Some providers are reducing their in-country presence by consolidating operations into regional hubs or by shifting decisions to headquarters. Others retain country offices but with delegated authority that is limited. This action area promotes delegating authority to country offices and equipping staff to build genuine local partnerships, underpinned by coherent HR policies, staff incentives and training. Where resources are constrained, it suggests sustaining engagement through collaboration with local networks, universities or diaspora experts. Effective local partnerships depend as much on people and incentives as on formal policies.
Practical Guidelines for Supporting Locally Led Development
Menu of Options for Shifting Agency and Resources to Local Actors
Abstract
When a development partner reduces its country-level presence, connecting with local realities becomes more difficult. Well-intentioned headquarters staff may lack up-to-date knowledge of local systems and contexts, while locally hired staff, who are essential, may themselves come from relatively elite backgrounds and not always fully reflect or be embedded in the communities they seek to support. Together, these dynamics risk weakening relationships with local systems and authorities, as well as the contextual understanding that underpins effective locally led development (LLD).
At the same time, development partners’ in-country offices often lack the delegated authority and institutional backing to act on local knowledge or drive genuine partnerships. Even when staff are motivated, uneven awareness of local political economy dynamics, cultural sensitivity and inclusive practices limit their ability to identify and develop equitable local partnerships. These constraints are not only operational but also reflect broader governance arrangements, where decision-making authority remains centralised due to institutional, legal and risk management considerations. Disparities in human resource conditions, including differences in contracts, remuneration, staff rights and wellbeing between international and local/national staff, can further reinforce unequal power dynamics and affect the quality and sustainability of partnerships.
Compounding these challenges, more ministries and agencies from development partners are now involved in development co-operation, creating fragmented responsibilities and complicating efforts to promote and align around coherent, locally led approaches.
Where development partners have a country presence, delegating authority to in-country offices enables them to initiate partnerships with local actors and draw on the knowledge of locally engaged staff. This strengthens the relevance and responsiveness of co-operation by grounding decisions in local realities. Delegated authority should be backed by clear financial thresholds and flexible instruments that support locally designed approaches. For international staff, long-term postings or regional career tracks help preserve institutional memory and support the development of sustained relationships with local actors. By contrast, short-term postings and “fly-in, fly-out” models risk weakening contextual understanding, disrupting relationships and eroding institutional memory. Locally employed staff need meaningful advisory, fiduciary and decision making roles, with pathways to senior positions and a voice in governance. Inclusive recruitment that reflects local diversity, including marginalised groups, strengthens legitimacy and contextual insight.
Germany, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland have all created senior roles for local staff. This has contributed to a better understanding of country priorities and needs (OECD, 2024[1]).
Switzerland’s support for national and local humanitarian organisations in Myanmar and Ukraine demonstrates the value of having in place large, dispersed country teams, composed of empowered local staff in technical roles (OECD, 2024[2]).
The United Kingdom regularly reviews which skill gaps can be filled by local staff or regional recruits and allows local staff to move between country offices (OECD, 2024[1]).
When a permanent country presence is not feasible, development partners can still ensure that local perspectives inform strategies and decisions taken at headquarters by establishing structured and sustained channels for engagement. This can include working through trusted intermediary organisations, such as local coalitions, networks, universities and civil society actors as well as through the local offices of regional development banks and local development banks with a sustained in-country presence. Each of these stakeholders brings strong contextual knowledge and legitimacy, and with this knowledge, they can act as convenors, connectors or amplifiers of local voices. Such arrangements help bridge gaps in staff presence by identifying local priorities, partners and risks, while supporting peer learning and collective dialogue. At the headquarters level, this also requires equipping and incentivising staff to actively seek out credible local partners and locally led intermediary models, rather than defaulting to international implementing agencies, so that decision making remains grounded in local realities even in the absence of an in-country office.
One DAC member held virtual consultations from their headquarters with grassroots and community-based organisations to shape their Local Capacity Strengthening Policy. Designed around active listening and regular, informal communication for insights, updates and feedback on drafts, this approach led to policy outputs shaped more by local actors’ contributions than by international non-governmental organisations.
The OECD engaged the Movement for Community-Led Development, with support from Peace Direct, to gather feedback from networks of local organisations on priority concerns related to supporting LLD for the purpose of these guidelines. Consultations were held in English, French and Spanish with a view to reflect these insights in the guidelines and informing subsequent DAC member practices.
Additionally, development partners can strengthen locally led development by investing in locally engaged or regionally recruited staff and leveraging internal and external networks to deepen contextual knowledge and sustain engagement. Regularly reviewing which roles can be filled locally or regionally also helps build long-term capacity. Internal and external networks, including staff-based communities of practice, locally recruited staff networks across country offices, and external reference groups with civil society, academia and private sector actors, can support continuity, institutional memory and peer learning across contexts.
The Vanuatu Skills Partnership, a joint initiative of Australia and Vanuatu, is led by a national team that has driven key government strategies in the technical and vocational training sector. Initially managed by an international contractor, rigid systems and unequal dynamics prompted a shift: local staff assumed leadership, while the contractor moved into a support role, providing technical input in areas identified by the local team. This change increased flexibility and strengthened local ownership (Australia DFAT, 2024[3]).
Ultimately, advancing LLC can be strengthened through more deliberate co-ordination among development partners, particularly where some maintain an in-country presence or established relationships and others do not. Partners without a country presence can work through or alongside those with local engagement to align approaches, share information, consolidate priorities and organise joint outreach. This can reduce the burden on local actors, avoid duplicative requests for input on similar issues and enable consultations to focus on substantive topics rather than feedback on policy drafts, which may rely on development partner terminology rather than reflect local realities.
