Practical Guidelines for Supporting Locally Led Development

9. Action area: Locally led monitoring, evaluation and learning

Abstract

This chapter examines how monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems can contribute to local evaluation capacity development. While locally led development ambitions are gaining traction, MEL practices often remain driven by development partners, focus on compliance and do not keep track with improvements of partner country MEL systems. The chapter explores how evaluation approaches can shift from top-down accountability tools towards partnership-based learning processes that strengthen country systems, elevate local expertise and capture systemic change.

What is the issue?

Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems by development partners remain largely designed and driven by development partners, with limited space for local actors to define success, shape metrics, ensure appropriate evaluation questions or influence how results are interpreted and reported (OECD, 2024[1]). Results frameworks, theories of change and reporting systems are often designed using top-down processes and prioritise standardised indicators aligned with development partner requirements and audiences. Even where local actors contribute to MEL processes, their inputs are rarely integrated into development partners’ global reporting systems. Context-specific outcomes and locally defined markers of success often fall outside predefined templates, reducing both the relevance of results frameworks for communities and the visibility and legitimacy of locally led work.

This contrasts with the growing sophistication of national evaluation systems in many partner countries. Over the past decade, several partner countries have made significant progress in strengthening nationally led MEL and evaluation capacity development (ECD), resulting in increasingly sophisticated national evaluation systems (Government of Tanzania, 2024[2]; University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, 2025[3]),. In several contexts, these systems enable governments and other national actors to define success, set evaluation priorities and generate credible, policy-relevant evidence. This gap points to a missed opportunity for development partners to more systematically engage with and support national evaluation systems, including through sustained ECD and greater reliance on country-led evaluation processes (OECD, 2023[4]).

Learning practices by development partners mirror these dynamics. MEL in development partner programmes is still compliance-driven and development partner-centric, leaving little room for local actors to shape evidence, reflect on trade-offs or influence adaptive decision making. As a result, local knowledge risks being overlooked and opportunities for joint problem-solving, course correction and collective learning underutilised (KPSRL, 2024[5]).

At the same time, there is no shared understanding among development partners of what “locally led evaluation” means in practice. For some, it refers to evaluations that are informed by local perspectives; for others, it implies local leadership over evaluation design, questions, methods and use. In addition, others prefer the term “country-led evaluation” (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, 2025[6]). This conceptual divergence reflects deeper tensions about shifting power, risk and organisational mandates. While stakeholder participation is widely accepted, transferring meaningful decision making authority over MEL is often seen as aspirational or constrained by institutional systems. At its core, locally led MEL challenges whether evaluation is treated primarily as a managerial accountability tool or as a partnership-based learning process grounded in shared ownership.

Structural barriers reinforce these dynamics. ECD, while recognised as essential for sustainable, country-led MEL systems, remains fragmented and under-resourced and is often treated as a project-level add-on rather than embedded within national governance and evaluation systems. Synergies between ECD and, for instance, governance or public financial management programmes are rarely harnessed.1 Procurement and quality assurance practices tend to favour international consultants, limiting opportunities for local firms and evaluators, especially Young and Emerging Evaluators (YEE). Political and institutional inertia in development partners further constrains shifts in power, as existing bureaucratic incentives continue to privilege control, standardisation and upward reporting.

Where to start

Locally led monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation in locally led development should be understood first and foremost as a shared learning and sense‑making process. In complex and rapidly changing contexts, its primary purpose is to help local actors and communities reflect on what is changing, why it is changing, and how action should adapt over time, based on locally defined meanings of progress and success. Effective approaches establish feedback loops that ensure locally generated learning informs the co-creation, design and continuous adaptation of development interventions, rather than remaining disconnected from decision making. Accountability and reporting remain important, but they should be designed to support, rather than override, local ownership, iterative learning, and context‑appropriate decision‑making (Felm and Valoa Impact, 2025[7]).

