordination in cybersecurity capacity building. The ASEAN Japan Cyber Security Capacity Building Centre (AJCCBC) serves as a coordination mechanism, hosting training sessions and facilitating collaboration among different organisations. Encouragingly, there is a desire for other donors to explore potential collaborations through the AJCCBC to improve coordination within the ASEAN region.

In conclusion, the influx of cyber capacity building efforts has led to challenges in aligning strategies and activities across various stakeholders.

Coordinating these initiatives requires political willingness, transparency in the use of funds, and the use of available resources. Furthermore, there is a need for increased global coordination and effective communication to avoid duplication and enhance efficiency. The examples from Cambodia and the establishment of the AJCCBC exemplify the importance of coordination and collaboration in cybersecurity capacity building.

Report

The analysis reveals several key points about cyber capacity building coordination. Firstly, there is a lack of coordination among stakeholders, leading to diverging objectives, different approaches, and duplication of actions. This lack of coordination hinders the overall effectiveness of cyber capacity building efforts.

On the other hand, successful coordination requires a inclusive, demand-driven, and context-specific approach.

Cyber security transcends many communities of practice, necessitating regional collaboration and a shared understanding of the specific needs and challenges faced by different regions.

Trust is identified as a crucial component for effective cooperation in capacity building. However, building trust is challenging due to the presence of different policy fields and institutions.

Luxembourg, perceived as neutral and trustworthy, has played a role in relationship building by fostering trust among stakeholders.

Another challenge is the development of scalable models for coordination. Coordinating capacity building efforts sustainably is a significant concern. Establishing mechanisms that allow for the efficient coordination of efforts while adapting to different contexts and needs remains a challenge.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the risks posed by a lack of coordination in cyber capacity building, namely duplication of efforts and the lack of coherence.

Coordinating actions and sharing information across stakeholders is vital to avoid these risks and ensure a cohesive and efficient approach to capacity building.

The importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and partnerships is emphasized. Bringing together stakeholders from diverse sectors and actively engaging them in capacity building efforts can lead to more comprehensive and effective outcomes.

Luxembourg has been successful in fostering multi-stakeholder approaches and partnerships, collaborating with the national cybersecurity agency and coordinating efforts across sectors.

The analysis also points out the benefit of using coordination platforms and practitioner groups in cyber capacity building.

Luxembourg has joined various coordination platforms and practitioner groups, such as the GFCE and EU Cybernet, finding them beneficial in facilitating coordination and collaboration.

The D4D Hub is highlighted as a valuable platform for exchanging information, sharing best practices, lessons learned, and improving projects.

Despite the challenges in gathering information, the hub serves as an important element in project inception and formulation.

Lastly, the analysis underscores the role of donors and implementers in promoting awareness, enhancing communication, and facilitating cooperation and knowledge sharing.

Claire Stoffels endorses the idea that donors and implementers have a responsibility to play a larger role in capacity building efforts.

In conclusion, the analysis identifies the need for enhanced coordination in cyber capacity building. It emphasizes the importance of inclusive, demand-driven, and context-specific approaches, building trust among stakeholders, developing scalable models for coordination, and fostering multi-stakeholder approaches and partnerships.

Using coordination platforms and practitioner groups, such as the D4D Hub, can also support information exchange and project improvement. Additionally, donors and implementers should take an active role in promoting awareness and facilitating cooperation among stakeholders.

Report

The discussion revolves around the concept of capacity-building in the context of community development and technological solutions. Both participants agree that capacity-building should be seen as a comprehensive approach encompassing various aspects, such as community awareness, legal frameworks, and governmental policies.

They argue that solely focusing on technology solutions is insufficient.

The speakers emphasize the importance of adopting a holistic approach to capacity-building. This approach should involve not only technological advancements but also community awareness, including educating individuals about the benefits and implications of technology solutions.

