This chapter examines how partner country governments and development partners apply a whole-of-society approach in their planning and monitoring of progress on development priorities, including the extent to which they engage a diverse range of stakeholders and support an enabling environment for civil society organisations (CSOs). It also assesses progress towards the commitment to leave no one behind by analysing how governments and development partners consult and prioritise vulnerable and marginalised population groups and whether countries have the data and statistical capacity needed to monitor these efforts in practice.
Making Development Co‑operation More Effective Progress Report 2026
Abstract
Overall, partner country governments and development partners alike engage a wide range of domestic stakeholders when formulating their development policies: on average, 90% of partner country governments engaged the private sector, CSOs, subnational governments, parliaments and development partners when preparing their national development plans. Development partners engaged partner country governments in over 90% of their strategies; however, according to CSOs, these efforts do not always translate into inclusive or substantive processes, as the quality of consultations and the uptake of their outcomes can be strengthened further. Country contexts also influence the extent to which a whole-of-society approach can be applied: in contexts facing extreme fragility, capacity constraints may prevent effective and extensive engagement.
CSOs, development partners and partner country governments’ perceptions of the CSO enabling environment in their respective countries diverge significantly, especially on the space for CSO dialogue and the legal and regulatory environment. In almost 75% of partner countries, CSOs indicate that the consultations organised by development partners are of poor quality. CSOs highlight that development co-operation funding largely reflects development partners’ priorities, and that these do not always align with those of CSOs. They emphasise the need for more consistent advocacy by development partners with governments on improving the enabling environment. Development partners, on the other hand, highlight the need for CSOs to strengthen the effectiveness and inclusivity of their co-ordination mechanisms.
To advance inclusive development and meet their pledge to leave no one behind, partner country governments and development partners report prioritising certain population groups, such as women and girls, youth and children, the poorest and people with disabilities. However, engagement with the most vulnerable, marginalised and harder-to-reach groups, such as the elderly, internally displaced people and LGBTIQ+ people, is more limited, meaning their needs may be at greater risk of being overlooked. To fully ensure no one is left behind, partner countries and their development partners could support capacity development for and establish equal partnerships with organisations representing these groups’ rights.
Limited data availability in most contexts is the biggest obstacle to fully implementing the commitment to leave no one behind. Most partner country governments and their development partners rely on data-based assessments to guide their decision making and to reach population groups facing discrimination. Yet only 12% of partner countries report high or very high data availability, with data disaggregated by migration, ethnicity and Indigenous status being most often unavailable. Fully implementing the commitment to leave no one behind requires better and more disaggregated data, pointing to the need to strengthen statistical systems (as highlighted in Chapter 3).
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development commits partner country governments to engaging a diversity of stakeholders in their policymaking processes and dialogues (UN, 2015[1]). Furthermore, extensive and inclusive stakeholder engagement is vital to ensure that development co-operation efforts reach everyone, as reaffirmed by the 2030 Agenda’s pledge to leave no one behind (LNOB) (UN, 2017[2]). Assessing whether this whole-of-society approach is present and contributing to effective development requires examining both the range of actors involved, including CSOs,1 and the quality of their participation. While a whole-of-society approach involves many stakeholders, such as parliaments, the private sector and subnational governments, this chapter’s analysis focuses on the detailed impressions from CSOs – gathered through the Global Partnership monitoring framework’s assessment of the CSO enabling environment – which provide contextual insights into the quality of the implementation of whole-of-society principles by partner countries and development partners. The chapter assesses the quality of engagement with CSOs and the environment in which CSOs work, as well as how partner country governments and development partners contribute to leaving no one behind by setting priorities and using disaggregated data to identify, define and track those most at risk of being left behind. It asks whether results from consultations led by partner countries consider CSOs inputs when developing policies? Are development partners consulting partner country governments on their country strategies, and if not, why not? And which population groups do partner country governments and development partners tend to engage with the most?
The chapter begins by examining the extent to which stakeholders are involved in preparing national development plans and development partners’ country strategies, as well as in follow-up processes (Section 2.1). Section 2.2 deals with the enabling environment for civil society, while Section 2.3 assesses partner country and development partner performance on leaving no one behind. Finally, Section 2.4 looks at the use and quality of data-based assessments to identify the most vulnerable groups by partner countries and development partners.
Partner country governments engage many stakeholder groups in the preparation of national development plans.2 While partner country governments have the primary responsibility for laying out their country’s development priorities, conducting inclusive consultations with domestic stakeholders to inform these priorities is key to ensure country ownership (GPEDC, 2016[3]). As observed in Figure 2.1, more than 90% of partner country governments engaged the private sector, CSOs, subnational governments and parliaments, as well as development partners, during the preparation of their national development plans. Trade unions and domestic philanthropic organisations were engaged to a lesser extent.
There is less engagement with domestic stakeholders during partner country governments’ follow-up dialogues on development priorities and results. Results show that 91% of partner country governments conducted dialogues to discuss the priorities and results set in their national development plans. For most countries, stakeholders that were not involved in preparing the national development plan were also not engaged during these subsequent dialogues (Figure 2.1). Subnational governments and trade unions, despite being engaged extensively in preparing national development plans, were only engaged in follow-up dialogues on priorities in about half of the partner countries.