It is important that monitoring and evaluation methods are designed to ensure that they are culturally appropriate and sensitive to community contexts (Peace Insight, 2024[8]). This includes guaranteeing that evaluation questions are relevant to local decision makers and communities in both focus and timing, for example to inform government decisions on whether and how to scale an approach. Taking a locally led development (LLD) approach to evaluation requires intentional design choices that prioritise community well-being, cultural relevance and practical usefulness for local stakeholders at every stage:

• In design: Quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews are framed around locally relevant questions, avoid invasive lines of inquiry and minimise over-burdening households and communities. Sampling strategies account for power dynamics and prioritise marginalised voices.

• In methodology: Evaluations are developed through participatory processes that adopt locally grounded approaches or that thoughtfully blend local and international methodologies.

• In implementation: Data collection follows locally appropriate practices for both quantitative and qualitative methods, including reasonable sample sizes and survey lengths, safe and private interview settings, the use of local languages, and the involvement of trauma- and risk-informed expertise where needed.

Engaging local, in-country experts in leadership roles can underpin culturally appropriate monitoring and evaluation designs. They bring lived experience, creativity and solutions, speak local languages and understand local culture and power structures, and they should drive evaluation processes rather than merely inform them. In-country MEL professionals also contribute established relationships and community trust, enabling more meaningful engagement while reducing risks and burdens for local partners (Proximity International, 2025[9]; Peace Insight, 2024[8]). Combined with local methodologies, LLD can lead to richer and more qualitative information.

• Australia requires short-term technical expertise to guide the design, review, and monitoring and evaluation of its projects. To support this, the country has established a new DevPanel to identify individuals and organisations with relevant expertise and experience in the Indo-Pacific region to meet the demand by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for technical specialist advisory services (Australia DFAT, 2026[10]).

• The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), the Pacific Community and BetterEvaluation jointly developed a participatory process to design context-appropriate MEL methods and standards, blending Pacific and Western approaches to generate rich qualitative data. The resulting roadmap provides a practical resource for policymakers seeking to integrate locally grounded and international methodologies in support of more locally led MEL systems (Pacific Community, 2020[11]).

• Ecuador conducted its first country-led evaluation between 2023 and 2024, supported by the German Institute for Development Evaluation (Deval). The evaluation employed a participatory approach. For this purpose, a multi-stakeholder team was formed, composed of the Secretaría Nacional de Planificación, the Ministerio de Inclusión Económica y Social, representatives of the beneficiary population, academia and other civil society actors. This multi-stakeholder team was facilitated by evaluation experts who accompanied the process and provided technical guidance and capacity building (Gobierno de Ecuador, 2024[12]).

Alternatively, localising third-party monitoring (TPM) can strengthen aid operations by shifting power to local monitors who best understand local risks and benefits. Third-party monitors often serve as the eyes and ears for development partners who cannot visit project sites, but their role can be perceived as oversight rather than collaboration. By adopting a locally led TPM approach, local monitors can design monitoring and data collection to build community trust, incorporating awareness of risks, cultural context and local languages. In this approach, local monitors can take the lead on verifying implementing partner reports and can bridge gaps between international intermediaries and local realities.

• For example, for the monitoring of a project in Bangladesh, a TPM based in the United States partnered with organisations whose local monitors spoke the local language and maintained long-standing community trust (ME&A, 2024[13]). Good practices include training local monitors on risk-informed approaches, consent and the prevention of risk transfer. These practices ensure that local MEL actors can lead data collection and decision making in their own communities (Social Impact, Inc., 2023[14]).

• Under its Framework for Risk Governance and Adaptive Programming (FRAP), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation partners with a Kenyan organisation to conduct third-party monitoring in Somalia, using a trust-based and context-sensitive approach with local Somali actors. Beyond risk verification, FRAP aims to support adaptive programming, learning and capacity strengthening to enhance programme effectiveness in highly fragile settings (OECD, 2024[15]).

