Practical Guidelines for Supporting Locally Led Development

2. Action area: Clarity of intentions and definitions

Abstract

This action area highlights the gap between development partners’ intentions to support locally led development (LLD) and the reality of its implementation. It offers practical entry points for translating ambitions into actionable policies and frameworks, either as standalone strategies or integrated within existing plans. This section emphasises the importance of clearly defining what LLD entails and identifying who qualifies as “local”, ensuring that definitions align with development partners’ and local actors’ priorities and realities. Finally, this action area spotlights considerations for establishing measurable qualitative and quantitative targets to underpin policy commitments to support LLD.

What is the issue?

Despite strong global commitments to locally led development (LLD) co-operation, the intentions of development partners often fall short in practice (Publish What You Fund, 2025[1]). Ambiguity persists around how core development values (including trust, respect, humility, transparency, mutuality and reciprocity) and key behaviours like collective accountability, co-creation and shared visions are translated into delivery systems and partnerships. Without a clear political stance (see Box 2.1) and visible behavioural change by development partners, development partnerships and funding models risk remaining top-down and development partner-driven, undermining mutual trust and shared decision making, which are fundamental to effectively supporting LLD.

Clear intentions for supporting LLD can be reinforced by aligning definitions, policies and approaches, ensuring that commitments are supported by a shared understanding of what LLD entails and how it will be pursued. Not having internal clarity on the fundamentals of LLD, such as who is local, what quality funding means and what locally led evaluations are, hinders operationalising LLD and monitoring progress. Definitional ambiguities lead to different approaches across and within development partners to operationalise LLD in development, humanitarian, peace and climate portfolios. Eventually, it risks crowding out independent local organisations and can erode trust between local actors and intermediaries.

The framing of what qualifies as a local entity is often determined by development partners’ operational procedures, instead of being informed by the views and realities of local partners. International civil society organisations with national offices have added complexity: while local offices may be legally registered and locally staffed, their governance and funding often remain tied to international headquarters. Some development partners classify these entities as “local”; others do not.

Box 2.1. Political leadership and engagement in support of locally led development

Strong and sustained political leadership is essential for moving locally led development (LLD) from the margins to the centre of development co-operation. This applies both to development partners and to partner country actors, whose leadership and commitment are equally critical to shaping priorities, enabling environments and sustaining reform efforts. Without visible commitment, resources remain limited and trust with local partners erodes. Making roles, expectations and interdependencies across partners explicit can help move beyond a one-directional view of co-operation towards more reciprocal and balanced partnerships. Political will and institutional reform must reinforce one another: political support is unlikely to endure without changes to systems and practices, and institutional reform will not take root without leadership backing it.

Senior leaders can drive this agenda by clearly communicating why LLD matters for sustainable development outcomes and local ownership, championing it across portfolios and building understanding among domestic stakeholders, including parliament, media and the wider public.

• In the 2025 Spending Review of ODA, the United Kingdom’s Minister of State for International Development, Latin America and the Caribbean formally expressed the United Kingdom’s ambition to transform its country development partnerships “from international intervention to local provision; working through local partners and civil society to deliver sustainable, locally led solutions”.

• The president and chief executive officer of the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation vocally supports LLD and targeted funding as good donorship (Siefer, 2025[2]).

Back high-level commitment with strong institutional champions. Consider establishing dedicated cross-sectoral working groups or focal points to champion LLD across your organisation. These internal champions can connect humanitarian, development and peace portfolios, helping to integrate LLD practices across teams, headquarters, country offices and multilateral representations. They also serve as bridges to external partners and networks, fostering innovation and peer learning.

• Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members like Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK) have established cross-sectoral LLD working groups.

• Switzerland’s experience shows how local civil society organisations played an active role in creating space for nationalised dialogue on LLD to help secure LLD in its international development policy and at high-level meetings.

Consider how your country’s context, identity or values support a compelling national narrative around LLD. Framing LLD as part of a country’s story, rather than an external agenda, can help mobilise political support, influence senior leadership and create space for policy and institutional reforms.

• Canada aligns its LLD agenda with domestic efforts to advance Indigenous self-determination and strengthen community leadership.

• Ireland draws on its own experience of economic and political transition to frame development co-operation around mutual and partnership-based engagement with governments and civil society.