Three partner countries report establishing joint accountability assessments to monitor progress against targets for effective development co-operation (discussed in Chapter 5). In these countries, CSOs, private sector representatives and subnational governments were systematically engaged during the preparation of these assessments, as well as in the joint dialogues to discuss progress against the targets.
Share of partner countries with a national development plan in place engaging each stakeholder group
Approaches to engaging stakeholders vary in rigour, ranging from consultations that have a limited effect on policy, to more robust participatory approaches. Unlike consultations – which have varying impacts on policymaking – participatory processes engage stakeholders in co‑creating priorities and agreements through shared decision making, as discussed further below.3 Findings show that 46% of partner country governments engaged the private sector, subnational governments, development partners and CSOs through a participatory process (other stakeholders listed in the assessment were engaged through participatory processes to a lower extent), while the other half only used consultations.
Most governments of countries facing fragility involved CSOs when developing fragility assessments to inform national priorities. Four of the five partner country governments that responded to the fragility adapted questionnaire4 (see the Reader’s Guide) provided insights into the extent of stakeholder engagement while conducting a fragility assessment to inform national development priorities (see Box 2.1 on the whole-of-country approach in risk and fragility assessments). All four partner countries indicated involving CSOs when developing these fragility assessments, while in three countries governments also facilitated the participation of development partners and subnational governments. Other stakeholders, such as the domestic private sector, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator, trade unions, persons with disabilities, and internally displaced people, were engaged in two of the four partner countries.
Partner country governments’ consultations with CSOs could be more meaningful
While partner country governments report widely engaging CSOs in consultations to develop their national development plans, CSOs find the quality of these consultations to be generally insufficient. As touched on above, quality consultations recognise CSOs as co-designers from the start of strategy design, rather than engaging them only in ad hoc, occasional consultations after national development plans are drafted. For consultations to be meaningful, engagement with CSOs needs to be sustained, structured and consistent, allowing for genuine partnership to be reflected in strategies (OECD, 2025[4]). As highlighted in Chapter 7, some countries are beginning to address this through establishing co-ordination platforms to foster systematic dialogue and information sharing. In more than 70% of partner countries, CSOs indicate that they were either not consulted at all, or that partner country governments conducted occasional consultations of limited quality, i.e. without a full diversity of participants, content that was not always agreed upon, and a format that only marginally allowed for meaningful dialogue.
CSOs have a more positive view of whether their inputs were taken into consideration as a result of such consultation processes. In 54% of partner countries, CSOs felt their inputs either occasionally or consistently informed the design, implementation and monitoring of national development policies. For example, in Moldova the government reported high levels of CSO engagement when preparing their national development plan, and CSOs confirmed that their contributions were positively reflected. In its national development plan, the Government of Moldova identifies the need to “improve mechanisms for co-operation between the state and civil society, including through the development of communication and coordination platforms, direct funding of civil society organisations and social contracting” (Government of the Republic of Moldova, 2020[5]).
Despite overall high rates of development partner consultations, there are gaps in some contexts and in quality
Development partners consult partner country governments on their country strategies to a high extent. To enable country ownership and sustainable development, development partners should engage partner country governments when developing their country strategies, either through consultations or when facilitating a sign-off from the partner country government on the strategy. Findings of the assessment show that overall, development partners engaged partner country governments in over 90% of their strategies. When comparing multilateral and bilateral development partners, the former tend to engage partner country governments more systematically than the latter (in 96% and 82% of strategies, respectively).
Development partners tend to engage less with partner country governments in countries facing fragility, or where certain groups are not recognised by governments. Thirty per cent of the strategies for which partner country governments were not consulted (i.e. 2.6% of all strategies) were adopted in countries facing extreme fragility. Fragmented or otherwise constrained government structures may explain this limited extent of consultation with partner country governments. In other contexts, i.e. in partner countries not facing extreme fragility, development partners may decide to focus their development co-operation on population groups not recognised by the partner country government, for example supporting the rights of groups facing discrimination (e.g. Indigenous people, refugees, LGBTIQ+ people5). When operating in contexts where some population groups are not recognised or given priority by partner country governments, development partners wishing to advance inclusive governance through consultations or setting priorities for certain population groups may require risk assessments to fund such support for leaving no one behind (OECD, 2024[6]).
Strengthening CSOs’ co-ordination mechanisms could contribute to improving the quality and inclusiveness of development partners’ consultations with CSOs. Development partners frequently engage with CSOs when developing their partner country strategies (72% of strategies). Yet, CSOs indicate that further efforts by development partners are needed to improve the quality of consultations. In almost 75% of partner countries, CSOs indicate that the consultations organised by development partners during the design, implementation and monitoring of their development co-operation policies were either non-existent or occasional and selective, i.e. involving only a limited number of CSOs identified by development partners. At the same time, development partners in 29% of partner countries consider CSO co-ordination mechanisms to be weak and only limited to a few sectors. In 55% of partner countries, they perceive co-ordination mechanisms to be fragmented and not unified through a single platform. When CSOs are better co-ordinated or united in a single platform this helps development partners consult them more easily.
