Practical Guidelines for Supporting Locally Led Development

3. Action area: Meaningful co-creation of development solutions

Abstract

Development partners often limit engagement to national-level stakeholders when designing policies, programmes and budgets, excluding subnational actors, civil society, and community and Indigenous peoples from the process. When local actors are consulted, their participation tends to remain symbolic and is constrained to short consultations. This action area presents concrete ways to shift from top-down consultation approaches toward genuine engagement of local actors from the outset of policy, programme and budget development and demonstrates ways to embed locally led development by design.

What is the issue?

When developing country engagement strategies, development partners often limit engagement to national governments and other stakeholders at the national level. This leaves subnational governments, civil society, Indigenous peoples, and other community-based actors and leaders with little or no voice in shaping domestic development priorities. Local actors beyond national authorities are often brought into development co-operation late in the process, typically for short-term consultations on specific projects rather than being engaged in genuine co-creation of a comprehensive country or regional strategy. As a result, local actors have limited influence over development partner priorities and budgets (OECD, 2024[1]). Development partners often do not allocate sufficient time and resources for adequate contextualisation of partnerships and interventions, which contributes to misaligned priorities or unsustainable programme outcomes.1

Local actor participation is frequently symbolic, undervaluing local knowledge, structures and solutions (OECD, 2024[1]). Co-creation activities are designed around development partners’ own planning cycles and priorities; there is an insufficient allocation of time to fully engage with stakeholders, and representation and decision making power from regional experts and marginalised community members in such activities is limited (Gates Foundation, 2022[2]). In some cases, local organisations invest significant time and resources, sometimes over a year, in co-creation processes, only to be excluded from subsequent funding decisions, while their ideas are implemented by larger intermediaries. Where consultation is not linked to influence over decisions and resources, it can become extractive, eroding trust and discouraging future engagement by local actors. Such top-down approaches risk prioritising national and development partner agendas over the needs and perspectives of local authorities, communities and grassroots actors, limiting their integration into development planning and implementation. They may also fear being blacklisted if civil society questions national priorities or if they diverge from government or funder priorities, which further constrains meaningful participation.2

Locally led development (LLD) discussions often focus narrowly on civil society organisation (CSO) engagement or treat all local actors as a single category, which oversimplifies the complex political economy dynamics and existing power structures. This can be sensitive in contexts involving Indigenous peoples and local communities, who may have distinct rights, governance systems and customary institutions recognised in specific countries and international frameworks. In contexts with large refugee or displaced populations, nationally registered CSOs may also not fully represent the communities they serve. Consequently, co-creation does not look the same across different categories of local actors, ranging from Indigenous peoples, national and subnational governments, CSOs, community-based organisations, humanitarian actors, private sector entities, philanthropic foundations, and informal institutions and leaders (e.g. village elders, religious figures, activists). Meaningful co-creation requires an intentional design of the engagement, which depends on the partnership(s) involved, as each partner brings its own mandate, incentive and capacity.

As with any resource allocation process, locally led approaches are not immune to risks such as adverse selection or moral hazard. Organisations that are most visible or provider-literate may not always be the most representative, and access to external resources can reshape incentives and local power relations. These risks are not unique to local actors but reflect broader governance challenges across development co-operation.

Where to start

Embedding LLD “by design” means grounding development co-operation in equitable partnerships in which local actors are recognised as co-decision makers in defining priorities, approaches and what success looks like. Rather than being engaged once objectives, programmes or budgets are predetermined, local stakeholders, including national and sub-national authorities, CSOs, trade unions, domestic philanthropic actors and the private sector, are meaningfully involved from the outset in shaping strategy, direction and choices. In line with Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members’ commitments to the effectiveness principles and whole-of-society approaches, this requires sustained, well-resourced engagement based on active listening, transparency about purpose and constraints, and respect for diverse local knowledge, leadership, and lived experience and expertise. In practice, the depth, sequence and type of engagement will vary across contexts and are shaped by each country’s political, institutional and social conditions. Over time, partnerships can evolve along a continuum from consultation towards shared responsibility and joint decision making and, where appropriate, towards local actors leading key stages of policy and programme development, with all partners contributing their respective strengths in a spirit of mutual trust and accountability (OECD, 2023[3]).

• Australia’s Pacific Regional Development Partnership Plan (Australia DFAT, n.d.[4]) prioritises true partnership with the Pacific countries and commits to genuine relationships, shared outcomes, and engagement with government and non-government actors.

• The European Commission’s Co-creation for Policy Toolkit (European Commission, 2022[5]) offers a practical and comprehensive entry point for engaging local actors in policy design. It emphasises the quality of engagement, guiding users through the preparation of co-creation processes, from selecting participants (including facilitators, experts and community members) to structuring inclusive interactions. The toolkit showcases diverse formats for co-creation, such as innovation camps, climate-focussed hackathons, roadmap co-creation and idea prototyping.