• Switzerland grounds its approach to LLD in its decentralised federal model and strong tradition of citizen participation, viewing development as a multi-stakeholder process.

Sources: Center for Global Development (2024[3]), The Challenge of Localization, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/challenge-localization; OECD (2024[4]), Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation: Learning by Example, https://doi.org/10.1787/51079bba-en; OECD (2024[5]), From global to local: Multilateral actors and the pivot to locally led development, DCD(2024)23, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)23/en/pdf; OECD (2023[6]), Integrating indigenous worldviews and knowledge into New Zealand’s foreign policy, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/integrating-indigenous-worldviews-and-knowledge-into-new-zealand-s-foreign-policy_e216bed0-en.html; OECD (2024[7]), Peer learning on Locally led development – DAC members deep dive: Switzerland, OECD ONE Members and Partners Database, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)26/en/pdf; Siefer (2025[2]), Foundations Look to New Models of International Development amid Retrenchment, https://nonprofitquarterly.org/foundations-look-to-new-models-of-international-development-amid-retrenchment/; UK FCDO (2025[8]), Spending Review 2025: Official Development Assistance (ODA), https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/48472/documents/253894/default/.

Where to start

Translating locally led development ambitions and commitments into clear policies or frameworks

LLD ambitions and commitments can be reflected in policies or frameworks, whether stand-alone or integrated into existing strategies, supported by guidance and tools that provide greater clarity on how staff might be expected to operationalise them. Such frameworks should provide direction on how to structure partnerships with international actors to advance LLD, including the provision of core, flexible, multi-year and predictable funding for local organisations, networks and coalitions, moving beyond project-based approaches. To be effective, LLD policies should be accessible, adapted to context (including through translation into relevant local languages, where relevant), developed through internal and external consultation and co-creation with local actors, and paired with monitoring and evaluation frameworks to strengthen accountability. Clear political leadership and direction from the outset are essential to avoid “policy evaporation” during implementation (OECD, 2024[4]; OECD, 2023[9]; OECD, 2014[10]).

• Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) enshrined LLD in its International Development Policy (Australia DFAT, 2023[11]) and subsequently published LLD guidelines (Australia DFAT, 2024[12]) for its implementing staff. The guidelines highlight paths for embedding LLD into specific phases of an existing project lifecycle or business model, including at the portfolio level (regional- or country-level plans and sector strategies) and the investment level (planning and concept, design, granting and contract, implementation, and stages of monitoring, evaluation and learning) (Australia DFAT, 2024[12]).

• Belgium’s Humanitarian Aid Strategy (2026) positions LLD as a central pathway to more effective and sustainable humanitarian action. It explicitly recognises that this requires “a cultural shift, including the transfer of decision-making power, resources and control to local and national actors” (Belgian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Co-operation, 2026[13]).

• Global Affairs Canada has developed a draft internal LLD policy guidance, informed by consultation with Canadian civil society organisations, internal staff and local actors, to support its staff to incorporate LLD into daily systems and processes.

• Switzerland has integrated locally led co-operation (LLC) as one of five core approaches in its International Development Co-operation Strategy 2025-28 (SDC, 2025[14]), along with an accompanying guidance note to clarify the concepts and facilitate the operational translation of LLC. In addition it developed a Pathway for Action Report on supporting LLC across the HDP nexus, demonstrating Switzerland’s longstanding commitment to local actors (SDC, 2025[15]).

• The Programme Operating Framework: Overview (UK FCDO, 2023[16]) of the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (UK FCDO) establishes locally led as a core foundational principle that guides how programme teams operate and collaborate.

There is no one-size-fits-all model or policy for supporting LLD. If a stand-alone LLD policy is not feasible, existing international commitments, like the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance (OECD, 2021[17]), the Grand Bargain (IASC, n.d.[18]), the Busan Partnership Agreement (GPEDC, 2020[19]) and the Development Partner Statement on Supporting LLD (Fundación Avina, 2023[20]), can be considered as entry points to embed approaches to support LLD. In practice, this may involve translating these commitments into operational guidance, programming priorities, performance frameworks and partnership approaches across the organisation. Aligning to international policy commitments can help create a shared sense of mission around LLD co-operation, anchors policies in concrete frameworks, and subsequently, can underpin behavioural change across staff, contractors, and delivery partners.

