Capacity development Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

India expands Ayush Grid digital health infrastructure

India’s Ministry of Ayush has reported progress in expanding the Ayush Grid, a digital public infrastructure designed to support healthcare delivery, research, regulation, education and public services across the country’s traditional medicine sector.

The ministry said it has developed 24 e-governance platforms, including the My Ayush Integrated Services Portal, which brings together ministry services within a single digital ecosystem and features a beta AI chatbot to assist users.

The Ayush Hospital Management Information System supports patient registration, electronic health records, referrals and continuity of care. As of 15 July 2026, the platform had been adopted by 5,386 Ayush healthcare facilities.

Other digital platforms include the Ayush Research Portal, containing more than 43,000 curated publications, the Ayush Anudan funding portal, the Ayush Nivesh Saarthi investment gateway and the e-Charak medicinal plant marketplace.

Additional services support yoga programmes, health assessments and infrastructure planning. More than 760,000 organisations registered for Yoga Sangam during the International Day of Yoga 2026, while 6,002 facilities have been mapped through the PM GatiShakti Ayush Asset Mapping Tool.

The Swasthya Assessment Scale has also enrolled 1,335 doctors across 221 facilities.

The ministry plans to strengthen interoperability, multilingual services and data-driven governance while expanding the use of AI and machine learning. Future work will also focus on closer integration with national digital health initiatives, including the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission, to improve access to Ayush services, particularly in rural and underserved areas.

Why does it matter?

The Ayush Grid demonstrates how India is extending its digital public infrastructure approach beyond conventional healthcare into traditional medicine. By integrating clinical services, research, funding and citizen-facing platforms, the initiative aims to improve coordination, transparency and continuity of care across the sector.

The planned expansion of interoperability, AI and multilingual digital services also reflects a broader shift towards data-driven health governance. Closer integration with national digital health programmes could improve access to healthcare while strengthening the role of traditional medicine within India’s wider digital health ecosystem.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

South Korea expands AI diplomacy through new development package

South Korea has unveiled the ‘K-AI Package’, a development cooperation strategy that combines AI infrastructure, digital capacity development and development finance to support AI adoption in developing countries while expanding international opportunities for Korean technology companies.

The strategy was presented on 20 July during a ministerial meeting on global economic affairs chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance Koo Yun Cheol.

The initiative combines AI solutions, AI data centres and renewable energy facilities with infrastructure projects financed through the Economic Development Cooperation Fund. It covers seven sectors, including water management, healthcare, energy, transport, agriculture, culture and education, with projects ranging from AI-supported dam management and medical diagnosis systems to smart farming, renewable energy technologies and AI education programmes.

South Korea plans to integrate the package with existing development cooperation mechanisms, including the Knowledge Sharing Program, trust funds, development finance and joint financing with multilateral development banks.

Alongside infrastructure projects, the government will support partner countries in developing AI legislation, standards and institutions while investing in technical education, workforce training and local capacity development.

From the second half of 2026, South Korea will identify partner countries’ priorities and propose tailored K-AI projects before moving to implementation. AI will also become a priority under the Knowledge Sharing Program in 2027, while a proposed global AI hub will support technology adoption and skills development in emerging economies.

Why does it matter?

The K-AI Package illustrates how development cooperation is becoming an increasingly important instrument of AI diplomacy. Rather than focusing solely on technology exports, South Korea is combining infrastructure, policy advice, skills development and financing to help partner countries build AI capacity.

The initiative also reflects growing international competition to shape the global AI ecosystem through development partnerships. By linking development assistance with industrial strategy, South Korea aims to expand opportunities for its AI industry while strengthening long-term digital cooperation with emerging economies.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

ILO supports digital workplace safety tool in Malaysia

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has supported the launch of a digital occupational safety and health (OSH) assessment tool in Malaysia to help employers strengthen workplace safety, improve regulatory compliance and better protect workers.

Developed by the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) with support from the EU-funded PROTECT project, the tool was introduced during practical training for more than 80 employers in Port Klang.

The MEF–ILO OSH Digital Assessment Tool enables employers to conduct occupational safety and health assessments through a structured digital platform, while the accompanying OSHAWA Handbook provides practical guidance on implementing workplace safety measures.