Development partners that contributed to fragility analyses co-ordinate more with other development partners than with partner country governments or local actors. A fragility assessment is an inclusive and participatory exercise carried out to assess a country’s causes, features and drivers of fragility, as well as the sources of resilience within a country. In the countries which opted to complete the fragility adapted questionnaire (the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen), about 60% of the development partners present in those countries reported having conducted or contributed to an analysis of the risks, needs, vulnerabilities and drivers of fragility for the country. When conducting their analyses, development partners more frequently engaged other development partners (in 85% of risk and fragility analyses) than partner country governments (67%) and local stakeholders (62%). Yet by involving national stakeholders in their risk and fragility assessments, development partners can ensure that their specific needs are recognised, thereby ensuring that targeted priorities are set for them in development partners’ subsequent strategies. Development partners working in contexts of fragility could offer support to local and national state and non-state actors – where relevant – to strengthen their agency and advance more inclusive and coherent humanitarian, development and peace action, as per the DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (OECD, 2019[7]) and the practical guidelines for locally led development (OECD, 2025[4]).
Most country strategies prioritise conflict prevention, as well as mediation and peacebuilding. Many development partners are meeting the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus Recommendation’s call to prioritise prevention, mediation and peacebuilding in their programmes. Almost all the country strategies (93%) of the 26 development partners that conducted or contributed to a risk analysis include priorities targeting conflict prevention, while mediation and peacebuilding are prioritised to a lower extent (76% of strategies).
Country context and mandates shape some development partners’ stakeholder engagement. For example, the International Labour Organization (ILO) consults trade unions extensively when developing its country strategies. This is reflected in the ILO’s Development Co-operation Strategy and manual for development co-operation, which highlight inclusion of trade unions and, more generally, the promotion of inclusive development co-operation policies (ILO, 2020[8]); (ILO, 2021[9]). In addition, Spain indicates engaging Indigenous populations when developing 62% of their country strategies (compared to 9% on average across all other development partners’ strategies), reflecting their commitment to paying special attention to Indigenous organisations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation, 2024[10]). Country context may also explain development partners’ patterns of stakeholders’ engagement. For example, subnational governments are engaged to a greater extent in more decentralised countries, or where development partners’ priorities may focus on decentralisation efforts. This is the case for Pakistan, as well as Mozambique, where 78% of development partners’ country strategies involved subnational governments, as compared to 60% on average across all countries.
The CSO enabling environment assessment (EEA) provides insights into CSO engagement in development co-operation, complementing other sources of evidence on the environment for civil society. As part of the Global Partnership monitoring exercise and through the EEA, partner country governments,6 CSOs and development partners assess the key conditions that enable CSOs to contribute to development efforts effectively (as shown in Figure 2.2).7 The EEA focuses on how governments and development partners engage with CSOs through dialogue mechanisms and financial support, and on CSOs’ own development effectiveness efforts, shaped by their commitments – such as to the Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness (Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness, 2010[11]). It also gathers information on whether the regulatory environment supports CSOs’ participation in development processes. The CSO EEA does not aim to provide a full assessment of the broader landscape of political rights, civil liberties or freedoms. Instead, it offers insights into the aspects of the enabling environment most relevant to development co‑operation. As such, findings should be interpreted alongside complementary data sources, such as the CIVICUS Monitor (CIVICUS, 2025[12]) or the Freedom House Index (Freedom House, 2025[13]), to obtain a broader picture of CSOs’ conditions in partner countries.
Development partners, partner country governments and CSOs differ in how they perceive the CSO enabling environment, especially the space for CSO dialogue and the legal and regulatory environment.8 On average, partner country government representatives tend to perceive the space for CSO dialogue, CSOs’ own effectiveness and the legal and regulatory environment more positively than do CSOs and development partners (Figure 2.2).
Average score per stakeholder group (partner country governments, development partners, CSOs) for each of the four modules of the CSO EEA
Note: The chart includes data from 34 countries where comprehensive reporting from all three stakeholder groups has been recorded (at least one stakeholder group did not report in each of the remaining ten countries). Each dot represents the assessment made by various reporting stakeholders. The average score to assess each module ranges from 0 (“negligible”) to 1 (“extensive”). For representation purposes, the minimum value in the chart is 0.4 (“basic”).
Overall, CSOs assess the quality of their partnerships with development partners to be limited, though development partners do not always agree. The quality of these partnerships is assessed in the module “development co-operation with CSOs” (as shown in Figure 2.2). The key elements that ensure effective partnerships between CSOs and development partners are predictable funding for which information is publicly available; development partners that make efforts to conduct inclusive and co-ordinated consultations with CSOs on their policies; and development partners that advocate for CSO enabling environment aspects in discussions with partner country governments (OECD, 2025[4]). CSOs consider that only 26% of partner countries have most of these elements in place (i.e. where they assess development co-operation between development partners and CSOs to be either “moderate” or “extensive”). According to development partners, on the other hand, this is the case in 62% of partner countries.