Gender equality, disability rights and Indigenous-led frameworks offer strategic avenues for embedding locally led principles, as these agendas share mutually reinforcing commitments. These policies depend on equitable partnerships with women’s rights organisations, organisations of persons with disabilities and Indigenous peoples, naturally aligning with locally led models. At the same time, their implementation requires careful navigation of tensions that may arise where universal human rights standards and values, such as non-discrimination and equal participation, are not fully reflected in local norms or practices. In such contexts, development partners face the dual responsibility of supporting locally grounded approaches while upholding internationally agreed human rights commitments, requiring context-sensitive, dialogue-based strategies that promote inclusion without reinforcing exclusionary dynamics.

• Australia DFAT International Gender Equality Strategy (Australia DFAT, 2025[21]) is supporting locally led approaches to women’s leadership, and its Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion: Good Practice Note (Australia DFAT, 2023[22]) helps development partners improve the effectiveness of this agenda.

• Global Affairs Canada’s Women’s Voice and Leadership Program (OECD, 2025[23]) exemplifies how to take both a feminist and locally driven approach to development programmes.

• The Support Fund for Feminist Organizations (AFD, n.d.[24]) of the French Development Agency (AFD) aims to reduce gender-based inequalities by strengthening feminist civil society organisations in partner countries.

• One of the five core principles of the United Kingdom’s FCDO International Women and Girls Strategy (2023-30) (UK FCDO, 2023[25]) focusses on amplifying the work of diverse grassroots women’s organisations and taking a locally led approach to integrating the voices of women and girls into policy decisions.

The DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (OECD, 2019[26]) recommends supporting local and national authorities to lead and co-ordinate coherent humanitarian, development and peace programming across the nexus:

• In 2025, BRAC and the European Union launched a joint initiative (BRAC, 2025[27]) combining humanitarian and development approaches to support Rohingya and host communities, grounded in the principles of accountability to affected populations, coexistence and community empowerment.

▲Pitfall to avoid:

• Avoid raising expectations among local actors through ambitious development partner-driven statements without clearly communicating the sequencing, constraints and a credible pathway for implementation, as this may be perceived as symbolic and risks weakening trust with local actors over time.

Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies can also serve as practical entry points for advancing LLD and build compelling evidence. Climate resilience depends on meaningful engagement with local actors, as community ownership and context-specific knowledge are critical to implementation and long-term sustainability1 (see Box 2.2). Development partners can embed LLD principles within climate programmes by involving national, subnational and community actors in setting priorities, designing interventions and overseeing implementation. Where broader political momentum for LLD fluctuates within development partner administrations, locally led climate adaptation can provide a pragmatic anchor to sustain progress on LLD.

• Germany’s KfW partnered with BRAC to establish the Climate Bridge Fund (OECD, 2025[28]) in Bangladesh. They apply a locally led approach by embedding community and local government engagement in their project selection process, along with including climate-induced migrants.

• Global Affairs Canada partners with Indigenous peoples in Africa, the Indo-Pacific region and South America to focus on Indigenous-led nature-based solutions through learning experiences on the land and to connect Indigenous leaders around the world.

• Sweden engages in multi-year partnerships with Independent University, Bangladesh to strengthen climate resilience through collaboration with local actors (International Centre for Climate Change and Development, 2023[29]).

• Switzerland’s Solutions-Oriented Research for Development Programme (SDC, 2023[30]) embeds locally led adaptation into its programme design. The programme emphasises partnerships with local academic and development actors to co-develop adaptation solutions and to avoid maladaptation, recognising that externally imposed solutions tend to be ineffective.

Box 2.2. Locally led climate adaptation

The climate adaptation agenda is a frontrunner in advancing locally led development (LLD), offering a practical entry point for embedding LLD into policy. While local communities are on the frontlines of climate impacts, they often lack an effective voice in shaping the decisions that affect them most. Less than 10% of climate funds are dedicated to supporting LLD. Yet local actors, drawing on lived experience and Indigenous knowledge, are often best positioned to lead context-specific climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Enabling LLD is therefore essential for translating partner countries’ climate commitments into measurable and lasting outcomes. Genuine ownership of climate action is rooted in participation and enabling conditions, not only through funding flows. Time, staff engagement, political commitment and cross-sector collaboration matter as much as cash transfers. Delivering on nationally determined contributions therefore requires strengthening delivery systems: capable governance, effective institutions, aligned entrepreneurship and a culture of implementation. Particularly the least developed countries need enhanced institutional agency to plan, manage and monitor climate action. When paired with LLD capacity strengthening, performance-based finance can help early results generate further opportunities; and as implementation capacity grows, countries can take on more ambitious efforts and attract greater resources. In this way, success drives success, not solely through additional funding but also through strengthened execution.