• Spain is committed to ensuring that its bilateral partnership frameworks are co-designed with partner countries. Spain’s bilateral framework with Colombia (2020-2024) was co-designed through an inclusive consultation process led by the Bogotá office of the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID); this was the first time that the process involved Spanish decentralised authorities active in Colombia (OECD, 2024[6]).

• The United Kingdom’s State Accountability and Voice Initiative (Chambers and Booth, 2014[7]) programme in Nigeria focusses on demand-side governance and locally led partnerships by strengthening the ability of local actors, State Houses of Assembly, media and CSOs to hold government accountable. It supports locally driven coalitions rather than external agendas.

Meaningful engagement in LLD requires sustained, structured interaction that involves local perspectives as key actors in shaping policy choices and strategic decisions. It goes beyond one-off consultations or formal reporting exchanges and is characterised by regular, varied and safe interactions in which local actors can share priorities and perspectives in ways that feel accessible and familiar to them. Well-designed LLD consultations are inclusive and multilingual, use formats co-designed with local participants, and are supported by sufficient development partner staff capacity to listen and engage meaningfully, including at the senior leadership level to signal that contributions matter. Engagement is complemented by ongoing, informal exchanges and multiple channels for input, and closes the loop by clearly communicating to local actors how feedback has informed decisions. Over time, this approach helps build the trust, confidence and shared understanding needed for open dialogue, joint problem-solving and adaptive collaboration as challenges arise (Peace Direct, 2023[8]).

• One DAC member convened multilingual, partner-led consultations with grassroots and community-based organisations (virtually and through regional dialogues in Malawi and Uganda) to inform their LLD-related policies. Intentionally designed around active listening, senior leadership engagement and clear and continuous feedback loops, the process ensured that local perspectives meaningfully shaped policy outputs, including an LLD indicator and elements of a local systems framework.

▲Pitfalls to avoid:

• Avoid retrofitting local perspectives into predesigned projects. Rushed or superficial consultation processes risk tokenising local input, especially when development partner priorities are fixed before local partners are consulted (Malambo, 2025[9]).

• Avoid rushing co-creation processes. Allow for sufficient time for genuine dialogue, respecting the existing decision making structures and timelines of actors, especially for Indigenous peoples.

• Avoid the extraction of ideas from community-based actors via “one-off”, unpaid consultations. They risk further entrenching existing power dynamics.

Engaging civil society, Indigenous, community-based and grassroots actors from the outset by involving them in the review of budget proposals and the co-design of budgeting processes can help development partners assess whether allocations reflect local priorities and consider the implications of prescriptive contracting and rigid timelines. Rather than establishing parallel mechanisms, development partners can work through local CSO networks or existing national or municipal systems for directly engaging communities in budget decisions, such as participatory budgeting processes that allow citizens to influence how public funds are spent (Dias, 2014[10]; Dias, 2018[11]; Mook and Schugurensky, 2024[12]). Budgets and financial contracts should clearly set out allocations for LLD, include mechanisms for transparent communication on budgeting rules and adjustments, and respect local salary scales, languages and financial procedures. It is important for development partners to be open to receiving and providing the information needed in different languages.

• Global Affairs Canada established a paid working group of Indigenous advisors to co-design a Climate Finance Initiative, ensuring that Indigenous voices guided the process and that participants were compensated for their time and contributions, including document review.

• ActionAidSpace unpacks the approach to community-engaged budgeting, comprising steps to initiate community budgeting, successful case studies, ways to measure impact and future trends (ActionAidSpace, 2025[13]).

Consider prioritising unsolicited or “reverse calls for proposals” as a strategic entry point to shift decision-making power towards local actors. Under this approach, local organisations define priorities, themes and problem statements, with development partners responding to locally articulated agendas rather than setting them ex ante. This enables local actors to determine what requires financing, which approaches are most relevant and which partners should be involved, grounding interventions in context-specific knowledge and demand. Such modalities can be operationalised through pooled funds, participatory grant-making models, and targeted pilots where communities or local CSO networks identify needs and select implementing partners. When applied consistently, these approaches move beyond consultation towards genuine agenda-setting by local actors, helping to rebalance incentives and embed locally led principles in practice.

• The Netherlands’ Power of Voices programme (Government of the Netherlands, 2022[14]) operated as a reverse call by issuing broad partnership frameworks through which civil society networks, rather than funders, defined the thematic focus and programme design, ensuring that funding aligned with locally set agendas.

• FRIDA, the Young Feminist Fund, enabled a Reverse Call for Proposals, where local organisations issue the call for proposals and where they themselves evaluate how well the funder can support local issues (FRIDA, 2025[15]; #ShiftThePower, 2025[16]).

• The RINGO Project, in partnership with Sweden and other International civil society organisations, piloted a Reverse Call for Proposals in which local civil society issued calls to international actors to support locally determined initiatives (Ringo Project, 2025[17]).