CSOs consider that development partners could further integrate their priorities when entrusting them with funding. Increasing quality funding for CSOs – which aligns with commitments to advancing locally led development in practice – means granting long-term (multi-annual), predictable and flexible grants that extend beyond short-term project cycles (OECD, 2025[4]). It also means ensuring that funding is accessible to a wide range of local CSOs as independent development and humanitarian actors in their own right, as well as implementing partners (OECD, 2021[14]); (OECD, 2023[15]). Gaps remain to be filled if development partners are to fully realise these commitments. In more than 80% of partner countries, CSOs consider that development partners’ funding is either restricted (promoting development partners’ own priorities through unpredictable calls for proposals and funding opportunities), or limited, i.e. despite being predictable and transparent, it does not support CSOs’ own priorities or initiatives (Figure 2.3).
CSO responses on the extent to which development partner financial support maximises their sustainable engagement (share of countries)
Note: The chart presents CSOs’ responses on the quality of development partners’ funding, from poor quality (left) to high quality (right).
CSOs expect development partners to advocate more systematically with partner country governments to improve the civil society enabling environment. Systematically addressing the CSO enabling environment helps strengthen legal and regulatory frameworks, helping civil society to promote human rights, foster dialogue and build pluralistic democracies (UN Human Rights Council, 2018[16]). According to CSOs, development partners only actively promote the value of an inclusive and independent civil society in their dialogue with governments in one third of partner countries. In most of the remaining partner countries, CSOs recognise that some development partners occasionally include elements of the enabling environment agenda as an item in their policy dialogue with partner country governments.
Although partner country governments consider CSOs’ co-ordination and accountability mechanisms to be effective in most partner countries, development partners highlight persistent gaps. The effectiveness of these mechanisms is assessed in the module “CSOs’ effectiveness” (as shown in Figure 2.2). CSOs have agreed in international forums and standards to demonstrate sustained organisational good practices: to operate transparently, and foster mutual accountability and integrity in their internal operations (Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness, 2010[11]); (Core Humanitarian Standard, 2024[17]). Based on these principles, partner country governments assess CSOs’ effectiveness positively in almost 80% of partner countries,9 noting that CSOs tend to implement most of their own development work guided by human rights standards and principles and are likely to establish and manage accountability mechanisms through representative platforms. As indicated earlier in this chapter, development partners are more critical, noting that gaps remain in CSO-led co-ordination platforms, i.e. where these platforms are only representative of a few sectors and organisations. However, CSOs may have differing views and highlight the limited funding from development partners dedicated to reinforcing CSOs-led accountability platforms (OECD, forthcoming[18]).
Legal protections for CSOs working with vulnerable and marginalised groups are insufficient in many countries, according to CSOs. A protective and enabling legal and regulatory framework allows CSOs to contribute fully to development processes. This is especially vital for their work with vulnerable and marginalised groups, as the protection afforded enables CSOs to actively work towards reducing discrimination and marginalisation and advance the commitment to leaving no one behind. However, CSOs report that these legal and regulatory protections are only effective in one quarter of partner countries, and insufficient in almost half of partner countries. In these countries, legal protection to CSOs working with vulnerable and marginalised populations is considered either non-existent or applied inconsistently, affecting their capacity to protect these groups. CSOs also indicate that in these countries, judiciary or administrative appeal mechanisms for populations suffering from severe harassment from public authorities are missing or not applied.
All partners highlight that leaving no one behind (LNOB) is fundamental to effective development co-operation, and call for improved data and attention to groups most at risk. With reports of discrimination and human rights’ repression rising globally (UN DESA, 2025[19]) (CIVICUS, 2025[20]), UN Member States reaffirmed their commitments to LNOB in the 2025 Doha Political Declaration of the World Social Summit (United Nations General Assembly, 2025[21]). In the Nairobi Outcome Document of the 2nd High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership (GPEDC, 2016[3]), partner country governments and development partners stressed that more and better data were required to identify and generate knowledge about who is being left behind. They also recognised the need to continue to support gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as the importance of focusing on children and youth to achieve inclusive, equitable and sustainable development for present and future generations. Adherents to the DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance (captured in the Global Partnership monitoring exercise as DAC members) commit to dedicating actions to advance gender equality, while also integrating a gender perspective across their development co-operation activities (OECD, 2024[22]).
Partner countries and development partners engage less with some marginalised and vulnerable groups than others
Partner country governments engage strongly with women’s, girls’ and youth rights organisations in shaping and discussing development priorities, but engagement is slightly less consistent when it comes to some vulnerable and marginalised population groups.10 Ensuring that no one is left behind means that partner country governments must work to consult, and when feasible, co-design strategies, with vulnerable populations and marginalised groups. Working with these populations from the outset of strategy and policy development enhances the legitimacy of strategies by ensuring representation of a diverse set of lived experiences and local realities (OECD, 2025[4]). Around 84% of governments report engaging with CSOs representing the rights of women and girls, as well as youth and children (Box 2.2), when developing their national development plans or when organising dialogues on development priorities (Figure 2.4). In doing so, partner country governments align with their commitment to contribute to “end[ing] discrimination and exclusion, and reduc[ing] the inequalities and vulnerabilities that leave people behind” (UN Sustainable Development Group, 2022[23]). However, engagement with vulnerable and marginalised population groups is lower overall (at 79%), and partner country governments report engaging some groups, such as peoples with disabilities, more systematically than others. Increased engagement with all such groups will accelerate progress towards this objective.