Principles for locally led adaptation and biodiversity action

• To give greater voice and agency to local people to build resilient societies, economies and ecosystems, the principles for locally led adaptation were launched at the 2021 Climate Adaptation Summit. Co-developed between 2018 and 2021 under the Global Commission on Adaptation and led by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the World Resources Institute (WRI), the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) and over 50 other stakeholders, the principles reflect years of research and consultation. More than 130 organisations, including governments, global institutions, and local and international non-government organisations (NGOs), have since endorsed them. The principles aim to empower local communities to lead in building resilient societies, economies and ecosystems.

• Likewise, in 2024, “emerging principles for supporting locally-led biodiversity action” offer governments, development partners, NGOs and other stakeholders practical steps towards a more inclusive, locally led approach that prioritises the perspectives and rights of Indigenous peoples, women and youth while working towards halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

Sources: IIED (2021[31]), Principles for locally led adaptation, https://www.iied.org/principles-for-locally-led-adaptation; IIED (2024[32]), Emerging principles for supporting locally-led biodiversity action, https://www.iied.org/emerging-principles-for-supporting-locally-led-biodiversity-action.

Clarifying terminology and concepts related to locally led development

Clarifying how LLD, LLD co-operation and localisation are understood across the administration can help support consistency in the interpretation and practical application of these concepts. Definitions can be developed inclusively, reflecting input from staff across headquarters and country offices, where possible. Transparency can be ensured by engaging key partners to develop a shared understanding of what supporting LLD entails, while avoiding rigid definitions in order to accommodate diverse partnerships and local contexts, including differences in power dynamics and the range of expertise and experience present at the local level. It is important to be clear on who qualifies as “local actors”, recognising these are not homogenous and that power dynamics within countries may shape who participates and who benefits from development interventions. Who is included in conversations to define “local” also matters: processes should go beyond consulting international actors to meaningfully engage local organisations themselves. It is important to also clarify the related foundational concepts and enablers of LLD, such as “quality financing” or “locally led monitoring, evaluation and learning”, towards establishing a shared understanding and more consistent efforts to support LLD across DAC members.

Some development partners have created their own definitions:

• Australia’s Guidance Note on Locally Led Development (Australia DFAT, 2024[12]) aligns the country’s definition with the OECD’s working definition and references LLD throughout its International Development Policy (Australia DFAT, 2023[11]).

• The Netherlands and a network of civil society organisations co-created the Pathways for Locally Led Change (KPSRL, 2024[33]), which includes a shared definition of LLD.

• The Grand Bargain’s defines “local actors” in its Localisation Working Group Paper (IASC, 2018[34]).

• Dutch Relief Alliance’s Guidance Note on Localisation (Dutch Relief Alliance, 2021[35]) defines “local actors” as “nationally registered organisations with local governance, leadership and decision making processes. These organisations include local government, local government service providers such as health clinics and schools, national NGOs and community-based organisations.”

Debates about how to define “locally led development” and who qualifies as a “local actor” have been ongoing for years, and reaching agreement on a single, universally accepted definition has proven challenging. In practice, definitions need to serve a clear operational purpose: they should provide a workable basis for decision making, funding and accountability rather than attempt to capture every possible nuance. For example, the governance structure of local chapters or affiliates may matter when assessing the degree of local ownership, including whether decision making authority and resources are genuinely rooted in the country context. Terms such as “founded”, “headquartered”, “incorporated” or “based” in a partner country can imply different levels of local control, and these distinctions should be clarified to avoid confusion or inconsistent application.

▲Pitfalls to avoid:

• Avoid placing disproportionate emphasis on “definitions” over “action”. While definitions matter, meaningful progress on LLD requires concrete behavioural change in how leadership, partnerships, funding and accountability are structured.