Together, they aim to improve risk identification, strengthen compliance with Malaysian legislation and promote a stronger workplace safety culture across industries.

The initiative builds on Malaysia’s strengthened occupational safety framework following amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, which expanded workplace coverage and introduced more robust risk assessment requirements.

It also supports responsible business practices by helping employers meet growing international expectations on labour rights, human rights due diligence and workplace safety within global supply chains.

A particular focus of the project is improving protection for migrant workers, who make up a significant share of the workforce in sectors including manufacturing, construction, plantations and services.

By integrating the digital assessment tool into MEF’s long-term advisory and training services, the ILO aims to expand its use across Malaysia and support lasting improvements in workplace safety..

Why does it matter?

The initiative illustrates how digital tools are increasingly being used to strengthen labour governance by making workplace risk assessments more systematic, consistent and accessible. Digital platforms can also help employers monitor compliance more effectively and respond more quickly to occupational safety risks.

The project further reflects growing international expectations that businesses demonstrate responsible labour practices throughout global supply chains. By supporting compliance with both national legislation and international standards, digital workplace safety tools can improve worker protection while helping companies meet evolving regulatory and due diligence requirements.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UNESCO and Egypt introduce AI framework for teachers

UNESCO and Egypt’s Ministry of Education and Technical Education have launched a national Artificial Intelligence Competency Framework for Teachers, marking a major step in integrating AI into teacher training and education reform.

Based on UNESCO’s global framework and adapted to Egypt’s national priorities, the initiative makes Egypt one of the first countries to introduce a nationally tailored AI competency framework for teachers.

Developed through collaboration between the Ministry of Education and Technical Education, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and UNESCO, the framework aims to equip teachers with the knowledge, practical skills and ethical understanding needed to integrate AI into teaching and learning.

Its development was informed by consultations involving government institutions, universities, teacher training organisations, civil society, development partners and the private sector to ensure it reflects Egypt’s educational priorities and supports the Sustainable Development Goals.

The framework promotes a human-centred approach to AI, emphasising ethics, inclusion, critical thinking and human agency. UNESCO stresses that AI should enhance rather than replace teachers, helping to personalise learning, improve classroom experiences and increase efficiency while supporting responsible use.

The initiative aligns with UNESCO’s broader guidance, including the Beijing Consensus on Artificial Intelligence and Education, the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and the Santiago Consensus on Teachers.

During the implementation phase, UNESCO and the Egyptian government will introduce capacity-building programmes, develop Arabic-language AI learning resources, train AI master trainers and establish teacher training hubs.

The framework is also intended to serve as a national policy reference for integrating AI into teacher education, professional development and wider education reform.

Why does it matter?

The initiative illustrates how AI governance is increasingly moving from high-level principles to practical implementation in national education systems. Rather than focusing solely on AI technologies, the framework emphasises preparing teachers to use AI responsibly, ethically and effectively in the classroom.

It also demonstrates how international AI governance frameworks can be adapted to national contexts. By combining teacher training, policy development and locally relevant learning resources, Egypt is creating institutional capacity to support the long-term integration of AI into education while maintaining a human-centred approach.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN Global Mechanism on ICT security begins translating cyber norms into practice

The UN’s permanent cyber mechanism has begun shifting from identifying cyber threats towards implementing the international commitments already agreed by member states, with delegations broadly calling for practical action under the existing UN framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

During the fourth meeting of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, member states concluded discussions on the evolving cyber threat landscape before turning their attention to the implementation of the 11 voluntary and non-binding norms first agreed by the UN Group of Governmental Experts in 2015.

While views differed on whether additional norms may eventually be required, a broad range of delegations agreed that the immediate priority should be helping countries apply the existing framework through practical cooperation, capacity development, and exchanges of national experience.

From agreement to implementation

The discussion reflected a broader evolution in international cyber diplomacy.

Rather than negotiating new principles, many delegations argued that the Global Mechanism should now concentrate on translating existing commitments into national legislation, operational practices, and international cooperation.

The Pacific Islands Forum, speaking through Tonga, noted that many countries, particularly small island developing states, are still developing the institutional and technical capacity needed to implement the agreed norms. It called for the mechanism to support this work through practical guidance, peer learning, and contributions from technical experts, regional organisations, academia, civil society, and the private sector.

