Practical Guidelines for Supporting Locally Led Development

Annex A. Using Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation monitoring evidence to assess progress on locally led development

Locally led development (LLD) is closely aligned with the principles and commitments of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC). As an approach to translate the principle of country ownership into practice, it enables partner countries to define their own priorities, with development partners aligning their support accordingly. By anchoring support in national priorities, systems and leadership, supporting locally led development can enable inclusive dialogue, joint decision-making, and mutual accountability between partner countries and development actors, key conditions for sustainable and legitimate development outcomes.

The GPEDC monitoring is a partner country-led exercise that promotes collective accountability on the effectiveness of development co-operation. While it was not designed to specifically capture locally led approaches, its partner country-led methodology and focus on ownership, results, inclusive partnerships, transparency and accountability generates contextual evidence on the degree to which development partners enable diverse local actors, including national and local authorities, civil society organisations (CSOs) and the private sector to shape the framing, design, delivery, and accountability of development efforts.

This brief complements the OECD’s Guidelines for operationalising locally led development co-operation, aimed at advancing locally led co-operation through light practical guidelines. It draws on the “working definitions” of locally led development and local actors adopted by the OECD (see reader’s guide). The analysis, conducted in November 2025, is based on preliminary findings from the GPEDC’s fourth monitoring round (2023-2026), drawing on data from the 37 partner countries1 that completed data collection as of the end of October 2025.2

This brief provides insights on development partners’ existing practices to promote and enable local actors’ leadership and participation in development co-operation processes. These insights can serve as a basis for peer learning between DAC members and other development partners, helping to identify gaps, learn from good practices, and enhance their own approaches to supporting locally led development. With a fifth GPEDC monitoring round tentatively planned for 2027-28, members have an opportunity not only to benchmark their current performance but also to track progress over time, demonstrating improvements against their ambitions to increase locally led development and reinforce collective accountability.

The GPEDC monitoring generates evidence around four thematic areas: Whole-of-society [approach to development], State and use of country systems, Transparency, Leaving no one behind. This paper organises GPEDC evidence relevant to LLD in line with the thematic areas of the Guidelines for supporting LLD (Table A A.1).

Table A A.1. GPEDC evidence relevant to the Guidelines for supporting LLD

GPEDC evidence	Guidelines for supporting LLD
1. Inclusive partnerships with local actors on development effectiveness	Meaningful co-creation of development solutions
2. Fostering equitable partnerships: supporting an enabling environment for CSOs	Equitable partnership approaches
3. Using and strengthening PFM systems for locally led development	Quality financing to local actors
4. Localising monitoring and evaluation and enhancing accountability	Locally led monitoring, evaluation and learning Transparency and accountability

Throughout this brief “development partner” refers to official agencies, including state and local governments, or to their executive agencies that provide development co-operation. This includes DAC members as well as other bilateral and multilateral partners.3

Inclusive partnerships with local actors for development effectiveness

Development partners have an opportunity to deepen engagement with more diverse local actors when developing country-level strategies, including vulnerable and marginalised groups. While most development partners engage the national government and local CSOs, greater inclusion of other local actors like subnational governments, the private sector and a diversity of groups representing vulnerable and marginalised populations can help ensure that development co-operation priorities reflect local realities and needs. Similarly, the limited consultation with local actors in development partners’ private sector engagement (PSE) strategies suggests scope to make these policies more locally relevant.

Building inclusive and equitable partnerships between development partners and local actors is a fundamental component of promoting locally led development and a cornerstone of the effectiveness agenda (Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, 2011[1]). Early, inclusive engagement of national stakeholders, before priorities, activities, or budgets are set enables them to meaningfully shape the framing, design, delivery, and evaluation of development co-operation. The GPEDC monitoring exercise provides evidence on how development partners are engaging, setting priorities, and supporting capacity strengthening for local stakeholders in their development co-operation policies and strategies. These data help assess the degree to which development partners consult a diverse range of local actors, particularly in the “framing” stage of setting development priorities (OECD, 2023[2]).

Development partners’ consultation with local actors in the development of country strategies

GPEDC monitoring evidence reveals that development partners tend to consult local stakeholders unevenly in the development of their country-level strategies. National government are the most frequently engaged, with 91% of development partners’ country strategies for which development partners indicating that they have consulted the national government in the preparation of such strategies or partnership frameworks. This is an expected result given their central role in setting national priorities, however, development partners indicate not consulting the national government at all for 9% of the strategies they reported on. Of these, bilateral partners more frequently indicate not consulting the national government than multilateral partners. Subnational governments are consulted less frequently (for 62% of strategies). While this may reflect the national-level focus of many strategies, it also suggests potential missed opportunities to further deepen local relevance where appropriate. Of the non-governmental local actors, CSOs are the most frequently consulted (73%) followed by the private sector (51%).