• The Start Network, a global network of humanitarian actors, uses local decision making to select projects based on members’ knowledge of their specific country or region. Through their National Start Funds, they finance locally led humanitarian action, with members managing their own funds for the benefit of their communities (Start Network, n.d.[18]).

Inclusive dialogue and meaningful co-creation require convening a diverse mix of stakeholders, including experts, practitioners and community members with lived experience, so that technical expertise, practical knowledge and context-specific solutions complement one another (Mintrom et al., 2024[19]). Engaging marginalised groups intentionally and at all levels of decision making helps to address structural inequalities and dismantle systemic barriers in policy and programming (GIZ, 2018[20]). This includes working with local women leaders and recognising and respecting diverse historical, cultural, and contextual understandings of gender equality priorities and agendas in each local setting (Begum, 2025[21]). It also entails supporting the participation of organisations representing youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ+) people, and those experiencing poverty, particularly where their voices, expertise and creative solutions are often overlooked.

Partnering with women’s rights organisations, networks and movements

Below are leading examples of how DAC members engage through sustained programming to advance gender equality. These initiatives strengthen partnerships for women‑led peacebuilding and provide flexible, inclusive and targeted funding for women, where women and WROs are at the centre of decision‑making.

• Australia’s Gender Equality Fund (Australia DFAT, n.d.[22]) plays a key role in partnering with the private sector and civil society to advance gender equality, including through its National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security (Australia DFAT, n.d.[23]), which prioritises partnerships with local civil society, WROs and women-led peacebuilding organisations to strengthen peace processes.

• Canada’s Women’s Voice and Leadership (WVL) Program applies a feminist approach that places women’s rights organisations at the centre of design and implementation, supports priorities they define themselves, addresses structural inequalities and power imbalances, and provides flexible funding responsive to evolving local realities (OECD, 2024[1]). Through its consultation and feedback process, Canada heard directly from recipients that the WVL program's core modalities are working (i.e., multi-year flexible funding, rapid and responsive mechanisms, direct funding, and support for institutional capacity and alliance-building) and are valued precisely because they avoid projectising aid and allow for context-specific, locally driven solutions (Global Affairs Canada, 2024[24]).

• The Netherlands’ Leading from the South programme is a feminist funding alliance that resources and supports feminist and women’s rights organisations, networks and movements. The programme has had notable results towards shifting power and participation of women’s rights organisations in key government decision making (OECD, 2022[25]; Leading from the South, n.d.[26]). The programme has also focussed on uplifting WROs working with structurally excluded groups, such as those affected by gender-based violence (OECD TIPS, 2022[27]).

Partnering with sexual and gender minority communities

Below is a non‑exhaustive set of resources on partnering with sexual and gender minority communities, including in humanitarian contexts and crisis situations, as well as resources on building inclusive partnerships to reduce gender‑based violence.

• Commissioned by Australia, the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in humanitarian action (ALNAP) shares guidance with entry points for intentionally including people with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) in humanitarian crises and contexts. This guide aims to support actors involved in addressing humanitarian contexts by raising awareness of how the SOGIESC community can face marginalisation before the emergency, during the response, or during the recovery, return or resettlement period. With two-way communication, engagement and accountability efforts at the forefront of this guidance, this outlines practical entry points for the inclusion of diverse SOGIESC persons (ALNAP, 2022[28]).

LLD and gender-based violence (GBV) programming intersects strongly around agency, accountability and context-responsiveness. Gender transformative change, including GBV risks, drivers and protection mechanisms, is deeply shaped by local norms, power relations and service ecosystems, meaning that prevention and response efforts are most effective when designed and led by actors with contextual legitimacy and proximity to affected communities (Making Cents International, 2022[29]).

• Canada’s GBV Programme prioritises support for women and SOGIESC communities by providing tools, resources and funding to better address diverse needs. It has helped establish or strengthen more than 1 400 cross‑sector partnerships to reduce GBV, and its projects have reached over 90 000 women, girls and gender‑diverse people, contributing to greater safety and empowerment for survivors (Government of Canada, 2026[30]).

• The Guidance on How to Engage Locally Led Organizations in Gender-Based Violence Programming offers concrete entry points to strengthen local capabilities, avoid parallel structures, and ensure that GBV interventions are embedded in domestic systems and aligned with locally defined priorities (Making Cents International, 2022[29]).

Partnering with Indigenous leaders and populations

The following examples provide an illustrative, non-exhaustive set of practices where DAC members have moved beyond consultation towards genuine co-creation with Indigenous communities by embedding Indigenous leadership, knowledge systems and lived experience into the design and governance of programmes.

• Australia’s Shared Decision-Making Framework supports government bodies and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to embed shared decision making principles into practice. The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) produced a Co-Design Lessons Learned Report highlighting the lessons learned from co-design in the context of Indigenous policymaking (NIAA, 2023[31]).