The European Union similarly presented an overview of how its member states are implementing the norms through legislation, institutional arrangements, and operational cooperation, encouraging other countries to share their own experiences. The EU also described the Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs) as the appropriate forum for developing practical approaches linked to specific cybersecurity challenges.

Existing norms remain the foundation

Many delegations stressed that the 11 voluntary norms continue to provide a sufficient framework for responsible state behaviour.

Countries, including the Republic of Korea, Vanuatu, Portugal, Botswana, Nigeria, Ireland, New Zealand, and Costa Rica, argued that implementation should take precedence over negotiating additional commitments.

Several delegations highlighted the voluntary implementation checklist developed through previous UN processes as a practical tool for helping governments assess progress and exchange good practices. Others suggested that publishing national implementation experiences could improve transparency and strengthen mutual confidence.

Capacity development emerged as a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with many speakers emphasising that successful implementation depends on strengthening national institutions, technical expertise, incident response capabilities, and regional cooperation.

Some states support further normative development

Although implementation attracted broad support, several delegations argued that the framework should continue evolving alongside technological change.

China, Morocco, Armenia, Thailand, Brazil, Iran, and Cuba suggested that emerging issues, including AI, data security, supply chain resilience, and new forms of cyber activity, may eventually require additional voluntary norms or, in some cases, legally binding international instruments.

Rather than presenting these approaches as mutually exclusive, several countries argued that implementation and discussions on possible future norms could proceed in parallel, provided decisions continue to be reached through consensus.

Threat discussions reinforce implementation priorities

Before moving to the norms agenda, delegations completed their discussion on the evolving cyber threat landscape.

Countries highlighted ransomware, attacks on critical infrastructure, AI, disinformation, supply chain vulnerabilities, and cybercrime as continuing challenges requiring closer international cooperation.

Ghana described efforts to strengthen the protection of critical information infrastructure following the disruption caused by damage to a submarine cable, while Pakistan warned that cyber threats are increasingly intertwined with geopolitical competition and emerging technologies. Institutional participants, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol, and the African Union, contributed perspectives on cyber operations during armed conflict, organised cybercrime, and the importance of strengthening cyber resilience across developing countries.

Summarising the discussion, the Chair highlighted recurring calls for greater information sharing, cooperation, capacity development, incident response, and resilience, noting that these priorities would help shape the future work of the mechanism.

Dedicated Thematic Groups move to the centre of the process

Throughout the session, delegations repeatedly pointed to the Dedicated Thematic Groups as the mechanism’s primary vehicle for turning broad political agreement into practical cooperation.

States proposed using the groups to exchange implementation experiences, discuss specific cyber challenges, develop scenario-based exercises, refine the voluntary implementation checklist, and strengthen cooperation across the five pillars of the UN cyber framework.

Alongside these substantive discussions, several rights of reply reflected wider geopolitical tensions among some member states. However, the majority of interventions remained focused on practical implementation and strengthening the shared framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

The session, therefore, marked an important transition for the Global Mechanism. Having identified many of the principal cyber threats facing states, delegations increasingly turned their attention to the practical question of how existing international commitments can be translated into national action and international cooperation.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN Global Mechanism on ICT security shifts towards practical cybersecurity cooperation

The UN’s permanent cyber mechanism continued its substantive discussions by identifying shared priorities for international cooperation, with member states highlighting ransomware, AI, critical infrastructure protection, and capacity development as areas requiring practical action.

During the third plenary of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, delegations repeatedly stressed that discussions should move beyond mere description of cyber threats to developing practical tools to help states prevent, detect, and respond to them.

The discussion reinforced a trend already visible during earlier meetings, that despite differing national perspectives on specific cyber incidents, broad agreement is emerging on the issues likely to shape the mechanism’s future work.

From identifying threats to supporting implementation

Several delegations argued that the mechanism’s success should be measured by its ability to translate years of international negotiations into practical cooperation.

Kiribati captured this approach by observing that discussions on cyber threats should not end with mere descriptions but lead to concrete measures that enable countries of all sizes to strengthen their cyber resilience. Cameroon and Morocco similarly encouraged the mechanism to prioritise practical implementation through the Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs), which are expected to become the forum’s primary venue for detailed technical cooperation.

