Practical Guidelines for Supporting Locally Led Development

4. Action area: Equitable partnership approaches

Abstract

Progress in building equitable partnerships with local actors is often undermined by persistent power imbalances, trust gaps and structural inequalities rooted in longstanding historical legacies, including colonialism, provider-driven priorities and systemic inequalities. This action area outlines practical approaches to engage in more equitable and mutual partnerships, genuinely shift power dynamics and establish the necessary foundations to achieve these partnerships. It emphasises that local actors are not a monolithic entity but encompass diverse stakeholders (i.e. national and subnational authorities, civil society, informal leaders, Indigenous peoples, activists and academia), each bringing their own distinct mandates, incentives and levels of influence.

What is the issue?

Efforts to build equitable partnerships with local actors are often undermined by persistent power imbalances, trust gaps and structural inequalities.1 Historical legacies, including colonialism, provider-driven narratives, defaulting to non-local languages and wider systemic inequities, continue to shape how development partners, intermediaries and local actors relate to one another, eroding trust, marginalising local voices and limiting genuine collaboration (OECD, 2024[1]). In practice, many partnerships remain top-down: agendas are largely set by development partners, local engagement is limited throughout the project cycle and both national-level as well as development partner priorities do not reflect local realities. Power dynamics within the development partner-intermediary-local actor chain also leave local organisations with little insight into how funding decisions are made.

While many development partners commit to supporting locally led development (LLD) at the policy level, these commitments often weaken in practice when working through intermediaries, creating a gap between policy and practice. This is particularly critical because the majority of official development assistance is channelled through international intermediaries such as multilateral organisations, contractors and international civil society organisations (ICSOs). Advancing LLD therefore requires not only developing and adhering to equitable partnership principles but ensuring adequate incentives and accountability mechanisms so that these partnership approaches are upheld downstream by all international implementing partners throughout the different stages of development co-operation efforts.

Where to start

Publicly articulated commitments to equitable and mutual partnerships can be supported by partnership-specific principles that clarify expectations across different relationships within the development partner-intermediary-local actor spectrum (OECD, 2024[1]). For example, the globally agreed Development Effectiveness Principle on Inclusive Partnerships (OECD, n.d.[2]) and the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance (OECD, 2021[3]) provide a solid starting point for framing good partnership approaches. Complementary sector-led initiatives, such as the Charter4Change’s eight commitments that INGOs agree to implement, to address imbalances and inequality in the global humanitarian system, further articulate practical commitments to more equitable partnerships between international and local actors and offer a basis for continued collective learning across contexts.2 Important dimensions to operationalise equitable partnerships pertain to fair cost coverages, simplified reporting and due diligence, and risk-sharing principles.

• The European Commission’s guidance on Promoting Equitable Partnerships with Local Responders in Humanitarian Settings acknowledges the diversity and complexity of local actors and attempts to address structural barriers and power imbalances that hinder LLD and co-creation (European Commission, 2023[4]).

• Sweden clarifies its partnership priority areas through a Brief on Locally led Humanitarian Action (Sida, 2024[5]), which emphasises and defines equitable partnerships between strategic partners and local and national actors. Sweden emphasises that partnerships should be based on joint collaboration, co-leadership, and recognition of mutual value add.

• The Network for Empowered Aid Response’s (NEAR) Building More Locally-Led Aid Ecosystems (NEAR, 2025[6]) aims to gather insights and understand the current ways of leading locally led action in the aid ecosystem from the perspective of Global South civil society.

• Peace Direct’s Transforming Partnerships in International Co-operation outlines both the problems with existing partnerships as highlighted by local actors as well as concrete recommendations for developing equitable partnerships with local actors (Peace Direct, 2023[7]).

• The international NGO, Trócaire, has partnered with local organisations for over 50 years with an explicit focus on shifting power. Its Partnership and Localisation Strategy outlines a clear pathway to advancing LLD, built around four core strategies: strengthening voice and influence, enhancing capacity, improving the quality of partnerships, and ensuring access to adequate funding and resources (Trócaire, 2021[8]). Results range from strengthening the capacity of local organisations to lead emergency response in Sierra Leone to supporting locally driven resilience efforts during development partner phase‑out in Honduras (Trócaire, 2021[9]), (Trócaire, 2025[10]).