• Avoid relying solely on technical classifications of “local”, as this risks sidelining actors with genuine community roots and legitimacy. While distinctions between local, national and affiliated actors remain relevant (ALNAP, 2023[36]), “local” should reflect proximity, legitimacy and accountability to communities rather than only “organisational form”.

• Avoid classifying country offices of international civil society organisations (ICSOs) as local without clear criteria and transparent justification. Counting country offices from ICSOs as “local” inflates LLD progress and undermines trust with genuine local organisations. It creates perverse incentives for ICSOs to rebrand rather than shift power, risks crowding out domestic civil society and weakens accountability by channelling funds to entities still tied to international headquarters. This practice also distorts monitoring and comparability across development partners, obscuring real progress on global commitments like the Grand Bargain.

Considering qualitative and quantitative targets to underpin locally led development commitments

Setting qualitative and/or quantitative targets can help establish baselines and improve transparency in tracking progress on support for LLD over time.2 While only a few development partners currently have formal targets in place, systematic tracking could provide a necessary foundation for more informed and realistic target-setting where appropriate. Targets may signal intent, guide internal decision making and, when made public, strengthen accountability. However, their effectiveness depends on clear definitions, adequate resourcing and robust systems for monitoring and communication. They also interact with internal incentives: where engagement with local actors is reflected in staff objectives, performance assessments or delegated authority frameworks, targets are more likely to influence behaviour; where it is not, progress may remain symbolic. Targets set without reliable baselines or appropriate safeguards risk tokenistic compliance, distorted incentives, misreporting, or the unintended exclusion of smaller and marginalised actors.

One possible sequencing is to start with internal targets linked to existing indicators and then consider public targets once reporting systems are sufficiently robust. LLD objectives can be linked to existing high-level indicators on poverty, inequality or inclusion, such as those in the OECD Poverties and Inequalities Guidance (forthcoming), or context-specific, time-bound targets can be set at the country level. Whatever the approach, clarity is essential: definitions of what counts as LLD should be explicit, numerators and denominators clearly specified, and progress reported transparently (Publish What You Fund, 2025[1]). Practical approaches to developing or adopting key performance indicators (KPIs) for LLD include:

• Australia’s Guidance Note on LLD comprises sector and operational mandatory indicators, as well as a detailed list of optional quantitative and qualitative KPIs (Australia DFAT, 2024[12]).

• Canada’s Localisation Analysis Framework is an evaluation tool to measure a programme’s alignment with LLD approaches, including the degree of local ownership and leadership in design, management, and monitoring, evaluation and learning (Global Affairs Canada, 2024[37]).

• Supported by Canada,3 Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Quadrature Climate Foundation, the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Initiative for Effective Adaptation and Resilience (LIFE-AR) commits development partners to channel at least 70% of funding to local climate action by 2030 (LDC Group on Climate Change, 2023[38]).

In the long term, complementary qualitative indicators can help capture key enablers of success, including the quality of partnerships, local agency in decision making and the inclusiveness of consultation processes. Reporting should therefore combine quantitative measures with qualitative approaches that capture the impact and value of locally led solutions, such as storytelling methods that reflect oral traditions and knowledge systems, particularly in Indigenous and community-based contexts (Ingram, 2022[39]). The Monitoring Exercise of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) assesses the different dimensions of local actor agency useful for contextualising a provider’s performance towards these targets (GPEDC, 2025[40]) (see Annex A).

Table 2.1. Examples of quantitative and qualitative indicators for consideration

Combining quantitative and qualitative indicators enables triangulation between perception-based insights and measurable system changes, supporting a more comprehensive assessment of progress on locally led development.