The emphasis on implementation reflected a broader shift from developing international norms towards helping governments apply them in practice through information sharing, capacity development, and operational cooperation.

Critical infrastructure protection gains momentum

Protection of critical infrastructure emerged as one of the strongest areas of convergence during the session.

Small island developing states offered particularly compelling examples of how digital infrastructure has become essential for national resilience. Kiribati described how its first submarine cable has transformed public services while simultaneously increasing its exposure to cyber risks. Tonga recalled the 2022 volcanic eruption that severed its only submarine cable, leaving the country isolated during a national emergency, and warned that a malicious cyber operation could deliberately produce similar consequences.

Delegations from Australia, Tuvalu, Chile, Ghana, Zimbabwe, and other countries similarly highlighted the growing importance of protecting undersea cables, telecommunications infrastructure, government networks, and other critical systems that underpin economic activity and essential public services.

Rather than treating these as purely national concerns, speakers increasingly framed critical infrastructure resilience as a shared international challenge requiring cooperation across borders.

Ransomware remains a global priority

Ransomware was once again identified as one of the most significant cyber threats facing governments and critical services worldwide.

Delegations described attacks affecting healthcare systems, humanitarian organisations, government institutions, municipalities, telecommunications providers, and energy infrastructure.

National experiences illustrated the scale of the challenge. Tonga described how a ransomware attack encrypted its national health information system, forcing hospitals to return temporarily to paper records. Germany cited estimates placing annual cyber-related economic damage at approximately US$230 billion, while several countries highlighted the growing sophistication and transnational nature of ransomware operations.

Many speakers emphasised that responding effectively will require stronger international information sharing, coordinated incident response, public-private cooperation, and support for countries with more limited cybersecurity capacities.

AI increasingly shapes cybersecurity discussions

AI continued to feature prominently throughout the session as delegations examined its growing influence on the cyber threat landscape.

Countries from different regions observed that AI is lowering barriers to entry for malicious actors while increasing the speed and sophistication of cyber operations. Among the risks identified were AI-generated phishing campaigns, automated vulnerability discovery, deepfakes, large-scale disinformation, and attacks targeting AI systems themselves.

Several delegations also pointed to emerging challenges related to frontier AI models, quantum computing, commercial cyber intrusion capabilities, and digital supply chain security, suggesting these issues should continue to receive attention within the Global Mechanism.

While views differed on how these developments should be governed internationally, there was broad agreement that the mechanism provides an important forum for exchanging experience and improving collective understanding of rapidly evolving technologies.

Capacity development remains central to cyber resilience

Developing countries consistently stressed that discussions on cyber threats should be matched by practical support.

Delegations highlighted the importance of strengthening national institutions, expanding technical expertise, improving incident response capabilities, and ensuring that developing countries can participate fully in the mechanism’s work.

Small island developing states noted that limited resources often magnify the consequences of cyber incidents, while African, Asian, Caribbean, and Pacific countries called for sustainable, demand-driven capacity-building programmes tailored to national priorities. Several speakers also encouraged greater regional cooperation and more structured exchanges of operational experience.

These interventions reinforced the view that improving global cybersecurity depends not only on reducing threats but also on ensuring that all countries have the capabilities needed to address them.

Dedicated Thematic Groups move into focus

Attention also turned to the role of the Dedicated Thematic Groups as the mechanism’s principal vehicle for translating discussions into practical outcomes.

Delegations proposed using the groups for scenario-based discussions, expert briefings, exchanges of operational experience, and the development of practical recommendations on issues such as critical infrastructure protection, supply chain security, ransomware, and implementation of agreed voluntary norms. Several countries argued that the groups should focus on a limited number of concrete priorities that could produce measurable results.

Alongside these substantive discussions, some delegations continued to express differing views regarding state attribution of cyber incidents and recent geopolitical developments. While these exchanges reflected broader international tensions, the majority of interventions remained focused on strengthening cooperation within the Global Mechanism and identifying practical areas where progress can be achieved.

As the session concluded, the Chair confirmed that discussions would continue with the remaining speakers before the mechanism moved to its next agenda item on voluntary norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI governance is becoming infrastructure governance

For much of the past decade, discussions on AI governance have focused on algorithms. Policymakers, regulators, and researchers have debated ethics, transparency, bias, accountability, and human oversight, seeking to ensure that AI systems remain trustworthy and aligned with fundamental rights.