They also stress the significance of developing legislative frameworks and government policies that encourage capacity-building, as these are crucial for creating an enabling environment for sustainable development.

The participants provide supporting facts, including questions posed by online participants, which demonstrate a concern for broader aspects of capacity-building beyond technology.

They also suggest that capacity-building extends beyond the requirements of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) to include SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). This highlights the extensive scope and potential impact of capacity-building beyond immediate development goals.

Throughout the discussion, the sentiment of both speakers remains neutral.

They present their arguments in a balanced manner, without expressing a strong positive or negative stance on the topic. This neutral sentiment indicates a willingness to engage in an open and constructive dialogue on the subject of capacity-building and its multifaceted nature.

In conclusion, the discussion underscores the importance of considering capacity-building as an end-to-end process that encompasses technological solutions, community awareness, legal frameworks, and governmental policies.

The participants argue that capacity-building should not be limited to technological advancements alone. By addressing these diverse aspects, capacity-building can foster sustainable development, promote social progress, and contribute to the achievement of various SDGs.

Report

The discussion on cybersecurity coordination explores the challenges that arise when multiple stakeholders are involved. One key issue is the presence of too many organizational stakeholders in cybersecurity, which hinders full coordination. This fragmentation of stakeholders is observed in various layers, including divisions between private and government entities, technical and policy experts, and different countries or regions.

The lack of a unified approach and participation from all relevant organizations impedes effective coordination.

Another challenge is the difficulty in achieving full coordination due to the focus on bilateral cooperation. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), a key player in cybersecurity cooperation, bases its efforts on bilateral agreements between Japan and recipient countries.

This approach requires JICA to align its initiatives with the recipient country’s own cybersecurity approach, strategy, and specific needs. While bilateral cooperation is important, it poses challenges in achieving comprehensive coordination across multiple countries and stakeholders.

However, it is stressed that respecting the recipient country’s ownership in bilateral agreements is crucial.

JICA adheres to the policy of recognizing the recipient country’s authority and strives to follow their approach and strategy in cybersecurity cooperation. By acknowledging and respecting the recipient country’s ownership, JICA aims to foster a collaborative environment and ensure its efforts align with the recipient country’s priorities.

Inadequate coordination within JICA’s cybersecurity capacity building initiatives is identified as a problem, leading to negative effects such as reduced efficiency, failure to maximize development impact, and a lack of sustainability.

The challenges stem from duplication of assistance, limited resources, an excessive number of resources, and isolated approaches to assistance. These factors contribute to suboptimal results and negative implications in JICA’s cybersecurity capacity building projects.

To address the lack of coordination, JICA employs two strategies: bilateral efforts and multi-stakeholder efforts.

In bilateral efforts, interactions with Cambodian partners and organizations such as Cyber for Development are used to reduce duplication and enhance coordination. Additionally, JICA recognizes the importance of engaging multiple stakeholders, as evidenced by their technical cooperation project in Thailand, where they collaborate with ASEAN member states, the ASEAN Secretariat, and other donors.

By incorporating multiple stakeholders in their initiatives, JICA aims to foster a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to cybersecurity capacity building.

A noteworthy success is JICA’s technical cooperation project in Thailand. With the collaboration of ASEAN member states, the ASEAN Japan Cyber Security Capacity Building Center conducts training and contests, contributing to the overall improvement of cybersecurity in the region.

This success story highlights the positive outcomes that can be achieved through effective coordination and collaboration.

Furthermore, the discussion emphasizes the importance of coordinating with multiple stakeholders or through bilateral interactions to maximize development impact. It highlights the need to reduce duplication and harmonize efforts through coordination.

The significance of creating sustainable outcomes, such as establishing guidelines and training materials, is also recognized in the cybersecurity field.

While some sentiment expresses negativity towards the one-time training or meeting approach, suggesting it is not an effective means of achieving coordination, there is positive sentiment towards delayed or time-difference coordination.