Categories	Indicators
Decision-making and ownership	Perceived influence over decisions: Extent to which local actors report meaningful participation in priority setting, design and resource allocation. Sense of ownership: Degree to which local actors consider programmes to reflect their priorities, knowledge and leadership. Percentage of awards approved at country level (i.e. # decisions made by in-country teams rather than headquarters).
Equitable and inclusive partnerships	Inclusiveness of engagement: Extent to which consultations meaningfully engage diverse local actors (e.g. women, youth, Indigenous peoples and marginalised groups) in accessible and relevant ways. Ability to raise concerns safely: Extent to which local actors feel able to provide feedback and hold partners accountable without negative repercussions. Continuity and predictability of partnerships: Degree to which relationships are sustained beyond short-term project cycles. Percentage of programmes with budget lines for participation and translation (supporting inclusive engagement and dialogue).
Use of local systems and knowledge	Use of local knowledge and systems: Degree to which local knowledge, institutions and customary or Indigenous governance systems inform programme design and implementation. Alignment with local co-ordination mechanisms: Extent to which programmes support or align with existing local co-ordination structures rather than creating parallel systems. Percentage of local resource flows to subnational governments.
Financing and resource allocation	Adequacy and flexibility of funding: Extent to which funding is predictable, covers core costs and allows adaptation to changing contexts. Percentage of direct funding to local/national actors. Percentage or number of contracts awarded to local civil society and/or Indigenous organisations as lead implementers. Percentage of local and/or Indigenous partners receiving multi-year flexible funding with explicit overheads.
Operational efficiency and due diligence	Median number of days from concept approval to grant award for local actors, with proportionate and risk-based due diligence (e.g. for grants under EUR 500 000).
Capacity strengthening and support	Relevance of capacity support: Perception that capacity strengthening responds to locally identified needs and builds on existing capabilities.
Learning, adaptation and communication	Inclusive learning and feedback processes: Presence of mechanisms that enable local actors to reflect on, provide feedback and influence adjustments during implementation. Context-appropriate communication and reporting: Extent to which communication and reporting approaches are adapted to local contexts and capacities. Percentage of grants and calls for proposals requiring locally led monitoring and evaluation.
Transparency, accountability and risk sharing	Transparency and information sharing: Extent to which local actors have visibility over budgets, decisions and expectations. Fairness in risk sharing: Perception that risks (fiduciary, operational, reputational) are appropriately shared between partners.

▲Pitfalls to avoid:

• Avoid focussing only on direct funding percentages to local actors, without also ensuring that local actors meaningfully have the decision making authority to lead or shape programmes (KPSRL, 2024[41]). While funding flows are easier to measure, this can narrow LLD to questions of where money goes, crowding out attention to how decisions are made and to opportunities for advancing locally led practice within partnerships involving international actors.

• Avoid setting overly conservative targets for result indicators solely to improve reported performance. Realistic targets are essential for learning, accountability and meaningful progress.

• Avoid relying on generic localisation targets that fail to translate into meaningful power shifts for a diverse range of local actors, including women-led and other underrepresented organisations.

Additional resources

• The OECD Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation (OECD, 2024[4]) serves as a peer learning synthesis for how development partners can enhance local agency.

• The OECD Report on the implementation, dissemination and continued relevance of the DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (OECD, 2023[42]) offers practical examples of participatory and locally led approaches that strengthen coherence across humanitarian, development and peace efforts.

• The OECD paper on Gender equality across the Humanitarian-Development Peace Nexus (OECD, 2021[43]), presents ways to embed gender equality and leadership by women across broader development goals.

• The Australian Council for International Development’s Guidance for the Development of a Locally-Led Action Policy assists its members in embedding locally-led action within their organisational frameworks, whether through existing policies, new guidance documents, an organisational statement or a dedicated policy (Australian Council for International Development, 2025[44]).

• The Grand Bargain’s self-reporting online platform provides data to better understand signatories’ progress on LLD-related indicators such as multi-year quality funding, risk-sharing and the participation of local actors in co-creation (IASC, 2024[45]).

• The Localisation Performance Measurement Framework (NEAR, 2019[46]) by the Network for Empowered Aid Response (NEAR) and Peace Direct’s Funder Report Card (Peace Direct, 2025[47]) are other comprehensive entry points to measuring LLD KPIs and potential impact.

• The World Resources Institute’s Locally Led Adaptation: From Principles to Practice (World Resources Insitute, 2022[48]) sets out steps that development partners and their partner governments can take to ensure local partners have equitable access to climate finance.

• DT Global’s Locally Led Development Framework provides practical and conceptual guidance to embed locally led, evidence-informed and partner-driven approaches across programmes (DT Global, 2024[49]).

• Distilling Locally Led Development by the Knowledge Platform Security and Rule of Law (KPSRL) (KPSRL, 2024[41]) presents the key issues facing LLD as part of a series of discussions in their network.

References

[24] AFD (n.d.), Support Fund for Feminist Organizations: Actively promoting the rights of women and girls (FSOF), https://www.afd.fr/en/support-fund-feminist-organizations (accessed on 14 January 2026).