• New Zealand’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi is the cornerstone of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s international co‑operation agenda, particularly the Pacific Resilience Approach (2021), which mandates the consultation, engagement and protection of Māori interests in development co-operation (OECD, 2023[32]), (New Zealand Government, 2021[33]). This approach has led to more robust partnerships with Pacific Island partners, a 20-year APEC commitment on Indigenous economic inclusion, and the systematic integration of Māori economic and trade interests into recent free trade agreements.

• Sweden collaborated with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to empower Indigenous persons to use their knowledge to identify self-driven and innovative solutions to challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss (IFAD, 2023[34]).

• GOAL, an international humanitarian response agency supported by several Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members (i.e. the European Union, Ireland, the Netherlands), takes a Local Systems Approach that works with Indigenous and Afro-descendent communities in the Latin America and the Caribbean region to ensure both citizen participation for access to resources and Indigenous perspectives in local policies focussing on building climate resilience (GOAL, 2022[35]).

• Led by Pacific Islander researchers and funded by the Netherlands and the International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA), the Creating Equitable South-North Partnerships research documents Pacific Islander women leaders’ experiences with Global North institutions and identifies enablers for more equitable co-creation, co-design and decolonial approaches in research and aid (IWDA, 2020[36]).

Partnering with persons with disability

The following examples highlight how DAC members are working to shift participation from tokenistic inclusion toward genuinely accessible and dignified co-design processes for persons with disabilities.

• Australia’s good practice note on Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion recommends consulting partners and local organisations, including organisations of people with disabilities and WROs, to better understand specific gender equality, disability and social inclusion issues, elicit their priorities and suggestions, and ensure they have a voice and agency within the analysis process (Australia DFAT, 2023[37]).

• The Better Assistance in Crises Programme study funded by the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (UK FCDO) to explore how to have more dignified and inclusive participatory processes for marginalised groups, including disabled women and rural youth (Shaw, Rohwerder and Karem, 2024[38]).

Partnering with people experiencing poverty and inequalities

The following guidance was developed through consultations with experts, communities, and DAC members working on or directly affected by poverty and inequality.

• The OECD’s forthcoming Guidelines on Reducing Poverty and Inequalities through Development Co-operation highlights ways to address poverty and inequality while also uplifting local actors (OECD, forthcoming[39]).

  ▲Pitfall to avoid:

• Avoid assuming that being locally based guarantees broad representation or neutrality. Local actors often reflect particular interests or power dynamics within their communities, so their legitimacy cannot be assumed. One local partner rarely speaks for all. Development partners should consider context, diversity and inclusion carefully to avoid tokenism and ensure that marginalised groups are genuinely heard and represented.

In contexts affected by conflict or high fragility, participant selection must be intentional and sensitive to local context and conflict dynamics to avoid creating risks or undue burdens, including where mistrust may exist between policymakers and marginalised groups. Respecting and integrating local knowledge throughout co-creation processes help ensure that policies and programmes are relevant, inclusive, and more likely to be sustained and owned locally. Prioritise risk mitigation strategies, confidentiality safeguards and power-sensitive facilitation to uphold the principle of “do no harm”, including by avoiding the exposure or instrumentalisation of local partners, ensuring that engagement does not exacerbate existing tensions or inequalities, and adapting formats, visibility and expectations to minimise potential security, reputational or political risks for those involved.

• Belgium’s Enabel implemented a “Fragility Intervention” in Burkina Faso aimed to strengthen the capacity of municipalities and community structures to respond to fragility and large-scale displacement in the Centre-East region (Enabel, 2022[40]). The programme included monitoring local risks, designing responses and co-ordinating service delivery for both displaced and host populations. It focussed on increasing resilience and economic empowerment for women-led households and improving access to education and basic services for internally displaced persons.

• Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) applies political economy analysis to partner selection and programme design, including screening for polarisation risks3. In highly polarised or shrinking civic space contexts (such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, the Sahel or Sudan), IDRC adapts its modalities by working through diaspora networks, supporting researchers in exile or regional hubs and making smart use of research processes to enable dialogue in politically constrained contexts.

• The Netherlands and Nonviolent Peaceforce partnered to advance local peacebuilding in South Sudan by empowering women leaders (Nonviolent Peaceforce, 2018[41]). Their approach was built on existing peace processes and community initiatives, enabling women to take leadership roles and set their own agendas for reducing violence and building peace.

• Sweden’s Humanitarian Assistance (2025-2029) Strategy emphasises stronger partnerships with local civil society to ensure effective, context-driven responses (Sida, 2025[42]). It recognises local actors’ unique knowledge, networks and ability to reach vulnerable groups in hard-to-access areas.

  ▲Pitfall to avoid:

• Avoid assuming that inclusion is always safe or risk-free for local partners. Taking a whole-of-society approach requires acknowledging that structural inequalities can make engagement with certain disenfranchised groups unsafe for them by increasing their exposure to discrimination, retaliation or other risks.