This approach allows for longer periods of interaction and enables donors to engage with recipient countries even after initial engagement has taken place.

In conclusion, the discussion on cybersecurity coordination sheds light on the challenges faced by various stakeholders in the field.

These challenges include the presence of numerous organizational stakeholders, difficulties in achieving full coordination due to the focus on bilateral cooperation, and inadequate coordination within JICA’s initiatives. Strategies such as bilateral efforts and multi-stakeholder engagement are identified as potential solutions.

The importance of respecting recipient country ownership, creating sustainable outcomes, real-time coordination, and employing more long-term approaches is also emphasized. By addressing these challenges and implementing effective coordination strategies, collaboration and impact in cybersecurity capacity building can be improved.

Report

The analysis examines various aspects of cyber capacity building and explores the challenges and opportunities associated with it. Germany acknowledges that cyber capacity building is a relatively new topic within its foreign office. They recognize its significance as a diplomatic tool to strengthen partnerships and ensure stability in cyberspace.

However, one of the primary obstacles is the difficulty in securing funding for such projects. This is largely due to budget restraints and the need for political willingness, which in turn depends on risk awareness.

While funding is crucial, it is not the sole factor in implementing cyber capacity building measures.

The analysis highlights the need for human resources with expertise in cybersecurity. Simply having financial resources is not enough; experts are necessary for effective implementation. The establishment of platforms, such as the EU cybernet, is essential for facilitating the identification and development of train-the-trainer programs, ensuring a skilled workforce capable of implementing capacity building initiatives.

Transparency in the investment of trust funds is lacking within the field of cyber capacity building.

It is important to understand how the allocated funds are being utilized and what outcomes are being achieved. This transparency ensures accountability and can help in identifying areas for improvement and learning from past experiences.

Understanding the needs of recipients is crucial for a successful cyber capacity building project.

This understanding often begins with the development of cybersecurity strategies. Expressing and admitting these needs becomes a starting point for effective collaboration and assistance.

Coordination plays a significant role in the implementation of cyber capacity building initiatives. However, it is important to note that coordination should not favour certain recipients.

In development cooperation, there are instances where some recipients are given preferential treatment, while others may be overlooked. Overcoming this bias is essential to ensure fair and equal distribution of assistance.

The analysis also emphasizes the importance of regional cooperation in addition to global cooperation.

Mechanisms should be developed that foster collaboration among neighbouring countries, enabling them to assist each other in addressing common challenges in cyberspace.

The field of cyber capacity building should be viewed as a two-way street. It should not only focus on the traditional donor-recipient relationship seen in development cooperation.

Instead, it should encourage mutual learning and knowledge sharing between all parties involved to create a more comprehensive and conducive cybersecurity environment.

Digital development cooperation should include cyber capacity building as it is integral to digital transformation. Enhancing the skills and capabilities of public administrations as they transition into the digital realm requires a strong focus on cybersecurity.

This includes providing the necessary hardware and software to ensure robust cybersecurity measures are in place.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights various aspects of cyber capacity building, including the challenges of funding, the importance of human resources, the need for transparency, understanding recipients’ needs, the role of coordination, the significance of regional cooperation, and the integration of cyber capacity building into digital development cooperation.

These insights provide valuable considerations for policymakers, funders, and implementers in their efforts to build strong and secure cyber capabilities.

Report

The rapidly evolving and complex cyber landscape presents challenges in coordinating cyber capacity building projects. The difficulty lies in the constant need to update strategies and priorities in response to new technologies and their associated threats and vulnerabilities. This negative sentiment arises from the fast-paced nature of the cyber landscape, which makes coordination increasingly challenging.

Emerging economies like Botswana face additional obstacles due to limited resources.

Adapting to the changing cyber environment is expensive, requiring substantial funding that may not be readily available. This limitation hinders the training of cybersecurity experts and the management of complex vulnerabilities, further exacerbating the challenges faced by these countries.