[36] ALNAP (2023), IASC Definition of ‘Local’ and ‘National Actors’ – A barrier to achieving Grand Bargain localisation commitments, https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/iasc-definition-of-local-and-national-actors--a-barrier-to-achieving-grand-bargain/.

[21] Australia DFAT (2025), Australia’s International Gender Equality Strategy, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/australias-international-gender-equality-strategy.pdf.

[12] Australia DFAT (2024), DFAT Guidance Note: Locally Led Development, https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/business-opportunities/business-notifications/dfat-guidance-note-locally-led-development.

[11] Australia DFAT (2023), Australia’s International Development Policy: For a peaceful, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/international-development-policy.pdf.

[22] Australia DFAT (2023), Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion Analysis: Good Practice Note, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/gender-equality-disability-social-inclusion-analysis-good-practice-note.pdf.

[44] Australian Council for International Development (2025), Guidance for the Development of a Locally-Led Action Policy, https://acfid.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/GUIDANCE-FOR-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-A-LOCALLY-LED-ACTION-POLICY.pdf.

[13] Belgian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Co-operation (2026), Belgian Humanitarian Strategy, Theodora Gentzis, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the FPS Foreign Affairs, https://diplomatie.belgium.be/sites/default/files/2026-02/Strategienota-belge-humanitaire-2025-EN-WEB.pdf.

[27] BRAC (2025), BRAC and European Union sign agreement to strengthen integrated humanitarian response in Cox’s Bazar, https://www.brac.net/stay-informed/news/brac-and-european-union-sign-agreement-to-strengthen-integrated-humanitarian-response-in-coxs-bazar/.

[3] Center for Global Development (2024), The Challenge of Localization, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/challenge-localization.

[49] DT Global (2024), Locally Led Development Framework, https://dt-global.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/DT-GLOBAL-LLD-FRAMEWORK.pdf.

[35] Dutch Relief Alliance (2021), Putting Local Actors at the Heart of Humanitarian Responses, https://dutchrelief.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/4-page-A4-localisation-report-v05-digitaal11-gecomprimeerd.pdf.

[20] Fundación Avina (2023), Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development, https://www.avina.net/en/donor-statement-on-supporting-locally-led-development/.

[37] Global Affairs Canada (2024), Localization analysis framework, https://www.betterevaluation.org/tools-resources/localization-analysis-framework.

[40] GPEDC (2025), Monitoring Exercise and Evidence, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/our-monitoring-exercise.

[19] GPEDC (2020), Busan Partnership Outcome Document, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/content/busan-partnership-outcome-document.

[45] IASC (2024), Grand Bargain Self-Reports 2024.

[34] IASC (2018), IASC Humanitarian Financing Task Team, Localisation Marker Working Group, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/sites/default/files/migrated/2018-01/hftt_localisation_marker_definitions_paper_24_january_2018.pdf.

[18] IASC (n.d.), The Grand Bargain (Official website).

[32] IIED (2024), Emerging principles for supporting locally-led biodiversity action, https://www.iied.org/emerging-principles-for-supporting-locally-led-biodiversity-action.

[31] IIED (2021), Principles for locally led adaptation, https://www.iied.org/principles-for-locally-led-adaptation (accessed on 14 January 2026).

[39] Ingram, G. (2022), Locally driven development: Overcoming the obstacles, Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Locally-Driven-Development.pdf.

[29] International Centre for Climate Change and Development (2023), Sweden, IUB launch 4-year partnership to strengthen climate action in Bangladesh, https://icccad.net/news/sweden-iub-launch-4-year-partnership-to-strengthen-climate-action-in-bangladesh/.

[41] KPSRL (2024), Locally Led Development: KPSRL Distilling Series 2021-2024, https://kpsrl.org/sites/kpsrl/files/2024-11/FINAL%20-%20LLD%20-%20KPSRL%20Distilling%20Series.pdf.

[33] KPSRL (2024), Pathways for Locally Led Change, https://kpsrl.org/sites/kpsrl/files/2024-07/Pathways%20for%20Locally%20Led%20Change%20-%20KPSRL%20CSPPS%20NL%20MFA.pdf.

[38] LDC Group on Climate Change (2023), LIFE-AR: LDC Initiative for Effective Adaptation and Resilience, https://www.ldc-climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/LIFE-AR-1page.pdf.