Equitable partnerships extend beyond cost-efficiency to focus on mutual benefit, shared learning and power shifts. Development effectiveness and locally led progress therefore depend on partnerships that provide clarity on mutual gains, foster long-term sustainability and enable inclusive dialogue, while operating within enabling conditions such as transparent decentralisation, open and safe civic space, and a trustworthy business environment. Mechanisms such as joint agenda-setting networks, North-South collaboration (i.e. triangular co-operation) and complementary South-South co-operation can support shared learning, including peer exchange on these preconditions, and help reinforce effectiveness.

• The 2030 Pact for Effective Development Co-operation is a Seville Platform for Action Initiative which is led and supported by diverse stakeholders across partner countries, development partners and other development effectiveness actors including philanthropic foundations (GPEDC, n.d.[11]).

• In the philanthropic space, WINGS exemplifies a global network that prioritises locally led principles and fosters multi-stakeholder partnerships (WINGS, n.d.[12]). It promotes peer learning and inclusive dialogue through North-South and South-South exchanges, with regional hubs in Africa, Asia and Latin America to strengthen local ecosystems and amplify voices.

It is important to invest in long-term partnerships to build trust, capacity, and mutual buy-in among development partners and local leaders and actors. For example, members can account for longer inception phases to allow for in-depth dialogues with local partners. Clarity around ambitions for long-term partnerships versus short-term transactional relationships from the outset is a good practice for transparency.

• The DanChurchAid’s partnership policy is an example of how to clearly define short- versus long-term partnerships and provides a categorisation of types, purposes and characteristics of different partnerships in the aid ecosystem (DanChurchAid, 2022[13]).

Contractual and funding arrangements can reflect development partners’ expectations related to equitable partnership approaches, with attention to how intermediaries’ partnership practices, such as decision-making processes, participation, communication and leadership transition, are understood and assessed. Such assessments can draw not only on documentation but also on feedback from past and current local partners, collected through safe and independent mechanisms. To strengthen transparency and accountability, DAC members can require intermediaries to include local actors in relevant partnership meetings, maintain clear communication protocols and ensure channels for direct engagement. Mandating joint learning processes, public reporting on partnership modalities and the integration of partnership quality into audits or performance reviews can help shift incentives towards more equitable practice. Financial requirements also matter: intermediaries can be expected to provide fair overhead coverage, involve local partners in transparent budgeting processes and ensure access to core resources that strengthen local organisations. Where appropriate, contracts can also require dedicated funding for equitable partnership practices, such as travel, translation, safeguarding, joint training and staff well-being.

• In Ukraine, Switzerland embedded its Fair Partnership Principles directly into its contractual agreements with intermediaries. These principles include, for example, coverage of full expenses, but also a fair share of management and administrative costs; simple grant application and reporting processes adapted to the ability of partners and size of the grant; and participation of local partners in co-ordination and donor meetings. Adhering to this set of principles tended to increase management capacity of local NGOs (OECD, 2024[14]).

Local actors can’t be engaged as a single, homogeneous group. Different local actors have different mandates, interests and levels of power, and these differences shape how LLD works in practice. Because local contexts are shaped by politics, inequality and competition for resources, some actors may be marginalised while others are privileged. Therefore, effective LLD requires deliberate partnership arrangements that recognise these dynamics and promote balanced, transparent and shared accountability across all actors involved, not just between development partners and one local counterpart. In multistakeholder partnerships, this means being explicit about who is involved, what each actor’s role is, and what the partnership is expected to achieve and over what timeframe (DanChurchAid, 2022[13]). This includes taking account of possible legal and human rights constraints, engaging relevant decision makers at national and subnational levels, and understanding who holds authority, whom they represent and how different communities and constituencies exercise voice.

• One DAC member’s Local Capacity Strengthening Policy highlights the hierarchical dynamics within the aid ecosystem and offers practical tools for recognising and navigating both visible and invisible power structures in local systems. It also emphasises the importance of mutuality in partnership models.

• Poland’s Solidarity Fund invests in both in-country presence and local staff to understand and access the local knowledge ecosystem. The Solidarity Fund has established three local representative offices to date: Moldova in 2012 and Georgia and Ukraine in 2019 (OECD, 2023[15]).

• The Local Coalition Accelerator in Uganda employed a Decision Mapping Tool by King’s College London that helped to gauge the progress of shifting decision making power to local actors (The Share Trust, 2023[16]).