These questions remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient to explain the direction of AI policy.

A new reality is emerging. Increasingly, governments are recognising that the ability to govern AI depends not only on regulating algorithms but also on securing the infrastructure that makes them possible. Data centres, advanced semiconductors, cloud computing, electricity grids, submarine cables, digital public infrastructure, and skilled workforces have become as strategically important as the AI models themselves.

The shift has been gradual rather than abrupt, yet it is now evident across national strategies, international organisations, and multilateral discussions. AI governance is expanding beyond software governance to become infrastructure governance.

AI runs on infrastructure, not algorithms alone

The rapid adoption of generative AI has often obscured a simple reality that every AI system rests on a vast physical and institutional foundation.

Large language models require enormous computing power, specialised chips, cloud infrastructure, reliable electricity, high-speed connectivity, trusted datasets, secure digital environments, and engineers capable of developing and maintaining increasingly complex systems. None of these components can be built overnight, and few can be developed without substantial public and private investment.

As a result, AI capability is increasingly determined by access to infrastructure, not just software.

Countries may have ambitious AI strategies, talented researchers, or innovative start-ups, but without advanced computing capacity, modern data centres, resilient cloud infrastructure, and skilled human capital, those ambitions become difficult to realise. Governments are therefore beginning to treat AI infrastructure as a strategic national asset rather than simply a commercial resource.

Industrial policy is becoming a pillar of AI policy

This shift is increasingly reflected in public policy.

The European Union has complemented its landmark AI Act with broader industrial initiatives, including the European Chips Act, the AI Factories initiative under EuroHPC, and, most recently, plans to develop AI Gigafactories capable of supporting the next generation of AI models. The recently adopted Digital Omnibus on AI also strengthens the role of the European Commission’s AI Office while simplifying implementation aspects, illustrating that regulation, institutional capacity, and infrastructure investment are evolving together.

EU agrees to simplify AI rules while maintaining safeguards.

The United States has pursued a different approach, combining export controls on advanced semiconductors with large-scale investment in domestic chip manufacturing and AI infrastructure. China continues to expand its national computing centres, cloud capacity, and state-backed AI ecosystems as part of its long-term industrial strategy.

Although these approaches differ politically and economically, they increasingly share the view that governing AI requires building the infrastructure that enables it.

AI policy, in other words, is beginning to resemble industrial policy.

Infrastructure has become a development issue

The infrastructure shift is equally visible in developing countries, where the conversation is moving beyond access to AI applications towards the ability to build AI capacity locally.

Throughout the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026, discussions repeatedly highlighted that meaningful digital transformation depends on foundational infrastructure. African policymakers, researchers, and technical experts argued that the continent suffers not primarily from a shortage of digital ambition, but from limited access to computing capacity.

Speakers pointed out that Africa has only a tiny share of global AI compute and data centre capacity, forcing many researchers and innovators to rely on infrastructure located elsewhere. The challenge, they argued, is no longer simply connectivity but compute sovereignty, the ability to build, train, and deploy AI systems locally.

The same message emerged during discussions on digital sovereignty. Rather than focusing solely on access to foreign AI models, participants argued that exporting raw data while importing AI services mirrors older economic patterns in which countries exported raw materials while importing higher-value finished products. Building local AI capability, therefore, requires investment in data centres, energy systems, cloud infrastructure, skills development, and trusted data ecosystems.

These discussions suggest that AI infrastructure is becoming an increasingly important component of development policy.

Infrastructure is also becoming geopolitics

The growing strategic importance of AI infrastructure extends far beyond economic development.

Competition over semiconductor manufacturing, cloud services, critical minerals, advanced computing facilities, and energy has become a defining feature of international relations. Governments increasingly view these assets through the lens of economic security, technological resilience, and geopolitical influence.

Submarine cables illustrate this evolution particularly well. Once regarded primarily as telecommunications infrastructure, they are now recognised as essential to AI systems that depend on massive volumes of cross-border data traffic. Recent international efforts to strengthen submarine cable resilience reflect how infrastructure once considered largely invisible has become central to digital governance.