Development partners can systematically integrate local contributions and diverse perspectives, including those of marginalised groups, into global and headquarters-level evaluation reporting. Many evaluation systems are structured around principal-agent relationships in which funders define value and measure performance against externally set targets. For example, there can be misalignment between development partners’ worldviews and Indigenous evaluation approaches, as they are based on fundamentally different value systems (Chilisa, 2020[16]). Community-led approaches aim to shift this dynamic by strengthening accountability to beneficiaries, enabling affected populations to define success criteria and assess results in ways that reflect local priorities and knowledge systems. This can include the use of participatory evaluation methods, such as participatory rural appraisal, participatory mapping, joint validation of findings and co-creation of recommendations, as well as approaches that reinforce ownership throughout the evaluation process. Recognising locally defined measures of success and strengthening local data ownership, including how data is accessed, used and governed, can further support more accountable and sustainable evaluation systems.

• With support from Australian Aid, the Edge Effect has developed a Partner Appraisal Tool for smaller diverse lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ+) people’s organisations to evaluate whether development and humanitarian institutions have the policies and practices needed to work with LGBTIQ+ communities (OECD, 2024[17]; Edge Effect, n.d.[18]).

• Canada has prioritised Indigenous evaluation approaches to better align values with evaluation practice, recognising Indigenous communities as knowledge and rights holders rather than consultation stakeholders (Government of Canada, 2022[19]). To support this shift, Canada has published Indigenous Approaches to Evaluation and Research.

• Portugal’s National Strategy to Combat Poverty includes a participatory monitoring and evaluation model, “Living Labs”, that allows individuals living in poverty to co-create the evaluation processes alongside social sector organisations (OPSI, 2024[20]).

Consider complementing output-level indicators with evaluation approaches that capture collective outcomes and long-term societal and behavioural change. This includes examining how interventions interact with social cohesion, inclusion, local voice and sustainability over time, and how pathways to autonomy or exit strategies are articulated and tracked. Given that LLD involves shifts in power, relationships and practices, evaluation designs and criteria benefit from going beyond quantitative metrics alone and combining them with qualitative, people-centred approaches (such as story-gathering) that can capture context-specific and system-level change. Balancing measurement with narratives and qualitative evidence can help illuminate how locally led change occurs and avoid reducing LLD to technical adjustments rather than the deeper transformation it requires (ALNAP, 2024[21]; ALNAP, 2024[22]).

▲Pitfall to avoid:

• Avoid relying solely on single-output metrics, as this risks missing unintended societal effects, including dependency dynamics and impacts on social cohesion that underpin sustainable development outcomes.

DAC members can use the OECD DAC Network on Development Evaluation as a platform to explore and clarify different interpretations of “locally led” and “country-led” evaluation and to examine their practical implications for governance, decision making authority and accountability (DEval, 2025[23]). This includes defining the degree of local ownership and community involvement in what is evaluated, why and under whose terms (ALNAP, 2024[21]).

• Finland, the German Institute for Development Evaluation, the International Development Evaluation Association (IDEAS) and UNICEF co-created a guidebook that provides case studies and practical entry points for country-led evaluations on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, 2025[6]).

• Members of the Samahan para sa Pagsulong at Pag-unlad ng Capaculan, or the Organisation for the Advancement and Progress of Capaculan, demonstrate best practices and lessons learned from a community-led approach for monitoring and evaluating a locally owned solar water system (SPCC, Bobadilla and Veda, 2024[24]).

Regardless of one’s conceptual approach to locally led monitoring and evaluation, development partners can build on and strengthen existing country systems for monitoring, evaluation and accountability. Where possible, they can use existing national results frameworks, country-defined indicators and national statistics systems and can support the strengthening of local fiduciary controls rather than imposing parallel, project-specific requirements. Working through existing systems reinforces local ownership and ensures that monitoring and learning are grounded in nationally relevant data and priorities. Preliminary results2 from the fourth Monitoring Exercise of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) point to both progress and persistent gaps in this area (see Annex A).