It is important to address internal organisational culture and power dynamics. Implementing equitable partnerships requires internal reflection on how organisational processes, language use and incentives may hinder progress by reinforcing historical power imbalances. Formal reviews can inform policy reforms and accountability measures to tackle such lingering biases. This also requires revisiting internal governance and representation, as governance structures shape organisational culture. Broadening representation across leadership levels, executive boards, senior management and staff pipelines can help bring diverse perspectives into decision making and demonstrate commitment to equitable partnerships. Without internal culture change, external policy reforms risk remaining superficial (OECD, 2022[17]).

• Belgium commissioned research on decolonising Belgian development co-operation to identify structural issues and pathways for reform (Moreno Cely et al., 2022[18]).

• Germany initiated an internal process to integrate anti-racist and decolonial approaches into development co-operation (BMZ, 2024[19]).

• The integration of Indigenous values into New Zealand’s approach to partnerships has strengthened mutual understanding with the country’s Pacific Island partners (OECD, 2023[20]).

• The United Kingdom’s Parliamentary International Development Committee has promoted public debate and engagement on LLD in subjects ranging from racism in international development to the philosophy and culture of official development assistance (International Development Committee, n.d.[21]).

▲Pitfall to avoid:

• Avoid treating cultural and mindset shifts as an afterthought. Instead, actively consider how to prevent your institutional set-up and ways of working from entrenching biased approaches to development co-operation.

Additional resources

• The OECD’s work on Inclusive Development Partnerships (OECD, 2025[22]) by TIPS provides insights and examples to inspire good partnership approaches.

• The OECD DAC guidance on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls (OECD, 2022[17]) provides advice for development partners to advance gender equality.

• The OECD’s Toolkit on Shifting Power with Partners (OECD, 2024[23]) provides practical and detailed examples to operationalise equitable partnerships, including how to assess power dynamics across partnerships.

• The OECD’s paper on “Multilateral actors and the pivot to locally led development” (OECD, 2024[24]) sets out how to engage with and influence multilateral development actors to support LLD.

• The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) monitoring exercise provides evidence on how development partners support the enabling environment for civil society organisations (CSOs) at the country level, by assessing their consultation of CSOs across the programme cycle and their advocacy for an enabling environment through policy dialogue with national governments (see Annex A).

• Bond’s toolkit entitled Becoming Locally Led as an Anti-Racist Practice: A Guide to Support INGOs (Bond, 2022[25]) frames reflective questions and diagnostic statements to help organisations assess their progress towards locally led practice, based on internationally recognised approaches.

• The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability sets out nine commitments that development partners can follow for developing collaborative relations with local communities in settings exposed to high and extreme fragility, where power dynamics can be particularly hard to navigate (Core Humanitarian Standard, 2024[26]). Each commitment is supported by specific requirements outlining the actions needed to fulfil it when working with people and communities.

• The Equity Index advocates for greater equity across the international development sector (Equity Index, n.d.[27]). This index, while focussed on United Kingdom development organisations, is a great starting place for ways of measuring the multiple dimensions of equity in internal and external methods of working.

• The Grand Bargain Caucus on Intermediaries outlines ways to meaningfully reflect on how to shift individual behavioural changes within an organisation (Charter for Change, 2025[28]).

• The Grand Bargain Localisation Workstream’s Localisation Guidance Note (IFRC, 2020[29]) presents ways to treat local actors as equal partners.

• The Humanitarian Advisory Group’s localisation learning brief on Localisation Through Transformative Partnerships (Humanitarian Advisory Group, 2023[30]) analyses how localisation has been pursued in the Asia-Pacific region, with a particular focus on partnership models that aim to shift power and decision-making towards local actors.. 

• The Humanitarian Advisory Group’s learning brief on Localisation Through Networks and Collectives (Humanitarian Advisory Group, 2023[31]) examines how collaborative arrangements, such as networks, consortia and collectives, can enable stronger local leadership in the Asia and Pacific, highlighting the role of structured partnerships among humanitarian organisations operating within broader, shared frameworks.

• Humentum’s Equitable, Resilient, Accountable (ERA) Index (Humentum, 2024[32]) is a benchmarking tool designed for ICSOs to measure institutional progress on actions taken to shift power dynamics and increase institutional autonomy.

• The paper Crossing the Bridge: A Practical Guide to Support Good Intermediary Practice (ICVA, 2024[33]), produced with input from the International Council of Volunteer Agencies (ICVA), outlines key actions related to organisation strengthening and risk sharing for equitable partnerships between funders and intermediaries that support LLD.