Electricity is undergoing a similar transformation. As AI models become increasingly computationally intensive, access to affordable and reliable energy is becoming a key factor determining where data centres can be built and where AI innovation can flourish. This has encouraged governments to align AI strategies with broader industrial, energy, and climate policies.

In this environment, AI governance increasingly overlaps with trade policy, investment screening, industrial strategy, critical infrastructure protection, and national security.

A broader understanding of AI governance

This evolution does not diminish the importance of ethical AI principles or risk-based regulation. Questions surrounding transparency, accountability, bias, safety, and human rights remain fundamental.

Rather, it broadens the understanding of what AI governance entails.

Traditional AI governance focuses on how AI systems should be designed, deployed, and used responsibly. Infrastructure governance raises a different set of questions, such as who has access to the computing power needed to develop advanced AI? Who controls the cloud infrastructure that underpins AI services? Where are critical datasets stored? Which countries have the physical, financial, and institutional capacity to participate meaningfully in the AI economy?

AI capabilities surge faster than governance systems — image via Magnific

These questions ultimately shape who can innovate, compete, and benefit from AI.

As a result, debates that once focused primarily on algorithms increasingly encompass semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, digital public infrastructure, data centres, energy systems, connectivity, and workforce development.

From governing AI to enabling AI

The next phase of AI governance is likely to be defined less by entirely new regulatory principles than by long-term investment decisions.

Building trustworthy AI ecosystems will require governments to develop resilient digital infrastructure, strengthen education and digital skills, encourage research, modernise energy systems, expand computing capacity, and foster international cooperation on shared digital resources.

The countries that succeed may not simply be those that write the most comprehensive AI regulations. They may instead be those that create the conditions that allow responsible AI to flourish in the first place.

The global conversation about AI has not moved beyond governance. It has moved deeper into its foundations.

In this sense, the future of AI governance may increasingly depend not only on how societies regulate AI, but also on how they build the infrastructure that makes AI possible.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EU advances digital electricity strategy through Electrification Action Plan

The European Commission has adopted the Electrification Action Plan and proposed changes to the EU electricity market rules aimed at accelerating the digitalisation of Europe’s electricity system and preparing it to support growing AI infrastructure.

The measures are intended to reduce energy system costs, improve grid efficiency and accelerate the deployment of smart technologies while supporting a cleaner, more affordable and resilient electricity market.

A central element of the proposal is the accelerated rollout of smart meters, with a target of covering at least 50% of final electricity customers by 2030 and 75% by 2033. The devices will provide near real-time consumption data, enabling consumers to shift electricity use to cheaper and cleaner periods while helping network operators manage congestion and integrate renewable energy more efficiently.

The proposal also seeks to improve the secure exchange of electricity grid data between transmission and distribution system operators. Better access to harmonised, high-quality data is expected to strengthen grid planning, support renewable energy integration, encourage demand-side flexibility and enable new digital services.

The Commission also proposes a voluntary European framework for the secure reuse of grid data to support research and AI-powered energy management.

The initiative complements the EU’s broader Digital Union agenda, including the Data Act, the AI Act, the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act and the AI Continent Action Plan.

According to the Commission, smarter electricity networks will provide the infrastructure needed to support AI factories, AI gigafactories and sustainable data centres while strengthening Europe’s energy security, competitiveness and strategic autonomy.

Why does it matter?

The proposal reflects a growing recognition that electricity infrastructure and digital infrastructure are becoming increasingly interconnected. AI systems, cloud computing and data centres require abundant, reliable and flexible electricity supplies, making modernised energy networks a prerequisite for Europe’s digital competitiveness.

By linking smart grids, secure data sharing, AI-enabled energy management and electricity market reform, the Commission is also broadening the concept of digital governance. Rather than treating energy and digital policy separately, the EU is increasingly developing them as mutually reinforcing pillars of its industrial, climate and technological strategy.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UNESCO partners with China on climate monitoring for island states

UNESCO has signed agreements with two Chinese research institutions to strengthen climate monitoring, marine research and scientific capacity in Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

The agreements, signed on 17 July, bring together the International Research Center of Big Data for Sustainable Development Goals (CBAS) and the Second Institute of Oceanography (SIO) to expand access to satellite data, marine science expertise and technical support for vulnerable island states.