Supporting LLD depends as much on human resource management and training as it does on HR policies and incentives.
To work in ways that genuinely share power and build on local leadership, staff from development partners need the right mix of technical skills, of cultural awareness, and of the confidence to navigate complex political and social environments. While staff are often recruited and rewarded for sector-specific technical expertise, effective support for LLD also requires complementary skills such as language proficiency, facilitation, network-building, and the ability to think and work politically in complex local contexts. Recognising and valuing this broader skill set requires human resource (HR) systems that encourage continuous learning, cultural awareness and collaboration, while also training and supporting staff, as roles and expectations evolve. Managing such transitions carefully, including acknowledging uncertainty or resistance where skill profiles are being rebalanced, is important to maintain staff confidence and institutional coherence.
Belgium uses listening platforms, immersion techniques and consultation with local staff to deepen contextual insight (OECD, 2024[1]).
Global Affairs Canada’s LLD guidance serves as an internal tool to support and guide staff in integrating LLD into their daily systems, processes and partnerships, complemented by efforts to strengthen staff capacity to manage local partnerships and navigate shifting power dynamics.
New Zealand has invested in building Māori familiarity among staff, including language training and courses on historical relationships (OECD, 2024[1]).
Staff behaviour is shaped not only by skills but also by incentives. Existing administrative systems, governance arrangements and organisational cultures affect the scope for HR reform and the incentives that influence staff behaviour. Where performance assessment systems prioritise rapid disbursement, risk avoidance or short-term outputs, staff may face pressure that limits meaningful engagement with local actors. Aligning objectives, performance criteria and delegated authority with expectations around partnership quality, dialogue and local engagement is therefore critical. In practice, this may involve recognising and rewarding time spent on partnership-building and co-creation, valuing contextual knowledge and local engagement in performance assessments, and ensuring staff have the mandate and flexibility to adapt programmes in response to local feedback. Assessing how far HR policies, practices and capacities align with the skills and ways of working required for LLD can therefore be a useful starting point (see Table 5.1).
The questions below can serve, across ministries and agencies involved in development co-operation, as prompts for internal reflection on the extent to which formal and informal HR practices enable LLD, as well as for dialogue with intermediaries and contractors.
When partnering with local actors, it is important to integrate health, accident and life insurance into overhead budget allocations as part of broader duty-of-care responsibilities. While duty of care refers to an organisation’s obligation to safeguard the well-being of those it engages, insurance is one practical mechanism through which this responsibility can be operationalised. International personnel are often covered through comprehensive duty-of-care provisions. However, local actors frequently note that they do not receive the same level of security support as international staff and must cover these costs themselves, even where they face similar or higher levels of risk. Development partners can therefore plan for local actors to be covered through appropriate insurance arrangements that address both personal safety (e.g. health, accident) and operational risks, particularly in humanitarian and fragile contexts. This can be complemented by broader approaches to equitable funding and risk-sharing, as well as engagement with emerging global frameworks, such as Charters of Rights for frontline Humanitarian and Community workers (Humanitarian Aid International, 2024[4]), that articulate context-sensitive commitments on safety, compensation, mental health, accountability and local leadership, and support a progressive strengthening of duty-of-care standards over time.
The Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ model budget guidance explicitly counts insurance as part of eligible direct staff cost components (alongside salary and social insurance contributions) (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, 2024[5]).
Switzerland launched an innovative insurance scheme for local volunteers to receive accident and life insurance, acknowledging the high-risk environment (SDC, 2025[6]).
Switzerland has also led work on providing a duty of care package that is integrated into development partner budgets and applied to local humanitarian responders in Ukraine (SDC, 2024[7]).
The CHS Alliance’s HR Good practice for Surge Response (CHS Alliance, 2014[8]) provide a comprehensive framework for strengthening human resource management in surge responses, covering co-ordination mechanisms, ethical and safer recruitment practices, staff care, and monitoring of HR support.
The guide by the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (UK FCDO) on political economy analysis can support staff adopt more politically aware development assistance (UK FCDO, 2023[9]).
The Institute of Development Studies provides an immersive research approach of learning, sensitising and “knowing” a community, which involves development professionals living with host families in Global South communities to experience daily life.
References
[3] 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.
[8] CHS Alliance (2014), HR Good Practice for Surge Response, https://www.chsalliance.org/get-support/resource/hr-good-practice-for-surge-response/.
[4] Humanitarian Aid International (2024), Charter of Rights for Frontline Humanitarian and Community Workers, https://hai-india.org/charter-of-rights (accessed on 1 April 2026).
[5] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2024), Guide to model budget, Contributing to Peaceful and Safe Societies 2024-2031, https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documenten/decrees/2023/11/09/subsidy-framework-contributing-to-peaceful-and-safe-societies-2024-2031/Appendix%2B4vi%2BGuide%2Bto%2BModel%2BBudget%2BNov%2B2023.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.
[2] 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] SDC (2025), At the first line of humanitarian action: Innovative insurance for volunteers, https://www.deza.eda.admin.ch/en/at-the-first-line-of-humanitarian-action-innovative-insurance-for-volunteers.
[7] SDC (2024), Consultancy for the elaboration of a “Duty of Care” package for local humanitarian responders in Ukraine, https://ngoplatformua.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/duty-of-care-min-package-final-report-1-1.pdf.
[9] UK FCDO (2023), Understanding political economy analysis and thinking and working politically, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/understanding-political-economy-analysis-and-thinking-and-working-politically.