Locally led learning

Development partners can use locally led learning as a catalyst to strengthen effectiveness by investing in learning arrangements that draw on collective knowledge and respond to partner country priorities (OECD, 2024[25]). In practice, this means moving beyond one-off learning activities towards long-term learning partnerships that enable local actors to shape learning agendas, interpret evidence and influence programmes while allowing development partners to provide sustained learning support (World Resources Institute, 2021[26]). Practical starting points include working through existing coalitions and networks, partnering with local researchers and universities or supporting intermediaries that can connect learning, evidence and practice. When grounded in long-term engagement, clear focal points and strong institutional buy-in, such approaches can extend learning beyond traditional MEL systems and technical assistance.

• Australia’s Knowledge Sector Initiative, a decade-long partnership with Indonesia (Australia DFAT, 2022[27]) invested in the national knowledge ecosystem and strengthened knowledge exchange among government agencies, civil society organisations and research institutions.

• Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) established a Science Granting Councils Initiative for Sub-Saharan Africa, which places Southern partners at the centre of learning and research agendas while promoting stronger South-South collaboration and more equitable North-South partnerships (IDRC, 2024[28]).

• France’s CIRAD (French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development), IRD (French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development) and Institut Pasteur illustrate institutional models that seek to place Southern partners at the centre of research and learning agendas. All three rely on long-term, embedded partnerships with national research institutes and universities, including joint research units, co-governed platforms and decentralised networks that anchor agenda-setting and implementation in partner countries.

• Germany’s DEval promotes evaluation capacity development by strengthening nationally led evaluation systems and the individual, organisational and societal capacities to generate and use evidence, with a strong emphasis on South-South-North knowledge exchange. Through initiatives such as EvalConnect, the integration of local experts and institutions, and the use of participatory approaches, DEval advances a systemic and locally grounded evaluation model. DEval also supports the Index of National Evaluation Capacities (INCE), a peer learning platform developed with partners including the World Food Programme, UNICEF and national governments, to strengthen national evaluation systems through shared learning.

• Norway’s Knowledge Bank, established in 2018, facilitates knowledge and experience sharing among more than 30 Norwegian public institutions, multilateral organisations and civil society organisations to strengthen the capacity of partner countries’ public sectors (Norad, 2020[29]).

Effective locally led learning strategies also require intentional learning loops that support local ownership of evidence, promote the sharing of lessons, and enable continuous improvement and accountability. Evidence on what works in supporting LLD remains limited, making systematic evaluation essential to understand impacts, costs, benefits, trade-offs and unintended consequences (Dissanayake, 2024[30]). It is important to emphasise that LLD is not a financial zero-sum game; it does not limit opportunities for collaboration, cross-border research or co-generated knowledge (OECD, 2023[31]). Achieving this relies on having intentional mechanisms for institutional and collective learning to strengthen the evidence base on what works in localisation and what does not.

• Canada’s Localization Analysis Framework assesses programme alignment with LLD across nine dimensions, providing a structured basis for learning and accountability (BetterEvaluation, 2024[32]).

Learning and feedback from local stakeholders can support adaptive programming by enabling real-time adjustments in response to evolving local priorities (Australia DFAT, 2024[33]). Adaptive approaches help improve the quality of LLD, scale effective practices and generate learning from ongoing efforts.

• Funded by Australia, BetterEvaluation’s work on adaptive management frames systems’ change through behavioural change across capacity (skills, knowledge, relationships), motivation (adding incentives, removing disincentives) and opportunity (flexible systems and processes) (BetterEvaluation, 2020[34]).

• Denmark’s adaptive management guidelines emphasise locally led adaptive management systems (Ministry of Denmark, 2020[35]).

Additional resources

• The OECD’s toolkit on Effective Results Frameworks for Sustainable Development provides insights and recommendations on how to design, monitor and use results frameworks for greater impact on sustainable development (OECD, 2024[36]).