Evidence on how development partners consult local actors in private sector engagement (PSE) in development co-operation is now emerging from the Kampala Principles Assessment4, a novel component of the GPEDC monitoring. Initial findings highlight that development partners do not engage local stakeholders when developing over half of their PSE strategies. Despite most of development partners’ PSE policies/strategies (88%) align with the country’s development priorities, development partners consult the national government in less than half of their strategies. This share is even lower for subnational governments (involved in around a fifth of PSE strategies). The local private sector and CSOs are also not frequently consulted (engaged in less than 40% of PSE strategies). The lack of consultation with local actors in development partners’ PSE strategies suggests there is scope to make these policies more locally relevant.

Leave no one behind (LNOB) in development partner country strategies and priority setting

LNOB, one of the central pledges expressed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, aims to re-enforce the commitment of development partners to not only reach the poorest, but also to focus on discrimination and inequities that may undermine the agency of people as holders of rights (which may in turn limit their ability to access development programmes and services) (UN, 2017[3]).

Emerging evidence from the GPEDC monitoring exercise, indicates that many development partners consult CSOs representing women and girls (83% of the country strategies) and youth and children (76%). Additionally, CSOs representing at least one population group considered vulnerable or marginalised in the country were consulted in 73% of the strategies. However, there are significant discrepancies across vulnerable or marginalised groups consulted at the local level. Development partners engage least with CSOs representing LGBTIQ+ groups (21% of the country strategies), internally displaced people (17%), Indigenous peoples (16%), refugees (13%), and ethnic minorities (10%). This partly reflects country-level political-economy constraints that limit these groups’ ability to organise and be represented, as well as their limited visibility in some contexts. Even so, only 44% of development partners’ strategies include capacity strengthening in their country strategies to enable vulnerable and marginalised groups to organise and represent themselves.

This evidence suggests that development partners may face broader challenges in consulting local stakeholders experiencing marginalisation and inequalities when shaping their development co-operation plans and strategies. It could in part be due to limited political will by development partners, as DAC members tend to not target or place less priority on addressing horizontal inequalities beyond gender in their development co-operation policies and programmes (OECD, 2024[4]).

Development partners almost systematically set priorities for population groups that are broadly present across country contexts: women and girls, youth and children, the poorest, populations vulnerable to climate change, people living in disadvantaged areas, and people with disabilities. In contrast, priorities are less frequently set for harder-to-reach groups like internally displaced people, the elderly, LGBTIQ+, Indigenous people, refugees, and ethnic minorities. While this may reflect the more limited visibility of these groups in certain countries, where these groups do exist, their lower prioritisation may signal gaps in inclusive planning that merit attention.

Fostering equitable partnerships: supporting an enabling environment for CSOs

CSO participation across the development programme cycle could be significantly strengthened and systematised. CSOs often perceive development partners’ consultations on their development co-operation policies and programmes as occasional, selective, and largely shaped by development partners’ priorities. While development partners acknowledge setting most of the agenda for such consultations, they tend to overestimate both the frequency and inclusiveness of these consultations. CSOs also perceive that the promotion of an enabling environment for CSOs is not systematically addressed in policy dialogue with the government. This signals opportunities to make the engagement of CSOs more predictable and consistent across the programme cycle, while also providing stronger support for their enabling environment.

In line with the principles for effective development co-operation, equitable partnership approaches recognise the complementary roles across development partners, intermediaries, and local actors by fostering ownership aligned with each actor’s unique strengths. The GPEDC monitoring exercise provides evidence on how development partners perceive their support to the enabling environment for CSOs at country level, by assessing their consultation of CSOs across the programme cycle and their advocacy for an enabling environment through policy dialogue with national governments.

CSOs consultations across the programme cycle

The OECD Guidelines for operationalising locally led development co-operation call for early and meaningful engagement of diverse local actors to ensure that implementation practices reflect locally defined needs and priorities. GPEDC evidence points to differences in how consultation practices are perceived by development partners and CSOs. Both groups agree that these processes are not yet institutionalised nor jointly shaped. However, CSOs in more than half of reporting partner countries view consultations by development partners as occasional, selective, and driven by development partners’ priorities (Figure A A.1), a pattern has remained unchanged since 2018 (OECD/UNDP, 2019[5]). In contrast, development partners tend to overestimate both the frequency and inclusiveness of these consultations, while acknowledging that they largely set priorities for these exchanges.