Work through existing country mechanisms and communication channels, such as established local networks, to connect more directly with local actors for equitable and transparent co-operation and humanitarian action. Intentional engagement with highly localised actors, combined with strategic links to formal policymaking processes, helps ensure that co-design efforts gain traction and translate into meaningful influence (Jagtap, 2021[43]).

• Funded by Canada,4 Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Quadrature Climate Foundation, the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Initiative for Effective Adaptation and Resilience (LIFE-AR) (LDC Group on Climate Change, 2023[44]) embeds country ownership across the full programme cycle, including design, financing and implementation, within existing LDC systems. Designed at the request of LDCs and governed by them through a dedicated Board and national platforms, the initiative shifts power away from external intermediaries and into the hands of national and local institutions. Countries decide their own priorities and delivery pathways and focus on achieving their goal that at least 70% of climate finance supports community‑identified investments. This approach has translated into the establishment of national mechanisms across all first-cohort countries, with several transitioning from international to national financial intermediaries and increasing the share of investments aligned with locally identified priorities. As a result, locally prioritised adaptation actions are being delivered at scale through national systems.

• In humanitarian contexts, National Reference Groups (NRGs) are national-level, constituent-based, consultative platforms led by local actors that bring together governments, civil society and humanitarian partners to shape response planning and decision making. Introduced with the launch of the Grand Bargain 2.0 in 2021, NRGs aim to advance commitments, particularly on supporting LLD, by anchoring them in country-level dialogue and practice.

  ▲Pitfall to avoid:

• Avoid creating new or competing local networks. Empower and strengthen the inclusivity of long-standing existing networks to grow the local ecosystem.

While co-creation typically refers to the collaborative design of programmes or policies with local actors, in practice these can also take the form of consortia or networked response models built on co-leadership and co-ownership, where power is shared among local and international partners (Charter for Change, 2025[45]).

• Germany supports the Towards Greater Effectiveness and Timeliness in Humanitarian Emergency Response Program (ToGETHER) as a collaborative initiative dedicated to locally led humanitarian action, including via increasing the visibility and leadership of local actors (ToGETHER, n.d.[46]).

• The Movement for Community-led Development (MCLD) provides a model for self-governed, self-directed local networks and consortia that undertake collective action and advocacy through a member-led process (MCLD, n.d.[47]). For example, Community-led Development Benin is a network of 1 000 local networks and community-based groups that promote local leadership, devolution and inclusion. Similarly, Strategic Action for Community-led Development in Nigeria (SACDN) is a group of 32 local organisations, mostly led by women, that are fighting sexual and gender-based violence in Nigeria, covering 61% of the population.

• The Start Network is transitioning to a locally led humanitarian model through its Localisation Framework. It promotes locally driven hubs in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India and Pakistan, aiming to decentralise decision making and funding (Start Network, 2021[48]).

• Oxfam has used and organised several networked response models, a collaborative structure of multiple stakeholders (national and local), to form a consortium for co-ordinated responses. For example, the Humanitarian System Transformation through Local Humanitarian Leadership is a flagship programme (2024-2027) with financial support from the Netherlands (Oxfam, n.d.[49]).

Engaging the local private sector is a core dimension of LLD, as it anchors investment, innovation and employment in domestic economies, depending on the sector. Consistent with the Kampala Principles (GPEDC, 2019[50]), effective engagement involves i) aligning partnerships with nationally defined priorities and country systems; ii) enabling the participation of local micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, including those operating in underserved and informal contexts; and iii) ensuring transparency, accountability and responsible business conduct. Targeted outreach through governments, business associations and other intermediaries further supports the inclusion of local firms in development co-operation initiatives.

• The Kampala Principles Toolkit of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) provides tailored advice to countries and organisations engaging in private sector partnerships in development co-operation (GPEDC, 2019[51]).

Domestic and community-based philanthropic organisations offer significant untapped potential to advance LLD, given their flexibility, risk tolerance and close links to local communities. They can fund core costs, take early-stage risks and support locally defined priorities, helping to strengthen sustainable local funding ecosystems and, where relevant, contribute to blended finance aligned with national strategies (OECD, 2025[52]). Development partners can engage local philanthropy as part of the broader country ecosystem, invest in community foundations and philanthropy networks, and align around flexible, multi-year support with proportionate due diligence.

• Existing platforms such as the OECD’s Network of Foundations Working for Development (netFWD) bring together more than 500 philanthropic organisations from 28 countries that provide financing for development (OECD, n.d.[53]). The network includes members and partners from low‑ and middle‑income countries (LMIC), and, drawing on over six decades of experience, helps integrate LMIC perspectives into global development policy debates.

• WINGS, serves as another existing global network of philanthropic and development organisations, and the Funders’ Roundtable on the Future of Development offers a practical entry point for collaboration in support of shared LLD objectives.

Additional resources

• The OECD DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance (OECD, 2024[54]) committed to supporting locally based women’s rights and women-led organisations as well as feminist movements.