• The OECD’s paper on Valuing and Sharing Local Knowledge and Capacity explores the adaptations necessary for valuing, integrating and sharing local knowledge and expertise (OECD, 2024[25]).

• The OECD’s Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System and the Annual DAC Questionnaire (OECD, 2024[37]) offers up-to-date definitions used for reporting on official development assistance.3

• The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) monitoring exercise provides evidence of how development partners support locally led approaches in monitoring and evaluation by assessing the use of country-owned results frameworks and national statistical systems (see Annex A).

• The Participatory Evaluation Handbook (Esteban et al., 2022[38]) offers useful initial guidance on participatory approaches that adopt locally grounded methodologies.

• Advancing Locally Led Evaluations by the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP) offers practical steps to advance locally led evaluations and immediate actions for planning, implementation and reporting (ALNAP, 2024[21]).

• BetterEvaluation developed a MEL toolkit that includes resources on rebalancing power between partner and recipient for better MEL (BetterEvaluation, 2023[39]).

• Christian Aid's report on Decolonising Evaluation provides practical guidance for aligning evaluations with LLD principles (Christian Aid, 2022[40]).

• The Grand Bargain’s Caucus on Funding for Localisation: Collective Monitoring and Accountability Framework presents indicators and actionable ways to commit to measuring funding flows to local actors and intermediaries (Grand Bargain, 2023[41]).

• The Movement for Community-led Development (MCLD) has a forthcoming resource on how to facilitate community-led monitoring and evaluation based on research from one year of (Un)Learning Labs (MCLD, n.d.[42]) with local actors and technical evaluators, which was piloted in Bangladesh and Ethiopia.

• Oxfam’s Empowering Local and National Humanitarian Actors (ELNHA) project focused on strengthening local humanitarian systems through learning-by-doing and action-based reflection (Oxfam Novib, 2021[43]). Its dedicated toolkit compiles practical methodologies, tools and templates to operationalise locally led approaches, alongside findings from locally led real-time reviews and evaluations, providing a consolidated resource to support implementation and learning.

• Results for Development has published a toolkit that focusses on designing collaborative learning networks for supporting LLD and systems strengthening (Results for Development, 2023[44]).

• Through local partnerships, Wilde Ganzen highlights good practices for MEL, including participatory evaluation and planning as well as inclusive decision making (Wilde Ganzen, 2024[45]).

References

[21] ALNAP (2024), Advancing Locally Led Evaluations: Practical Insights for Humanitarian Contexts, https://alnap.hacdn.io/media/documents/ALNAP_Advancing-locally-led-evaluations.pdf.

[22] ALNAP (2024), Measuring progress towards locally led development co-operation: towards a shared framework, https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/measuring-progress-locally-led-dev-co-operation/.

[10] Australia DFAT (2026), Design, Review and Monitoring & Evaluation Panel, https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/business-opportunities/Pages/design-review-and-monitoring-evaluation-panel (accessed on  2026).

[33] 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.

[27] Australia DFAT (2022), The Knowledge Sector Initiative Project Completion Report, https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/development/knowledge-sector-initiative-project-completion-report.

[32] BetterEvaluation (2024), Localization analysis framework, https://www.betterevaluation.org/tools-resources/localization-analysis-framework.

[39] BetterEvaluation (2023), Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) toolkit for grantmakers and grantees, https://www.betterevaluation.org/tools-resources/monitoring-evaluation-learning-mel-toolkit-for-grantmakers-grantees.

[34] BetterEvaluation (2020), Monitoring and Evaluation for Adaptive Management, Working Paper Series, https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/MandE_for_Adaptive_Management_WP2_What_Is_AM_%26_how_does_it_work_202009.pdf.

[16] Chilisa, B. (2020), Indigenous Research Methodologies (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications., https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/indigenous-research-methodologies-2-241776.