Share of partner countries with a national development strategy in place engaging organisations representing each population group
Note: Partner country governments report having engaged vulnerable and marginalised population groups when at least one group from the following list has been involved: particular ethnic groups; human rights organisations; women’s rights organisations; Indigenous peoples, religious minorities, environmental organisations; LGBTIQ+ organisations; or organisations for people with disabilities.
The majority of partner countries engage with youth and children’s rights organisations in the development of their national development strategy. Eighty-four percent of partner country governments with a national development strategy indicate having consulted CSOs representing youth and children (Figure 2.4). When doing so, partner country governments lay the foundations for designing policies that provide opportunities for and address the needs of young people. Participatory approaches to engagement are more common in African countries, where 55% of partner country governments involve youth and children through these methods, compared to 18% of governments in other regions. This possibly reflects the continent’s demographic profile, with 60% of the population under the age of 25 (Berlin Institute for Population and Development, 2024[24]).
Partner countries also report a high level of engagement with youth and children’s CSOs when discussing national development priorities (81%) (Figure 2.4). In addition, 97% of partner country governments indicate setting specific development priorities for youth and children, with 90% setting priorities for young women in particular. Some of the most common development priorities set by partner country governments for younger populations are promoting youth employment, supporting community and recreational spaces, and developing skills. Some countries have dedicated national youth policies that establish a shared vision and clear priorities for youth development. These include Malawi’s National Youth Policy (2023-2028) (Malawi, Ministry of Youth and Sports, 2023[25]), Zimbabwe’s National Youth Policy (2020-2025) (Ministry of Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation, 2020[26]), and Kenya’s Youth Development Policy (2019) (Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender, 2019[27]). In addition, countries are also developing specific strategies for youth engagement in peace and security, such as the Gambia’s National Action Plan on Youth, Peace, and Security (UNDP, 2025[28]), which recognises the role of youth in peacebuilding, conflict prevention and development in the country.
While most countries track budget allocations targeting youth and children, there is room to expand the development of results indicators disaggregated by age. Eighty-six per cent of partner countries report having a system in place to track budget allocations for youth and children, which is important for translating priorities into effective financing for programmes that target this group. However, 44% of partner countries indicate that they have not set disaggregated results indicators by age, although 81% indicate having data available to track results indicators at this disaggregation level for all or some results indicators.1
1. Chapter 3 provides insights into the quality of partner countries’ statistical systems and opportunities to strengthen them.
Development partners engage various population groups in over half of their country strategies. In 60% of the country strategies reported on, development partners engaged organisations representing the rights of women and girls when defining these strategies. This share is slightly lower for youth (54% of country strategies), and for vulnerable and marginalised population groups (52%). Multilateral development partners are significantly more likely to engage organisations representing these groups’ rights than bilateral development partners when defining their strategies.11
Most development partners’ strategies include the need to support women, girls and youth rights organisations to organise and represent themselves, but fewer do so for vulnerable and marginalised groups. Despite not systematically engaging with women, girls and youth and children rights organisations when developing their country-level strategies, the vast majority of development partners highlight that these strategies do include support to strengthen the capacity of women and girls and of youth and children to organise and represent themselves (92% and 81% of country strategies, respectively). However, these statements are not necessarily backed by enough funding. Women’s rights organisations estimate that USD 1.5 billion would be considered the minimum baseline for supporting feminist movements (Shake the Table/The Bridgespan Group, 2022[29]). This estimate reflects total support across all funders and financing modalities. OECD data show that DAC members’ bilateral ODA to support the effectiveness and sustainability of women’s rights organisations has hovered around USD 500 million over the past years (OECD, 2025[30]). While not directly comparable, this suggests that current levels of support are below estimated needs. Furthermore, less than half of all development partners’ strategies (44%) include support to strengthen the capacity of vulnerable and marginalised groups, despite such groups being highly prioritised in development partners’ strategies, as discussed below.
The needs of harder-to-reach groups are less systematically integrated by development partners and partner country governments
Partner country governments and development partners more consistently prioritise some population groups over harder‑to‑reach groups when setting development priorities. In line with their commitments to leave no one behind, almost all partner country governments and their development partners set priorities for some population groups: the poorest, women and girls, children and youth, and people with disabilities (Figure 2.5). However, development priorities are included to a much lower extent by both development and country partners for population groups that are often more marginalised, less visible and harder-to-reach, such as ethnic minorities and Indigenous people, LGBTIQ+ communities, and refugees, stateless and internally displaced people. This may be explained partly by the fact that some partner country governments do not recognise the presence or the importance of certain groups and consequently give less attention to the recognition of their rights. For development partners, the recognition and prioritisation of these groups may be considered politically sensitive and impact their relationships with some partner country governments, which may explain their decision not to explicitly reflect priorities for these groups in their country strategies.