• The OECD Policy Brief on “Engaging with subnational authorities in politically constrained environments” (OECD, forthcoming[55]) sets out the opportunities and trade-offs of staying engaged when national or central-level co-operation is no longer viable or legitimate.

• The OECD guidance on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls (OECD, 2022[56]) can inform support to local women’s organisations.

• Approved by the DAC, the OECD/UNDP Impact Standards for Financing Sustainable Development, outline a private sector impact strategy which prioritises investments that are grounded in local development needs and an impact management approach that is rooted in local frameworks (OECD/UNDP, 2021[57]). These standards aim to guide donors in their engagement with private sector partners, for more sustainable and locally led blended finance approaches.

• The GPEDC monitoring exercise provides evidence on the degree to which development partners consult a diverse range of local actors, particularly in the “framing” stage of setting development priorities (see Annex A).

• Global Affairs Canada's Women’s Voice and Leadership Program Formative Evaluation provides evidence on diverse partnership models with local women's organisations, funds, implementing partners and networks (Global Affairs Canada, 2022[58]).

• Guidance on Strengthening Participation, Representation, and Leadership of Local and National Actors (IASC, 2021[59]) by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) maps out practical actions and recommendations (with indicators) across key dimensions: participation, leadership, capacity strengthening, resourcing, visibility, and humanitarian-development-peace collaboration.

• Guidelines for Complimentary Action in Fragile Contexts (ICVA, 2022[60]) by the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) aims to guide public and private actors at the local, national and international levels on how to work in unity to better meet the needs of communities in crisis.

• The Guidance Note on Organising Inclusive Events by the Movement for Community-led Development (MCLD) is a tool from local actors for designing LLD-related events (MCLD, 2024[61]).

• MCLD’s Participatory Community Led Development Assessment Tool (MCLD, n.d.[62]) is a learning-oriented tool designed to help development partners assess how inclusive and locally led their initiatives are.

• The Share Trust’s study on the Role of Local Actors in Gender Responsive and Inclusive Social Protection Systems provides evidence-based recommendations for development partners and international actors to foster locally led, gender-responsive and inclusive social protection (Kamau and Selby, 2025[63]).

• Oxfam Canada’s A Feminist Approach to Localisation presents the structural barriers that WROs face (e.g. unequal funding access, patriarchal norms, marginalisation within civil society) and presents how LLD can have a feminist lens (Oxfam Canada, 2018[64]).

• The UN Women’s guidance note on How to Promote Gender-Responsive Localization in Humanitarian Action provides good practices for engaging WROs in planning mechanisms and ways to empower women and WROs, particularly in humanitarian contexts (UN Women, 2020[65]).

• Facilitating Power’s Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership (Facilitating Power, n.d.[66]) provides an outline of the different stages of community engagement and steps for furthering participation, including specific costs and benefits and different strategies for involving communities and city staff.

• To advance local humanitarian leadership and localisation, the Charter4Change’s paper on “Complementarity through a Localisation Lens” (Charter4change, 2026[67]) sets out how to organise roles, resources, and responsibilities so that humanitarian action becomes more effective, inclusive, and locally led.

References

[16] #ShiftThePower (2025), Turning power on its head, a reverse call for applications, https://shiftthepower.org/2025/11/19/turning-power-on-its-head-and-a-reverse-call-for-applications/.

[13] ActionAidSpace (2025), What I’ve achieved through community-engaged budgeting, https://actionaidspace.org/what-ive-achieved-through-community-engaged-budgeting/#future-trends-in-community-budgeting.

[28] ALNAP (2022), Intentional inclusion of people with diverse SOGIESC (LGBTIQ+ people) in communication, community engagement and accountability, https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/intentional-inclusion-of-people-with-diverse-sogiesc-lgbtiq-people-in-communication-community/.

[37] 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.

[4] Australia DFAT (n.d.), Australia – Pacific Regional Development Partnership Plan 2025–2029, https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/development/australia-pacific-regional-development-partnership-plan-2025-2029 (accessed on 16 January 2026).

[22] Australia DFAT (n.d.), Gender equality, https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/gender-equality/australias-international-support-for-gender-equality (accessed on 16 January 2026).

[23] Australia DFAT (n.d.), National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security (2021-2031), https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/australias-national-action-plan-on-women-peace-and-security-2021-2031.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2026).

[21] Begum, H. (2025), Women in the Global South know exactly how to support their own communities – So why don’t we get behind them?, https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/womens-rights-fund/.

[7] Chambers, V. and D. Booth (2014), The SAVI programme in Nigeria: Towards politically smart, locally led development, https://odi.org/en/publications/the-savi-programme-in-nigeria-towards-politically-smart-locally-led-development/.

[45] 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.

[67] Charter4change (2026), Outcome Document: Complementarity through a Localisation Lens, https://charter4change.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/complementarity-through-localisation-lens_charter4change-1.pdf.