UNESCO said many island states face severe climate and environmental pressures but lack the research infrastructure, environmental data and technical capacity needed to respond effectively. The partnerships aim to address those gaps by providing training, scientific tools, knowledge exchange and support for collecting and using environmental data.

The cooperation will support UNESCO initiatives including IslandWatch, which promotes community-based ecosystem observation, and the Centres of Excellence in Marine Sciences and Biodiversity for Portuguese-speaking island states, which strengthen regional research and training.

São Tomé and Príncipe is expected to benefit significantly from the partnerships. After becoming the first country to have its entire territory designated as a UNESCO biosphere reserve in 2025, it requires stronger long-term ecosystem monitoring and scientific expertise.

CBAS has already assessed coastline change, sea-level rise and environmental conditions on Príncipe Island using satellite data, while SIO will contribute marine research and practical training to help local institutions address climate change and biodiversity loss.

The partnerships also contribute to UNESCO’s broader strategy for Small Island Developing States and the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development (2024–2033), reinforcing international cooperation on climate resilience and sustainable development.

Why does it matter?

Many Small Island Developing States face disproportionate risks from sea-level rise, coastal erosion and biodiversity loss, yet often lack the scientific infrastructure needed to monitor environmental change. Expanding access to satellite data, marine research and technical expertise can improve evidence-based climate adaptation and natural resource management.

The agreements also illustrate how international scientific cooperation is becoming an increasingly important component of climate governance. By combining Earth observation, local capacity-building and regional research networks, UNESCO aims to strengthen the ability of vulnerable island states to generate and use their own environmental data rather than relying solely on external expertise.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity begins work with focus on participation and consensus

The United Nations’ new permanent mechanism on international cybersecurity has begun its substantive work, opening a new phase of multilateral discussions on responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

The first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security opened on 20 July at UN Headquarters in New York under the chairmanship of Ambassador Egriselda López of El Salvador. The meeting marked the first time member states had convened within a standing UN framework dedicated to ICT security and responsible state behaviour.

The mechanism succeeds years of negotiations under the Open-Ended Working Group and is intended to provide a permanent, single-track forum for discussions across five established pillars, such as existing and potential ICT threats, rules and norms of state behaviour, the application of international law, confidence-building measures, and capacity development.

In a pre-recorded statement, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu described the mechanism as holding ‘tremendous promise’. She highlighted its permanent and consensually agreed character and called for stakeholder engagement to take place in a systematic, sustained, and substantive manner.

A permanent forum takes shape

Opening the session, López described the meeting as a historic moment that would help shape not only the first two-year cycle of the mechanism but also the UN’s wider approach to ICT security in the years ahead.

She acknowledged that the forum was beginning its work amid a complex international environment marked by attacks against critical infrastructure, disruptions to digital supply chains, the use of ICTs in conflicts, and the growing interaction between cybersecurity and emerging technologies such as AI.

The Chair also emphasised that agreement would require sustained diplomatic effort.

‘Consensus is not automatic,’ López told delegations, arguing that it must be built through commitment, flexibility, and political will.

She noted that multilateral processes are often advanced through ‘small steps, difficult compromises, and the willingness to keep talking even when there are differences’.

The session achieved an early procedural milestone with the adoption, by consensus, of the provisional agendas for the 2026 and 2027 plenary sessions. The mechanism also noted its provisional programme of work, creating a framework for the substantive discussions scheduled for the week.

The mechanism tests its approach to stakeholder participation

A substantial part of the opening discussion focused on how non-governmental stakeholders should participate in the mechanism.

Under the agreed accreditation procedure, applications are accepted unless a member state submits a written objection. The Chair reported that she had held consultations with states that raised objections, although the positions of the concerned governments remained unchanged.

Several delegations expressed concern that a large proportion of stakeholder applicants had not received accreditation. They argued that technical experts, civil society organisations, industry representatives, and academic institutions can provide knowledge that supports informed negotiations and practical implementation.

The issue was particularly important for smaller and developing states, some of which said they rely heavily on external partners because they have limited domestic technical and diplomatic capacity.

Kiribati emphasised that technical partners and regional organisations had contributed to its national cybersecurity posture and helped shift international discussions from problem identification to solution delivery. It called for greater transparency around objections, arguing that explanations could help states understand and potentially address the concerns raised.