Proportion of national development plans (partner countries) and country strategies (development partners) including priorities targeting various population groups
Note: As defined under SDG.1.2, the category “the poorest” is defined as the men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions in partner countries (UN, 2015[1]).
Both partner country governments and development partners increasingly acknowledge the specific needs of populations vulnerable to climate change, as shown by rising development co-operation funding allocated to biodiversity and climate action. The specific needs of vulnerable populations exposed to climate change are largely recognised in both partner countries’ and development partners’ plans and strategies (Figure 2.5). An upward trend in the share of DAC members’ bilateral ODA disbursements targeting global environment objectives, from 26% in 2015 to 34% in 2024, seems to confirm this finding (OECD, 2026[31]). ODA that integrates both climate and gender equality objectives has also been on the rise (OECD, 2025[30]), recognising that women and girls are disproportionately affected by climate change and biodiversity loss, and that their leadership and knowledge are central to developing effective solutions. In Bhutan, a climate change vulnerability analysis complements climate hazard assessments to understand the scale of impact of climate change to inform adaptation planning (Bhutan’s National Environment Commission/UNDP, 2022[32]). Through the inclusion of a sensitivity index, the assessment highlights the disproportionate exposure to climate change for specific population groups, e.g. populations involved in agriculture and female-headed households.
The use of data-based assessments to identify the most vulnerable is common among partner countries and development partners. Data-driven assessments help identify who is at risk of being left behind so that development priorities can effectively reach the most vulnerable and marginalised (GPEDC, 2021[33]). Most partner countries (38 of the 43 reporting on this measurement) use data-based assessments to identify the most vulnerable (see Box 2.3 for a good practice example from Nepal). Of these, a majority rely on a combination of different types of measurements, including poverty, vulnerability and marginalisation measurements, reflecting an understanding of the multidimensional nature of poverty and inequalities. These assessments draw heavily on national-level data in combination with other sources (e.g. international surveys, CSO data, private sector data). Almost all partner countries with a data-based assessment (37 out of 38) indicated that this was informed by data disaggregated to the subnational level, highlighting the importance of local-level data when identifying those furthest behind. Similarly, most development partners (91%) report having conducted a data-based assessment to identify the most vulnerable populations to target in their country-level strategies, and state that such assessments are predominantly based on a combination of available national data and other sources (e.g. international data, their own organisations’ data). Furthermore, most development partners’ interventions (85%) recognise the importance of conducting distributional analysis. This is crucial to assess how development programmes affect inequalities by revealing how different population groups experience their impacts. Such analysis tends to be used less in small-scale procurement, capacity building and technical assistance projects.
Nepal has developed a national framework to leave no one behind that uses varying levels of disaggregated data to track progress on indicators for communities and groups that are furthest behind in the country (National Planning Commission, 2022[34]). The data-based assessment identifies those furthest behind using five dimensions of exclusion. These include three broad dimensions (socio-economic status, governance, and shocks and fragility), with the dimensions of social discrimination and spatial disadvantages embedded as social and spatial identities. Each of these dimensions is then assessed against key indicators using available data (e.g. socio-economic status uses 18 indicators disaggregated by gender, location of residence and caste/ethnicity).
To build a shared understanding of how to ensure no one is left behind, Nepal engaged in targeted consultations with line ministries, provincial planning bodies and national stakeholders, including civil society and representatives of those facing active marginalisation, development partners and thematic groups, to align priorities to reach those furthest behind.
The framework also includes a National Level Results Framework with the goal of ensuring LNOB is operationalised across policies, programme interventions, and monitoring and evaluation systems across three tiers of government. This is linked to specific outcomes such as the identification of excluded and marginalised groups, addressing policy gaps for those left behind, making disaggregated data available with robust monitoring and evaluation systems, strengthening institutional mechanisms, and ensuring programme alignment for government and non-government agencies to monitor progress on LNOB.
Source: National Planning Commission (2022[34]), Nepal's National Framework for Leave No One Behind, https://www.dpnet.org.np/resource-detail/1849.
Most partner countries define disaggregated results indicators, but their breakdown is uneven across socio-economic and demographic categories due to limited data availability, hindering the tracking of progress for the most vulnerable. Most partner countries (86%) include results indicators in their national development plans and most commonly disaggregate these indicators by sex, geographic area and age. However, results indicators are less frequently broken down by income group, ethnicity, Indigenous status or migration status. UN SDG monitoring guidance recognises that disaggregated data are critical for assessing whether progress reaches the poorest and most vulnerable (UN, 2015[1]). More than half of partner countries (58%) report that the availability of data and statistics needed to monitor progress on results indicators for the most vulnerable is low, or that progress could not be assessed because of the absence of a results framework in the national development strategy. Only 12% of partner countries report high or very high data availability. Most partner country governments indicate that across all disaggregation levels, data are only available for some results indicators, while significantly fewer countries have data available for all results indicators (Figure 2.6). In addition, higher proportions of countries report having data for all results indicators that are disaggregated by sex, age and geographic area than those reporting having data for all results indicators that are disaggregated by migration status or ethnicity/Indigenous identity (Figure 2.6). These patterns may be influenced by differences in data capacities and conceptual understanding of these different identities, or by political sensitivities around some types of disaggregation. Sex, age, and geographic data are generally established in national statistical systems and are collected routinely. In contrast, the availability of data on ethnicity, Indigenous status or migration status depends on whether survey instruments include the relevant questions, adequately cover harder-to-reach populations or successfully navigate political or social sensitivities.