[40] Christian Aid (2022), Decolonising Evaluation - Whose Value Counts?, https://www.christianaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/decolonising-evaluation-whose-value-counts.pdf.

[23] DEval (2025), Country-led vs. Locally-led Evaluations: Presentation by DEval at OECD DAC EvalNet.

[30] Dissanayake, R. (2024), Blog Post: The Challenge of Localization, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/challenge-localization (accessed on 13 August 2025).

[18] Edge Effect (n.d.), Diverse SOGIESC (aka LGBTIQ+) Tools, https://www.edgeeffect.org/2322-2/#:~:text=Edge%20Effect's%20Partner%20Appraisal%20Tool,and%20%20adaptive%20work%20with%20people (accessed on 15 January 2026).

[38] Esteban, T. et al. (2022), Sowing & Harvesting. Participatory Evaluation Handbook, 2nd English edition, German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval), Bonn, https://www.deval.org/fileadmin/Redaktion/PDF/05-Publikationen/Externe_Publikationen/2022_Sowing_and_Harvesting/2022-Focelac-Sowing_and_Harvesting.pdf.

[7] Felm and Valoa Impact (2025), Reimagining peacebuilding monitoring and evaluation: A call for decolonized and locally led solutions - How digital technology can support change, https://felm.suomenlahetysseura.fi/app/uploads/2026/02/Reimagining-peacebuilding-monitoring-and-evaluation_Final-report_2025.pdf.

[12] Gobierno de Ecuador (2024), Evaluación a los espacios de socialización y encuentro para personas adultas mayores (2019–2024), Secretaria Nacional de Planificación, https://www.deval.org/fileadmin/Redaktion/PDF/05-Publikationen/Externe_Publikationen/2024_Country-led_Participatory_Evaluation_by_Ecuador/Informe-de-Evaluacion-Participativa.pdf.

[19] Government of Canada (2022), Indigenous approaches to evaluation and research, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/eiaer-eaame/approaches-approches.html.

[2] Government of Tanzania (2024), , https://www.pmo.go.tz/uploads/documents/sw-1736961515-2024-25%20Tanzania%20National%20Evaluation%20Plan.pdf.

[41] Grand Bargain (2023), Caucus on funding for localisation: Collective monitoring and accountability framework, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/sites/default/files/migrated/2023-05/Grand%20Bargain%20Caucus%20on%20funding%20for%20localisation_Monitoring%20and%20accountability%20framework_VF.pdf.

[28] IDRC (2024), How the Science Granting Council Initiative is helping to drive a research agenda that benefits Africans, https://idrc-crdi.ca/en/research-in-action/how-science-granting-council-initiative-helping-drive-research-agenda-benefits.

[5] 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.

[42] MCLD (n.d.), (Un)Learning Labs.

[13] ME&A (2024), Gathering Crucial Data in Conflict-Affected Environments: ME&A’s Approach to Third-Party Monitoring, https://www.meandahq.com/gathering-crucial-data-in-conflict-affected-environments-meas-approach-to-third-party-monitoring/.

[6] Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (2025), Country-led evaluation to achieve the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/c61fcb1d-3d18-40a9-931d-6daccc183843/content.

[35] Ministry of Denmark (2020), Guidance Note for Adaptive Managment, https://amg.um.dk/tools/guidance-note-for-adaptive-management.

[29] Norad (2020), The Knowledge Bank Strategy (2020-2025), https://www.norad.no/contentassets/2b9c950a47db4554acb2bd5d2db86388/the-knowledge-bank---strategy-20202025.pdf.

[37] OECD (2024), Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the Annual DAC Questionnaire, DCD/DAC(2024)40/FINAL, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC(2024)40/FINAL/en/pdf.

[36] OECD (2024), Effective Results Frameworks for Sustainable Development: Achieving Impact by Design, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aaa4bb52-en.