[11] Dias, N. (2018), Hope for Democracy: 30 Years of Participatory Budgeting, https://npms.cfh.ufsc.br/files/2018/09/hope_for_democracy_-_digital.pdf.

[10] Dias, N. (2014), Hope for Democracy: 25 Years of Participatory Budgeting, https://www.bpb.de/medien/757174/Studie_Hope_for_democracy_-_25_years_of_participatory_budgeting_worldwide_0.pdf.

[40] Enabel (2022), Enabel’s Fragility Intervention in Burkina Faso, https://globalcompactrefugees.org/enabels-fragility-intervention-burkina-faso.

[5] European Commission (2022), Co-creation for policy: Participatory methodologies to structure multi-stakeholder policymaking processes, https://doi.org/10.2760/211431.

[66] Facilitating Power (n.d.), The Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership, https://movementstrategy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Spectrum-of-Community-Engagement-to-Ownership.pdf.

[15] FRIDA (2025), Upending Power: FRIDA’s Reverse Call For Applications, https://shiftthepower.org/2025/11/19/turning-power-on-its-head-and-a-reverse-call-for-applications/.

[2] Gates Foundation (2022), “Critical barriers to sustainable capacity strengthening in global health: A systems perspective on development assistance”, https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/6-116/v2.

[20] GIZ (2018), The Whole of Society Approach: Levels of engagement and meaningful participation of different stakeholders in the review process of the 2030 Agenda, https://sdghelpdesk.unescap.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/Whole-of-Society-P4R-Discussion-Paper-Oct.-2018-1.pdf.

[24] Global Affairs Canada (2024), Renewal of the Women’s Voice and Leadership Program: What we heard report, https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/global-health-sante-mondiale/women-voice-leadership-voix-leadership-femms.aspx?lang=eng.

[58] Global Affairs Canada (2022), Women’s Voice and Leadership Program Formative Evaluation, https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/audit-evaluation-verification/2022/2022-05-wvl-vlf.aspx?lang=eng.

[35] GOAL (2022), GOAL presents path to resilient Blue Economy at 2022 UN Ocean Conference, https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/goal-presents-path-to-resilient-blue-economy-at-2022-un-ocean-conference/.

[30] Government of Canada (2026), Gender-based Violence Program, https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/funding/funding-programs/gender-based-violence-program.html (accessed on 3 April 2026).

[14] Government of the Netherlands (2022), Policy Framework Strengthening Civil Society, https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2019/11/28/policy-framework-strengthening-civil-society.

[50] GPEDC (2019), Kampala Principles on Effective Private Sector Engagement Through Development Co-operation, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/content/kampala-principles-effective-private-sector-engagement-through-development-co-operation.

[51] GPEDC (2019), Kampala Principles Toolkit, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/kampala-principles.

[59] IASC (2021), Guidance on Strengthening Participation, Representation, and Leadership of Local and National Actors, http://e%20on%20Strengthening%20Participation%2C%20Representation%20and%20Leadership%20of%20Local%20and%20National%20Actors%20in%20IASC%20Humanitarian%20Coordination%20Mechanisms_1.pdf.

[60] ICVA (2022), Guidelines for Complementary Action in Fragile Contexts, https://www.icvanetwork.org/resource/guidelines-for-complementary-action-in-fragile-contexts/.

[34] IFAD (2023), Indigenous Peoples partner with IFAD, Sweden’s Sida, and Packard Foundation to build resilience and adapt to climate change, https://www.ifad.org/en/w/news/indigenous-peoples-partner-with-ifad-sweden-s-sida-and-packard-foundation-to-build-resilience-and-adapt-to-climate-change? (accessed on 23 February 2026).

[36] IWDA (2020), Creating Equitable South-North Partnerships: Nurturing the Vā and Voyaging the Audacious Ocean Together, https://iwda.org.au/resource/creating-equitable-south-north-partnerships/.

[43] Jagtap, S. (2021), Co-design with Marginalised People: Designers’ Perceptions of Barriers and Enablers, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349212477_Co-design_with_Marginalised_People_Designers'_Perceptions_of_Barriers_and_Enablers.

[63] Kamau, G. and S. Selby (2025), The Role of Local Actors in Gender Responsive and Inclusive Social Protection Systems, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b2110247c93271263b5073a/t/687e3d87354e3d0af50fde02/1753103754728/STAAR_GESI+Synthesis+Report.pdf.

[44] 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.

[26] Leading from the South (n.d.), Leading from the South Website, https://www.leadingfromthesouth.org.

[29] Making Cents International (2022), How to Engage Locally Led Organizations in Gender-Based Violence Programming, https://makingcents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CARE-GBV-10-Locally-Led-Orgs-accessible.pdf.

[9] Malambo, N. (2025), “’It never really has a face that is fully ours’: Perspectives on ownership, antiracism and the decolonization of development”, Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue canadienne d’études du développement, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2025.2531069.