• NEAR’s Policy brief on the aid funding crisis (NEAR, 2025[34]) proposes eight principles that can serve as a model for ICSOs to form good partnerships.

• Nonviolent Peaceforce’s practical guide to responsible partnerships (Nonviolent Peaceforce, 2024[35]) offers a framework and toolkit for building responsible partnerships among international and national non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations, drawing on lessons from its work in Ukraine to establish responsible partnerships that address civilian needs after the invasion.

• Oxfam’s discussion paper “A (More) Feminist Approach to Principled Humanitarian Aid” (OXFAM, 2025[36]) sets out how to use a feminist approach to shift power.

• Oxfam’s dedicated Local Humanitarian Leadership website provides learning reports, case studies, stories and blogs on advancing locally led development “as a matter of power, rights, and accountability at the heart of meaningful transformation” (OXFAM, n.d.[37]).

• Partos’ Power Awareness Tool 2.0 (Partos, 2026[38]) is an online resource that helps make power dynamics in partnerships visible, supporting reflection on decision-making roles and identifying ways to rebalance power and strengthen inclusive collaboration.

• Peace Direct’s Transforming Partnerships in International Cooperation (Peace Direct, 2023[7]) provides an operational guide to decolonising partnerships in the humanitarian and development sector.

• Peace Direct’s Funder Report Card supports providers, notably bilateral agencies, philanthropic institutions and ICSOs that channel funding, to reflect on how they exercise influence and authority in their relationships with their local partners (Peace Direct, 2025[39]).3

• Pledge for Change’s Equitable Partnerships’ Pledge (Pledge for Change, 2025[40]) prioritises and values the leadership of national and local actors and invests in making partners stronger and more sustainable. It proposes seven metrics to monitor progress towards more equitable partnerships.

References

[19] BMZ (2024), Rethinking development policy: How to confront coloniality, https://www.bmz.de/de/aktuelles/rethinking-development-policy-how-to-confront-coloniality.

[25] Bond (2022), Becoming Locally Led as an Anti-Racist Practice: A Guide to Support INGOs, https://www.bond.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Bond_LocallyLedDevelopmentGuide_Version2-1.pdf.

[28] Charter for Change (2025), Intermediary Agencies & Locally Led Humanitarian Action, https://charter4change.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/charter-for-change-practice-paper-2025-intermediary-role_final.pdf.

[26] Core Humanitarian Standard (2024), Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability, https://handbook.hspstandards.org/en/chs/2024/#ch001.

[13] DanChurchAid (2022), DCA Policy: Partnership, https://www.noedhjaelp.dk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/12/partnership-policy-2022.pdf.

[27] Equity Index (n.d.), Equity Index, https://theequityindex.org/ (accessed on 14 January 2026).

[4] European Commission (2023), Promoting Equitable Partnerships with Local Responders in Humanitarian Settings, https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/dg%20echo%20guidance%20note%20-%20promoting%20equitable%20partnerships%20with%20local%20responders%20in%20humanitarian%20settings.pdf.

[11] GPEDC (n.d.), The 2030 Pact on Effective Development Co-operation, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/book-page/2030-pact-effective-development-co-operation#:~:text=The%202030%20Pact%20for%20Effective,and%20press%2Dfacing%20launch%20event.

[31] Humanitarian Advisory Group (2023), Localisation Through Networks and Collectives: Localisation learning brief, https://humanitarianadvisorygroup.org/insight/localisation-through-networks-and-collectives-localisation-learning-brief/.

[30] Humanitarian Advisory Group (2023), Localisation through transformative partnerships, https://humanitarianadvisorygroup.org/insight/localisation-through-transformative-partnerships-localisation-learning-brief/.

[32] Humentum (2024), Benchmarking INGO Progress Towards Equitable, Resilient, and Accountable Operations, https://humentum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Summary-of-Humentum-2023-ERA-Index-Results-032024-1.pdf.

[33] ICVA (2024), Crossing the Bridge: A Practical Guide to Support Good Intermediary Practice – Guidance Note, https://www.icvanetwork.org/uploads/2024/10/HH2-PPLL-Crossing-the-bridge.pdf.

[29] IFRC (2020), Grand Bargain Localisation Workstream: Localisation Guidance Notes, https://gblocalisation.ifrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Section-5.pdf.

[21] International Development Committee (n.d.), The philosophy and culture of aid, https://committees.parliament.uk/work/1005/the-philosophy-and-culture-of-aid/publications/.