[1] OECD (2024), Measuring progress towards locally led development co-operation: Towards a shared framework, DCD(2024)27, OECD, Paris, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD%282024%2927/en/pdf.

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

[15] 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.

[25] OECD (2024), Valuing and Sharing Local Knowledge and Capacity: Practical approaches for enabling locally led development co-operation, OECD Publishing ONE Members and Partners, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)28/en/pdf.

[31] OECD (2023), Development Co-operation Report 2023: Debating the Aid System, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6edc3c2-en.

[4] OECD (2023), Evaluation Systems in Development Co-operation 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a255365e-en.

[20] OPSI (2024), Monitoring and participatory evaluation of the National Strategy to Combat Poverty 2021-2030 (ENCP), https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/monitoring-and-participatory-evaluation-of-the-national-strategy-to-combat-poverty-2021-2030-encp/.

[43] Oxfam Novib (2021), Empowering Local and National Humanitarian Actors, Oxfam Novib, https://oxfam.app.box.com/s/t7e2048vrre1xo81kpgjgq9l31sgcmty.

[11] Pacific Community (2020), Pacific Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Capacity Strengthening Rebbilib, https://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/SPC/Publications/Pacific_Monitoring_Evaluation_and_Learning_Capacity_Strengthening_Rebbilib.pdf.

[8] Peace Insight (2024), Unpacking the power dynamics of peacebuilding: towards locally led MEL, https://www.peaceinsight.org/en/articles/towards-locally-led-mel/?location=&theme=peace-education.

[9] Proximity International (2025), Moving Beyond the Donor Focus in MEL: A Case for Localizing MEL and Adding “Value.”, https://www.alrashadprogram.com/post/moving-beyond-the-donor-focus-in-mel-a-case-for-localizing-mel-and-adding-value.

[44] Results for Development (2023), Designing & Facilitating Collaborative Learning Networks, https://r4d.org/wp-content/uploads/R4D-Collaborative-Learning-Toolkit-DRAFT.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2025).

[14] Social Impact, Inc. (2023), The Case for Locally Led MEL: Important Lessons from Third-Party Monitoring, https://socialimpact.com/the-case-for-locally-led-mel/.

[24] SPCC, N. Bobadilla and G. Veda (2024), “Our Data, Out Process: Re-imagining the Community-led Monitoring and Evaluation Discussion”, Asia Pacific Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 02/01.

[3] University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg (2025), Uganda’s First Ever National Evaluation Plan is a Watershed Moment, https://www.wits.ac.za/news/sources/clear-news/ugandas-first-ever-national-evaluation-plan-is-a-watershed-moment.html.

[45] Wilde Ganzen (2024), Participatory Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning, https://www.wildeganzen.org/uploaded/2024/12/Part-3-Participatory-Planning-Monitoring-Evaluation-and-Learning.pdf.

[26] World Resources Institute (2021), Locally Led Adaptation: Principles for Locally Led Adaptation, https://www.wri.org/initiatives/locally-led-adaptation/principles-locally-led-adaptation (accessed on 27 July 2025).

Notes

← 1.  However, a few exceptions to this exist, such as the Global Evaluation Initiative (GEI), a multi-donor trust fund managed by the World Bank. In Germany, since 2014, DEval (German Institute for Development Evaluation) has implemented a systemic ECD-Project that works on all dimensions (supply, demand, enabling environment) of national evaluation systems.

← 2.  Preliminary results show that slightly more than half (54%) of the results indicators included in development partners’ projects and programmes are drawn from country-owned results frameworks. Reliance on data from national statistical systems to monitor results indicators is lower, with less than half (46%) of results indicators tracked using national monitoring or statistical systems. The use of country results indicators and official data sources appears to be influenced by partner country context. Development partners seem to be resorting to country-owned results frameworks to a lesser extent in contexts exposed to extreme fragility compared to other contexts.

← 3.  Pages 79-80 provide the definition for “developing country-based NGOs”, and pages 63-64 provide additional context.