[61] MCLD (2024), Majority World Voice: How to Organise Inclusive Events, https://mcld.org/2024/09/20/how-to-organise-international-events-and-convenings/.

[47] MCLD (n.d.), MCLD Website, https://mcld.org/ (accessed on 16 January 2026).

[62] MCLD (n.d.), Participatory CLD Assessment Tool, https://mcldtools.github.io/en.html (accessed on 14 January 2026).

[19] Mintrom, M. et al. (2024), Co-design in policymaking: from an emerging to an embedded practice, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11077-024-09550-9#ref-CR32.

[12] Mook, L. and D. Schugurensky (2024), Participatory budgeting and local development: Impacts, challenges, and prospects, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26883597.2024.2391664.

[33] New Zealand Government (2021), Aotearoa New Zealand’s Pacific Engagement: Partnering for Resilience, https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/aotearoa-new%C2%A0zealand%E2%80%99s-pacific-engagement-partnering-resilience.

[31] NIAA (2023), Co-Design Lessons Learned Report: National Indigenous Australians Report, https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-05/co-design-lessons-learned-report.pdf.

[41] Nonviolent Peaceforce (2018), Netherland and Nonviolent Peaceforce ink deal to empower women on peace building, https://nonviolentpeaceforce.org/netherland-and-np/.

[52] OECD (2025), Statement on Philanthropy’s Strategic Support to the FFD4 Agenda and Beyond, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/announcements/2025/06/philanthropys-strategic-support-to-ffd4.html?.

[54] OECD (2024), DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5022.

[6] OECD (2024), “Designing and engaging in horizontal and inclusive partnerships: Spain’s Bilateral partnership frameworks”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/designing-and-engaging-in-horizontal-and-inclusive-partnerships-spain-s-bilateral-partnership-frameworks_f224b677-en.html.

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

[3] OECD (2023), Framing DAC member approaches to enabling locally led development, DCD(2023)47, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2023)47/en/pdf.

[32] 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.

[56] 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.

[25] OECD (2022), The Netherlands partner with local women’s rights organisations and feminist movements for gender transformative change, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/the-netherlands-partner-with-local-women-s-rights-organisations-and-feminist-movements-for-gender-transformative-change_c65d79cd.html.

[55] OECD (forthcoming), “Engaging with subnational authorities in politically constrained environments”, OECD Policy Brief.

[39] OECD (forthcoming), Guidelines on Reducing Poverty and Inequality through Development Co-operation.

[53] OECD (n.d.), Network of Foundations Working for Development (netFWD), https://www.oecd.org/en/networks/network-of-foundations-working-for-development.html (accessed on 31 March 2026).

[27] OECD TIPS (2022), The Netherlands Partner with Local WROs and Feminist Movements for Gender and Transformative Change, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/the-netherlands-partner-with-local-women-s-rights-organisations-and-feminist-movements-for-gender-transformative-change_c.

[57] OECD/UNDP (2021), OECD-UNDP Impact Standards for Financing Sustainable Development, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/744f982e-en.

[49] Oxfam (n.d.), Humanitarian System Transformation through Local Humanitarian Leadership (HST-LHL), https://www.oxfamnovib.nl/en/about-us/donors-and-partners/humanitarian-system-transformation-through-local-humanitarian-leadership-hst-lhl (accessed on 16 January 2026).

[64] Oxfam Canada (2018), A Feminist Approach to Localization, https://www.oxfam.ca/publication/a-feminist-approach-to-localization-how-canada-can-support-the-leadership-of-womens-rights-actors-in-humanitarian-action/.

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

[17] Ringo Project (2025), Case Study: The Reverse Call for Proposals, https://ringoproject.org/case-study-the-reverse-call-for-proposals/.

[38] Shaw, J., B. Rohwerder and H. Karem (2024), “Towards inclusive social assistance for marginalised people in the KRI”, Better Assistance in Crises Research, https://pasewan.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/BASIC_Working_Paper_29.pdf.

[42] Sida (2025), Strategy for Sweden’s humanitarian assistance provided through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 2025-2029, https://www.government.se/international-development-cooperation-strategies/2025/06/strategy-for-swedens-humanitarian-assistance-20252029/.

[48] Start Network (2021), An Interative Framwork for a Locally Led Start Network, https://startnetwork.org/learn-change/resources/library/localisation-framework.

[18] Start Network (n.d.), National Start Funds, https://startnetwork.org/funds/national-start-funds (accessed on 16 January 2026).

[46] ToGETHER (n.d.), The ToGETHER Program, https://together-for-localisation.org/ (accessed on 16 January 2026).

[65] UN Women (2020), How to Promote Gender-Responsive Localization in Humanitarian Action, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/sites/default/files/migrated/2020-05/UN Women - How to promote gender-responsive localisation in humanitarian action - Guidance Note.pdf.

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.  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.

← 3.  Based on inputs received during consultations with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

← 4.  Canada will only continue funding LIFE-AR until the end of the current financial year (2026).