Interaction with government

Project design should focus on the detailed definitions of Global Objective, Specific Objectives, Actions, Indicators (at outcome and output level), Baseline and Targets. As it stands, the project definition lacked a clear project design matrix; overall and specific objectives and outputs were missing; outcome indicators were missing (outcome indicators were in fact output indicators), and outputs were not defined. Lastly, no sources of information/means of verification were formulated.

The project was conceived as a comprehensive capacity development project with an approach involving participants into the development of replication strategies and the development of common actions and strategies in traditional and non-traditional communication spaces. However, during its implementation, the project has mainly been an academic endeavour, with a rather classic approach to capacity development methodologies and systems. In this project, as designed, the components of socialisation by the students as well as the engagement with public authorities should have remained a priority, and practical, on-the-job training approaches should have been privileged as originally foreseen. If these practical aspects are not considered a priority, a more standardized approach to capacity development should be followed at the project design stage.

One of the main problems of this project was that its design robustness could have been reinforced by a more detailed and comprehensive needs assessment in smaller vs. bigger municipalities in order to avoid obsolescence in some big municipalities. Consequently, inappropriate and generalised needs assessments that lead to a “one size fits all” approach can negatively affect the impact’s likelihood.

Given the high relevance and importance of the “truth-o-meter”, the design should have paid more attention (and allocate the necessary resources) to the promotion and communication of the tool and the results. There could have been public conferences and/or round tables with all concerned MPs, CSOs, communities, and media to discuss findings and generate public debates. Therefore, promoting innovative tools to a wide range of stakeholders is as important as their development, otherwise the impact of such tools remains limited and untapped.

In a country like Bhutan, where culture is overwhelmingly dominant in every aspect of life and policies and seen separately from democracy, implementing a project that promotes democracy through strengthening media is not without challenges. Bhutan is ambitious to make the cultural perspective visible in all development co-operation and projects, which suggests a "mainstreaming" approach. Since culture is a complex concept and naturally varies considerably from country to country, mainstreaming is difficult. But, at the project level, it would be more appropriate to address culture using a rights perspective that focuses on freedom of expression and information. Nevertheless, it would be highly relevant to systematically include the roles of culture in media development and the promotion of democracy and democratic institutions.

Mentoring as a model for capacity building has worked. It was found during the interviews that most of the trainees had learned techniques and applied new skills in reporting and engaging with audiences. After the trainings, the Mentors therefore continued to guide and teach the participants on subjects not covered during the trainings like techniques of editing and content packaging, self-censorship and other technical and editorial skills.

As digital technologies take hold, two ways media-community audience engagement will only become richer and more complex. New technology can upset the methodology and content of any capacity-building programme approved and designed by the grantee. Therefore, there is a need to remain alert about new technology and devise innovative forms of audience research online and offline.

Both mentors and participants demonstrated that knowledge sharing works vertically and horizontally in- and outside the media organisations, mainly in four ways.
• One, most of the participants shared their knowledge and experience by training the co-workers;
• Two, they shared their knowledge with other media professionals through a variety of interactive as well as informal forums;
• Three, participants took opportunities to share their knowledge with students in media training institutes;
• Four, participants also shared their knowledge and experiences through a variety of media, most commonly by writing blogs, articles for professional journals.

Foreign funding is a matter of controversy and concern in Kyrgyzstan, especially as it relates to media engagement. UNDEF’s support proved valuable as a neutral, credible, and legitimate source of funding. It allowed for activists and journalists from very different regions, political views, social backgrounds to meet and work together, without prejudice, and achieve results from productive and meaningful collaborations.

Community media is key in Kyrgyzstan, given the geographic challenges of rural communities in remote and mountainous locations, where regional news do not reach the country as a whole, and vice versa. Alternative channels of access to information complement national and regional information. It is thus key in advancing gender justice through gender-sensitive information and conscious opposition to gender stereotypes.