[41] Just Associates (2024), The Just Power Guide: A Practical Tool for Activists and Change-makers, https://justassociates.org/power-guide/.

[18] Moreno Cely, A. et al. (2022), Imagine alternative future(s) of the Belgian development cooperation, https://cris.vub.be/ws/portalfiles/portal/93966286/Decolonizing_Belgian_Development_Coop_.

[6] NEAR (2025), Building More Locally-Led Aid Ecosystems, https://near.ngo/resources/building-more-locally-led-aid-ecosystems/.

[34] NEAR (2025), Under Pressure: How INGOs are responding to the aid funding crisis and what it reveals about the fragility of localisation commitments, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fc4fd249698b02c7f3acfe9/t/6880fd9c521d810929156313/1753283998982/INGO+Policy+Brief-1.pdf.

[35] Nonviolent Peaceforce (2024), Risk, Protection & Locally Led Humanitarian Response, https://nonviolentpeaceforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Practical-Guide-to-Responsible-Partnerships.pdf.

[22] OECD (2025), Inclusive Development Partnerships, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/inclusive-development-partnerships_30754b84/15aea1cd-en.pdf.

[24] 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.

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

[14] 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.

[23] OECD (2024), Shifting Power with Partners: Toolkit for Implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7987e8db-en.

[15] OECD (2023), “Empowering local actors by prioritising local capacity and networks: Poland’s Solidarity Fund”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/empowering-local-actors-by-prioritising-local-capacity-and-networks-poland-s-solidarity-fund_25780d66-en.html.

[20] 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.

[17] OECD (2022), Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls: DAC Guidance for Development Partners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/gender-equality-and-the-empowerment-of-women-and-girls_0bddfa8f-en.html.

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

[2] OECD (n.d.), “Development co-operation evaluation and effectiveness”, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/development-co-operation-evaluation-and-effectiveness.html (accessed on 14 January 2026).

[36] OXFAM (2025), A (More) Feminist Approach to Principled Humanitarian Aid, https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/a-more-feminist-approach-to-principled-humanitarian-aid-621691/.

[37] OXFAM (n.d.), Policy, Practice, Learning, https://oxfamlocalhumanitarianleadership.exposure.co/categories/policy-practice-learning (accessed on 1 April 2026).

[38] Partos (2026), The Power Awareness Tool, https://powerawarenesstool.partos.nl/en (accessed on  2026).

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

[7] Peace Direct (2023), Transforming Partnerships in International Co-operation, https://www.peacedirect.org/transforming-partnerships/.

[40] Pledge for Change (2025), Equitable Partnerships Commitments, https://pledgeforchange2030.org/pledges/equitable-partnerships/.

[5] Sida (2024), Brief on Locally-led Humanitarian Action, https://cdn.sida.se/app/uploads/2024/06/20151903/Brief-on-Locally-led-humanitarian-action_Sida-June-2024.pdf.

[16] The Share Trust (2023), Let’s Talk About Power: LCA Uganda and the Decision Mapping Tool, https://thesharetrust.org/articles/2023/10/18/lets-talk-about-power-lca-uganda-and-the-decision-mapping-tool.

[10] Trócaire (2025), From Donor Phase-Out to Local Resilience: Mitigating the Impact of the SDC’s Exit on Local Organisations in Honduras through Tailored Capacity Strengthening, https://www.trocaire.org/documents/cosude-case-study/.

[8] Trócaire (2021), Partnership and Localisation Strategy (2021-25), https://www.trocaire.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Trocaire-Partnership-and-Localisation-Strategy-2021-2025-English.pdf?type=policy.

[9] Trócaire (2021), Putting Localisation into Practice in Sierra Leone, https://www.trocaire.org/documents/putting-localisation-into-practice-in-sierra-leone/.

[12] WINGS (n.d.), WINGS - Elevating Philanthropy, https://wingsweb.org/en/home (accessed on 16 January 2026).

Notes

← 1.  This perspective was also reflected in consultations conducted by the Movement for Community-led Development (MCLD) and Peace Direct with civil society organisations (CSOs) across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and North America.

← 2.  Charter4change’s provides resources for continued and collective research, learning and advocacy.

← 3.  This resource builds upon a growing set of tools targeted at Global North funders and INGOs to shift and share power. The Just Associates’ Just Power Guide serves as a practical tool for activists, organisers and development practitioners to analyse power dynamics in their contexts and to identify visible, hidden and invisible forms of power and how they influence relationships (Just Associates, 2024[41]).