Insufficient coordination in cybersecurity efforts has negative consequences.

It creates weaknesses in a country’s overall cybersecurity posture, making it exploitable by cybercriminals. Ineffectual coordination also leads to gaps and vulnerabilities, hindering the effectiveness of cybersecurity programs. Additionally, inefficient resource allocation is a direct result of insufficient coordination, leading to wasted resources and misplaced priorities.

Overall, insufficient coordination limits the effectiveness of cybersecurity initiatives.

Effective information sharing is crucial for cybersecurity. Insufficient coordination hampers the sharing of threat intelligence between entities, making it more challenging to detect and mitigate cyber threats. Timely and accurate information sharing is essential for robust cybersecurity measures, underscoring the importance of coordination in this area.

A positive stance is taken, emphasizing the need for proper coordination among stakeholders for effective cybersecurity.

Timely and accurate information sharing between stakeholders strengthens cybersecurity efforts and can only be achieved through coordination and collaboration. This positive sentiment highlights the significance of coordination in establishing robust cybersecurity measures.

Successful cyber capacity building requires a multifaceted approach and sustained commitment from all parties involved.

Donors, implementers, and recipients must demonstrate ongoing commitment to achieve long-term success. The multifaceted approach includes embracing diverse perspectives and voices in cyber capacity building initiatives. By avoiding a stagnant approach, the positive sentiment emphasizes the importance of involving different stakeholders in cyber capacity building.

In conclusion, the summary highlights the challenges faced in coordinating cyber capacity building projects in the rapidly evolving and complex cyber landscape.

Limited resources, insufficient coordination, and a lack of information sharing hinder progress in strengthening cybersecurity measures. However, the positive outlook emphasizes the importance of proper coordination, sustained commitment, and the inclusion of diverse voices in cyber capacity building initiatives. Addressing these challenges is crucial for enhancing cybersecurity globally.

Report

The coordination and effectiveness of cyber capacity building efforts face significant challenges due to a competitive environment and a lack of sharing. The competitive nature of the field makes coordination difficult, hindering cooperation and collaboration among actors involved in cyber capacity building.

This leads to a lack of project continuity and a decrease in overall impact. Insufficient sharing of information and collaboration among stakeholders also contributes to problems, particularly with duplication of projects that overwhelm recipients and waste resources. Improvement is needed in the needs assessment process, which is currently time-consuming for individual projects.

The issue of projects being supply-driven rather than demand-driven is also prevalent in cyber capacity building.

This approach fails to consider the specific needs and challenges faced by recipients, resulting in projects that may not fully meet their requirements. To address this, it is important to listen attentively to the needs of recipient countries and take their unique circumstances into consideration.

Various approaches and platforms have been suggested to enhance coordination and effectiveness in cyber capacity building.

The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFC) serves as a valuable platform for dialogue, information exchange, and networking among actors involved in cyber capacity building. The GFC’s Clearinghouse mechanism matches government needs with the right implementers and donors, while the Sybil portal aids in project mapping, improving coordination and resource utilization.

A sustainability outlook is crucial for lasting and effective impact in cyber capacity building.

Projects lacking sustainability may provide quick fixes but not long-term impact. It is necessary to consider the goals of sustainable development and ensure projects contribute to them.

Connecting the development community with the cyber community is also important for improved efficiency and better solutions in the future.

Learning from the development community’s expertise enhances cyber capacity building efforts and outcomes.

Promoting openness and increasing communication among stakeholders plays a vital role in enhancing coordination. Transparency, sharing best practices, and facilitating information exchange allow stakeholders to work together effectively.

To overcome these challenges, it is crucial to improve coordination through platforms like the GFC, listen attentively to the needs of recipient countries, promote dialogue and exchange between the development and cyber communities, and foster openness and increased communication.

These measures will contribute to more efficient and sustainable outcomes in cyber capacity building.