‘Transparency here costs the objecting state little; silence costs the rest of us a great deal,’ the delegation said.

Other delegations placed greater emphasis on ensuring that participating organisations meet the agreed standards of objectivity and impartiality. They maintained that the non-objection procedure was negotiated by consensus and that states retained the right to raise concerns about individual applicants.

The discussion, therefore, reflected a broader institutional question of how the mechanism can preserve state oversight while gaining access to the technical expertise needed for meaningful cybersecurity cooperation.

Participation rules remain important for thematic work

Delegations also considered how stakeholder participation should function in the Dedicated Thematic Groups scheduled to meet from 7 to 11 December.

The mechanism will operate two such groups. One will address general substantive issues, while the other will focus on capacity development. Their purpose is to enable more detailed and interactive discussions that build on the work of the annual plenary.

Some delegations argued that, because the thematic groups are informal, they should be able to include a wide range of experts and stakeholders without requiring the same accreditation process used for formal plenary sessions.

Others maintained that the agreed participation modalities for the mechanism should apply consistently across all its formats. From this perspective, applying different rules to the thematic groups could weaken their intergovernmental character or create uncertainty over the status of their outcomes.

The debate highlighted the need for predictable working methods before the December meetings. Clear guidance on participation, expert briefings, meeting formats, and reporting procedures will be particularly important for delegations with limited resources.

Procedural questions shape preparations for thematic discussions

The Chair also announced the appointment of four co-facilitators for the thematic groups, selected from Australia, Egypt, Malaysia, and the Netherlands.

López said the appointments reflected geographic and gender balance and that the co-facilitators would serve in their personal capacities under the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and inclusion.

Many delegations welcomed the appointments as a practical step towards ensuring that preparations for the December meetings could move forward. They viewed the selection of facilitators as consistent with practices used in other UN processes.

Other delegations preferred the appointments to be formally agreed upon by consensus among all member states. They argued that the mechanism’s state-led character requires collective agreement on both procedural and substantive decisions.

The exchange demonstrated that the meaning of consensus will remain an important issue as the new forum develops its institutional practices. The challenge will be to preserve the confidence of all states while allowing the mechanism to carry out the organisational work needed to function effectively.

From general debate to practical cooperation

Beyond the procedural questions, delegations began outlining how the thematic groups could contribute to the mechanism’s wider objectives.

Several countries supported focused, scenario-based discussions addressing concrete challenges such as ransomware, attacks against critical infrastructure, AI security, operational technology, quantum readiness, and post-quantum cryptography.

Others emphasised that the groups should maintain a balanced approach across all five pillars of the framework and avoid prioritising specific topics without the agreement of member states.

Capacity development emerged as a particularly important theme. Developing and smaller states highlighted the role of partnerships with governments, international organisations, industry, academia, and civil society in strengthening national cyber resilience.

Questions of accessibility were also raised. Colombia and Mexico called for simultaneous interpretation to support participation by experts from different linguistic communities, while Mauritius stressed the need for clear rules, timelines, and coordination between the two thematic groups.

These proposals suggest that the success of the mechanism will depend not only on reaching agreements at the diplomatic level but also on translating them into practical cooperation that responds to national needs.

Building consensus in a permanent mechanism

The opening plenary showed that establishing a permanent international forum involves more than adopting a mandate. Member states must also develop shared expectations about participation, decision-making, working methods, and the relationship between formal negotiations and technical expertise.

Despite differing interpretations of some procedures, delegations broadly reaffirmed their support for the Global Mechanism and its objective of strengthening international cooperation on ICT security.

The consensus adoption of the agenda provided a foundation for the substantive work ahead. The Chair also pledged to continue consultations with states and maintain sustained dialogue with stakeholders.

The mechanism’s first session, therefore, represents both an institutional achievement and an early test of multilateral cooperation. Its ability to deliver practical results will depend on whether member states can balance inclusivity, state leadership, procedural predictability, and the consensus principle on which the forum was founded.

As the mechanism moves towards its first Dedicated Thematic Group meetings in December, the immediate priority will be to turn its permanent mandate into working arrangements capable of supporting trust, resilience, and responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!