Proportion of countries for which disaggregated data are available to monitor progress on results indicators, by disaggregation level
Ensuring that no one is left behind requires strong national statistical systems that can generate reliable and sufficient disaggregated data. Addressing the gaps identified above will require long-term investments in strengthening statistical institutions and national capacity to identify target groups and needs, collect data, and use it for tracking progress and identifying gaps. This includes LNOB-specific needs, such as strengthening capacity for distributional and intersectional analysis; improving methods to identify harder-to‑reach populations; ensuring surveys and data systems prioritise vulnerable groups; and reinforcing data governance, ethics, privacy and public trust, so that partner countries can generate and use inclusive, high-quality data to understand and address inequalities. As highlighted in Chapter 3, realising this requires strong commitment from partner country governments to improve their statistical systems and adopt new tools and technologies (see the example of Nigeria in Chapter 7). It also requires development partners to increase their support and co-ordinate their funding through existing initiatives. These include PARIS21, which provides strategic planning and capacity development for national statistical systems; and the Bern Network and its Clearinghouse for Financing Development Data, which aim to improve the co-ordination and transparency of data financing. In addition, the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data’s inclusive data charter is another example of an initiative aiming at advancing the availability and use of inclusive and disaggregated data (Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, 2018[35]).
References
[24] Berlin Institute for Population and Development (2024), Africa’s Future Is Young! Young People’s Priorities for Their Reproductive and Sexual Self-Determination, https://www.berlin-institut.org/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Jugendstudie_e_RZ_online_2.pdf.
[32] Bhutan’s National Environment Commission/UNDP (2022), Climate Change Vulnerability Analyses and Mapping for National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Formulation Process in Bhutan, UNDP Bhutan, https://www.undp.org/bhutan/publications/climate-change-vulnerability-analyses-and-mapping-national-adaptation-plan-nap-formulation-process-bhutan.
[20] CIVICUS (2025), 2025 State of Civil Society Report, https://publications.civicus.org/publications/2025-state-of-civil-society-report/overview/.
[12] CIVICUS (2025), People Power Under Attack 2025. A report based on data from the CIVICUS monitor, https://civicusmonitor.contentfiles.net/media/documents/GlobalFindings2025.EN.pdf.
[17] Core Humanitarian Standard (2024), Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability, https://www.corehumanitarianstandard.org/.
[13] Freedom House (2025), Freedom House Index Dashboard, https://freedomhouse.org/country/scores (accessed on 24 February 2026).
[35] Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data (2018), Inclusive Data Charter, https://www.data4sdgs.org/initiatives/inclusive-data-charter (accessed on 8 March 2026).
[5] Government of the Republic of Moldova (2020), National Development Strategy “Moldova Europeană 2030”, Government of the Republic of Moldova, https://old.gov.md/ro/moldova2030.
[37] GPEDC (2023), 2023-2026 Monitoring Guide, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, https://effectivecooperation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Main%20Guide%20%28ENG%29.pdf.
[33] GPEDC (2021), Effectiveness Issues in Development Co-operation for Data and Statistics, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/system/files/2021-11/Issues%20Paper%20-%20Effective%20Support%20for%20Development%20Data_GPEDC_FINAL.pdf.
[3] GPEDC (2016), Nairobi Outcome Document, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Nairobi-Outcome-Document-English.pdf.
[9] ILO (2021), Internal Governance Manual - Development Cooperation, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@exrel/documents/publication/wcms_452076.pdf.
[8] ILO (2020), ILO Development Cooperation Strategy 2020-25, https://www.ilo.org/resource/report/gb/340/ilo-development-cooperation-strategy-2020%E2%80%9325.
[25] Malawi, Ministry of Youth and Sports (2023), Malawi’s Youth Plan, https://pachimalawi.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/National-Youth-Policy-2023-2028-Final.pdf.
[10] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation (2024), Spanish Cooperation Master Plan for Sustainable Development and Global Solidarity, https://www.cooperacionespanola.es/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spanish-Cooperation-Master-Plan-2024-2027.pdf.
[27] Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender (2019), Kenya Youth Development Policy 2019, Republic of Kenya, https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Kenya-Youth-Development-Policy-2019.pdf.
[26] Ministry of Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation (2020), Zimbabwe’s National Youth Policy 2020-2025, Republic of Zimbabwe, https://zgc.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/NATIONAL-YOUTH-POLICY-2020-2025.pdf.
[34] National Planning Commission (2022), Nepal’s National Framework for Leave No One Behind, Government of Nepal, https://www.dpnet.org.np/resource-detail/1849.
[31] OECD (2026), Development finance for climate and environment, webpage, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/development-finance-for-climate-and-the-environment.html (accessed on 10 March 2026).
[30] OECD (2025), Development Finance for Gender Equality (dashboard), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/development-finance-for-gender-equality.html (accessed on 9 March 2026).