Figure A A.1. CSO and development partner perception on consultation across the programme cycle

Note: Figures reflect absolute numbers of responses across 32 partner countries where comprehensive reporting was recorded from respondents (CSOs and development partners’ representatives). Development partner responses represent a single, coordinated submission per country. Individual development partners cannot assess or report on their own performance for this indicator.

Advocating for an enabling environment

In addition to engaging CSOs through development programming, development partners have an important role in supporting the enabling environment in which CSOs operate (OECD, 2021[6]). This includes supporting more inclusive participation by advocating for an enabling environment for CSOs as a key development concern in policy dialogue with governments.

CSOs in most participating partner countries (68%) report that only some development partners occasionally bring these issues into policy dialogue with the government (Figure A A.2). Development partners have more mixed views; they consider that they occasionally bring these issues in35% of partner countries, and have a better perception in 52% of partner countries, where they indicate that most development partners do address enabling-environment concerns, though not yet in a systematic manner. A similar perspective is reflected among partner country governments, reporting that these issues are raised in policy dialogue in 48% of partner countries. These findings suggest scope for development partners to engage more consistently in efforts to strengthen the enabling environment for CSOs.

Figure A A.2. Development partners and partner country governments dialogue on promoting a CSO-enabling environment

Note: Figures reflect absolute numbers of responses across 31 partner countries where comprehensive reporting was recorded from respondents (CSOs, national governments and development partners’ representatives). Responses from development partners, civil society and governments on the extent to which the promotion of an enabling environment for CSOs is an agenda item in development partners’ policy dialogue with the government. Development partner responses represent a single, coordinated submission per country. Individual development partners cannot assess or report on their own performance for this indicator.

Equitable partnerships require moving beyond just consulting local actors. The OECD Guidelines for operationalising locally led development co-operation emphasise the need to adapt delivery systems and management practices to enable local leadership. This includes adopting co-implementation models that share authority with local actors and investing in the strengthening of local capacities and systems. GPEDC monitoring data show that project implementation is mostly under the responsibility of development partners, that implement almost half of reported projects and programmes (46% of 2181 projects reported), while partner country governments implement a further 33%.

Using and strengthening PFM systems for locally led development

Greater use and strengthening country Public Financial Management systems can help advance locally led development. About half of development co-operation funding to the public sector uses national Public Financial Management (PFM) systems. However, many development partners continue to use their own procedures, citing concerns about quality, procedural constraints, and risk mitigation. Engagement with governments on strengthening PFM systems often results in agreements or action plans. These dialogues are vital for locally led development, as they can drive system reforms aligned with national priorities, foster government ownership, and build institutional capacity. However, in contexts exposed to extreme fragility or authoritarian settings, these approaches may not be feasible or appropriate, and alternative mechanisms may be required.

Locally led development depends not only on inclusive engagement but also on financing practices that reinforce country ownership and institutional capacity. The GPEDC monitoring provides evidence on whether development co-operation funding for the public sector uses country public financial management (PFM) systems. Similarly to direct budget support, using PFM systems reinforces country ownership, aligns with national priorities, and builds institutional capacity (United Nations, 2025[7]).

GPEDC evidence shows that about half of development co-operation funding disbursed to the public sector was disbursed through national PFM systems (budget execution, financial reporting, auditing, and procurement systems). Development partners tend to make higher use of financial reporting systems (62% of funding to the public sector), while the use of procurement systems is more limited (30% of funds disbursed to the public sector) (Figure A A.3). DAC members reported lower use of PFM systems compared to other development partners, such as multilateral development banks and UN agencies.

Figure A A.3. Extent of PFM systems use, by type

Development partners cite two main reasons for limited use of country PFM systems: concerns about absorptive capacities of PFM systems and the preference to use their own systems due to project design and existing implementation agreements (i.e. direct implementation modality or a Memorandum of Understanding preventing the use of PFM systems), procedural constraints, and risk mitigation measures. Slightly more than 10% of development partners’ responses point to the quality of PFM systems not meeting their requirements. Among those, more than two thirds mention that they have engaged in discussions with partner country governments on what would be needed to strengthen those systems. These discussions are important for locally led development because they can support systems reforms that are driven by national priorities, build government ownership, and enhance capacity within local institutions. According to GPEDC data, in most cases, these discussions have led to the adoption of an agreement between the government and the development partner or an action plan to strengthen PFM systems.

Localising monitoring and evaluation and enhancing accountability

To strengthen locally led monitoring and accountability, development partners can increase the use of data from national governments and other local sources such as academia and CSOs, while also investing in strengthening national statistical systems to address gaps in availability and quality. Use of country-owned results frameworks and national data systems by development partners remains limited, with about half of projects results indicators draw from country-owned results frameworks (CRFs) and monitored using national statistical systems. When country frameworks are not used, data often come from development partners’ own sources rather than local actors, frequently because national data is indicated as unavailable or of insufficient quality.