[46] NEAR (2019), Localisation Performance Measurement Framework, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fc4fd249698b02c7f3acfe9/t/6011621dba655709b8342a4c/1611751983166/LMPF+Final_2019.pdf.

[23] OECD (2025), Canada’s Women’s Voice and Leadership programme: Supporting women’s rights organisations for a better future, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/canada-s-women-s-voice-and-leadership-programme-supporting-women-s-rights-organisations-for-a-better-future_43241a4a.html.

[28] OECD (2025), Climate Bridge Fund: Enabling locally led adaptation in urban Bangladesh, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/climate-bridge-fund-enabling-locally-led-adaptation-in-urban-bangladesh_b1d809ab-en.html.

[5] OECD (2024), From global to local: Multilateral actors and the pivot to locally led development, DCD(2024)23, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)23/en/pdf.

[4] OECD (2024), Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation: Learning by Example, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/51079bba-en.

[7] OECD (2024), Peer learning on Locally led development – DAC members deep dive: Switzerland, OECD ONE Members and Partners Database, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)26/en/pdf.

[6] OECD (2023), Integrating indigenous worldviews and knowledge into New Zealand’s foreign policy, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/integrating-indigenous-worldviews-and-knowledge-into-new-zealand-s-foreign-policy_e216bed0-en.html.

[42] OECD (2023), Report on the implementation, dissemination and continued relevance of the DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, DCD/DAC/INCAF(2023)1/FINAL, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/INCAF(2023)1/FINAL/en/pdf.

[9] OECD (2023), Risk management and locally led development: Understanding how to better manage risk for sustainable impact, DCD(2023)48, OECD, Paris, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD%282023%2948/en/pdf.

[17] OECD (2021), DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5021.

[43] OECD (2021), Gender equality across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, OECD Development Co-operation Directorate, Paris, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2021-07-05/594020-gender-equality-across-the-hdp-nexus-july2021.pdf.

[26] OECD (2019), DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5019.

[10] OECD (2014), Mainstreaming Cross-cutting Issues: Seven Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264205147-en.

[47] Peace Direct (2025), The Funder Report Card, https://www.peacedirect.org/funder-report-card/.

[1] Publish What You Fund (2025), Metrics Matter III: Counting Local: A cross-donor analysis of direct funding, https://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/app/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/05/Metrics-Matter-III.pdf.

[15] SDC (2025), Guidance on Locally-Led Cooperation (LLC) in Swiss International Cooperation, https://www.sdc-pge.ch/en/locally-led-cooperation.

[14] SDC (2025), Switzerland’s international cooperation strategy 2025-2028, https://www.deza.eda.admin.ch/en/switzerlands-international-cooperation-strategy-2025-2028.

[30] SDC (2023), Management response to the final evaluation of the r4d programme, https://www.r4d.ch/media/en/iA2VD9y8ay1NQGda/r4dProgramme_FinalEvaluation_ManagementResponse_public_2023.pdf.

[2] Siefer, T. (2025), “Foundations Look to New Models of International Development amid Retrenchment”, Non-Profit Quarterly, https://nonprofitquarterly.org/foundations-look-to-new-models-of-international-development-amid-retrenchment/.

[8] UK FCDO (2025), Spending Review 2025: Official Development Assistance (ODA), https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/48472/documents/253894/default/.

[16] UK FCDO (2023), International development in a contested world: Ending extreme poverty and tackling climate change, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6576f37e48d7b7001357ca5b/international-development-in-a-contested-world-ending-extreme-poverty-and-tackling-climate-change.pdf.

[25] UK FCDO (2023), International Women and Girls Strategy 2023–2030, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/640a0bb1d3bf7f02f7d9db18/international-women-and-girls-strategy-2023-2030.pdf.

[48] World Resources Insitute (2022), Locally Led Adaptation: From Principles to Practice, https://doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.21.00142.

Notes

← 1.  Feedback shared by partner countries during the peer learning workshop on locally led climate action with the OECD’s Network on Environment, Climate and Biodiversity (ENVIRONET).

← 2.  For example, signatories of the Grand Bargain committed to channel at least 25% of humanitarian funding “as directly as possible” to local and national actors.

← 3.  Canada’s funding to LIFE-AR is time-bound.