[4] OECD (2025), Guidelines for operationalising locally led development.
[22] OECD (2024), DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5022.
[6] OECD (2024), Policy Guidance: Enabling Inclusive Governance, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6d995bed-en.
[15] OECD (2023), Funding Civil Society in Partner Countries: Toolkit for Implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ea40a9c-en.
[14] OECD (2021), DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5021.
[7] OECD (2019), DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-5019.
[18] OECD (forthcoming), “Report on the implementation, dissemination and continued relevance of the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance”.
[11] Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness (2010), Istanbul CSO Development Effectiveness Principles, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/content/istanbul-principles-development-effectiveness.
[29] Shake the Table/The Bridgespan Group (2022), Lighting the Way: A Report for Philanthropy on the Power and Promise of Feminist Movements, https://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/ffacac3d-6b29-45ca-b82c-e836af6e1cb4/full-report-philanthropy-and-feminist-movements.pdf.
[2] UN (2017), Leaving No One Behind: Equality and non-discrimination at the heart of sustainable development : a shared United Nations System framework for action, United Nations, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1628748?v=pdf.
[1] UN (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
[19] UN DESA (2025), The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2025/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2025.pdf.
[16] UN Human Rights Council (2018), Resolution on civil society space: engagement with international and regional organizations. Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 6 July 2018, https://www.right-docs.org/doc/a-hrc-res-38-12/.
[23] UN Sustainable Development Group (2022), Operationalizing Leaving No One Behind, https://unsdg.un.org/resources/leaving-no-one-behind-unsdg-operational-guide-un-country-teams.
[28] UNDP (2025), Gambia’s National Action Plan on Youth, Peace and Security (2025-2030), https://www.undp.org/gambia/publications/national-action-plan-youth-peace-and-security-2025-2030.
[36] UNHCR (2021), Tip sheet on applying the UNHCR age, gender and diversity policy to LGBTIQ+ persons, https://www.unhcr.org/media/tip-sheet-applying-unhcr-age-gender-and-diversity-policy-lgbtiq-persons.
[21] United Nations General Assembly (2025), Doha Political Declaration of the “World Social Summit” under the title “the Second World Summit for Social Development”, United Nations General Assembly, https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/80/5.
← 1. The term “CSO” refers to all non-market and non-state organisations outside the family in which people organise themselves to pursue shared interests in the public domain. They cover a range of organisations that includes membership-based CSOs, cause-based CSOs and service-delivery CSOs. Throughout the chapter, “CSOs” should be understood as “domestic CSOs”, i.e. CSOs from the partner country in which they operate.
← 2. In the monitoring assessment, partner country governments are invited to indicate whether the following domestic stakeholder groups were engaged during the preparation of their national development plans and the subsequent dialogues to discuss progress on development priorities: CSOs, the private sector, parliaments, development partners, trade unions, philanthropic organisations, subnational governments, and other domestic stakeholders (such as academic institutions).
← 3. A participatory process is a process of engaging with other stakeholders that offers opportunities and mechanisms designed for reaching a consensus on the priorities and commitments. In contrast with consultative processes, which are opportunities to provide input to the process, participatory processes are characterised by the co-definition of priority areas and/or targets.
← 4. Five countries facing fragility opted to undertake an adapted version of the monitoring exercise (a fragility-adapted questionnaire) to capture elements that they consider relevant to their context. These countries are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. Four of these countries indicated having conducted a fragility assessment to inform national priorities. In the remaining country, the extent of engagement through other processes was not assessed. See the Reader’s Guide at the front of this report for more details on the fragility questionnaire.
← 5. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and plus (UNHCR, 2021[36]).
← 6. As governments play a central role in co-ordinating the reporting process, some CSOs may not always feel fully at ease expressing concerns openly. This potential dynamic does not diminish the value of the data but should be considered when interpreting the CSO EEA findings.
← 7. Further information on the CSO enabling environment assessment is available in Annex B of the monitoring framework, as well as in the monitoring guide (GPEDC, 2023[37]).
← 8. Data were collected across all stakeholders (CSOs, development partners and governments) in the CSO enabling environment assessment in 34 partner countries. Questionnaires were completed by 42 partner country governments, 38 development partners and 37 CSOs.
← 9. I.e. where partner country governments describe the CSO enabling environment as “moderate” or “extensive”.
← 10. Vulnerable and marginalised groups refer to groups that may be vulnerable to human rights violations, groups that are structurally discriminated against, and groups that have difficulties representing themselves and therefore need special consideration. These groups may vary from country to country. They might include organisations of particular ethnic groups; human rights organisations; women’s rights organisations; Indigenous peoples, religious minorities, environmental organisations; LGBTIQ+ organisations; or organisations for people with disabilities.
← 11. In 66% of the country strategies reported on by multilateral development partners, organisations representing the rights of women and girls were engaged when defining these strategies. This compares to 43% of the strategies for bilateral partners. This difference is also observed for youth and children’s rights organisations (62% versus 37% of strategies respectively), and organisations representing vulnerable and marginalised population groups (60% versus 36% of strategies respectively).