Leveraging and building on existing local knowledge contributes to centre local ownership and leadership across programme monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning (OECD, 2024[8]). Transparency of reporting on development co-operation reinforces accountability not only between partner country governments and development partners, but also with other local stakeholders such as CSOs, academic institutions or the private sector. The 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 (CRFs) and national statistical systems. It also provides information on whether development partners report to existing local information management systems for development co-operation, which in turn enables local stakeholders to hold decision makers to account.

Development partners’ use of results indicators and data from partner countries’ results frameworks provide a structured foundation for enabling accountability and transparency (OECD, 2024[9]) by helping identify and track the impact of interventions that can be further translated into measurable indicators. The legitimacy and relevance of results frameworks can benefit from increased recognition from local communities when such frameworks align with local realities.

The GPEDC monitoring measures whether indicators included in development partners’ projects or programmes are drawn from CRFs and whether such results indicators are monitored using data from national statistical systems. Preliminary results show that, slightly more than half (54%) of 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. DAC members tend to make lower use of CRFs compared to other development partners, both in terms of drawing results indicators from CRFs and using national statistical systems and data to track results indicators, in line with observations from the third GPEDC monitoring round (OECD/UNDP, 2019[5]).

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 CRFs to a lesser extent in contexts exposed to extreme fragility compared to other contexts (Figure A A.4Figure A A.4. ) (OECD, 2025[10]). According to the Open Data Inventory Index, which assesses the coverage and openness of countries’ official statistics, lower scores tend to be observed in contexts facing high or extreme fragility (Open Data Watch, 2024[11]).5

Figure A A.4. Extent of use of country results frameworks by context

Note: Disaggregation based on OECD States of Fragility 2025

Development partners indicate several reasons behind the limited use of results indicators originating from CRFs and the limited use of data from national monitoring and statistical systems. These include the perceived low quality or relevance of CRF indicators, and divergences in what development partners and partner country governments consider as priorities.

In addition, limited data availability from national statistical systems to monitor progress on the results indicators coupled with other reasons mainly linked to the nature of the intervention (e.g. small size, project auto-generates data) were cited as main reasons for reliance on alternative data sources, especially in low-income countries, which often lack sustainable financing to support their data infrastructure and to produce the data needed (UN, 2025[12]). Development partners’ support to strengthening CRFs and national statistical systems can help advance locally led development, as robust CRFs and data systems enable partner countries to track progress and ensure accountability.

When results indicators do not originate from CRFs, development partners indicate that most often those are sourced from their own organisation. In contrast, only a smaller share originates from the partner country6, primarily from academic institutions and CSOs. Like results indicators, data sources for partner country generated data are local academic institutions as well as CSOs (Figure A A.5).

Figure A A.5. Alternative sources of results indicators and data to monitor progress

Note: The left graph indicates the sources of indicators and data used when those do not originate from CRFs/ the national statistical system (there are cases of multiple selection). The right graph shows specific sources if generated by partner countries (cases of multiple selection).

Development partners reporting to partner countries’ Information Management Systems

Strengthening transparency and accountability to local stakeholders requires continued efforts to reporting to country-level information management systems. While most development partners report comprehensively and regularly to existing Information Management Systems (IMS), one fifth do not report at all where such systems are in place. Continued efforts to improve these practices will be essential for strengthening transparency and accountability in development co-operation and advancing locally led development.

Accountability to local stakeholders (recipients of development co-operation, beneficiaries, CSOs) is further strengthened when development partners report on their development co-operation in partner countries’ IMS. When countries’ IMS are made publicly accessible by partner country governments, they enhance transparency and enable local CSOs to access information on development co-operation (Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, 2011[1]), therefore reinforcing their role in promoting inclusive and locally led development.

GPEDC preliminary results indicate that where partner countries’ IMS or similar systems are in place, more than 20% of the development partners do not report to those systems. Of those reporting, a large majority provide information at the frequency requested by the government, and almost all provide the information requested by the government. DAC members tend to report to IMS to a higher extent than other development partners (85% and 75% respectively), though both groups perform similarly on frequency and comprehensiveness of reporting (Figure A A.6). Continued efforts to improve these practices will be essential for strengthening transparency and accountability in development co-operation and advancing locally led development.

Figure A A.6. Share of development partners reporting to partner countries’ IMS and comprehensiveness and frequency of reporting

References

[1] Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2011), Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/busan-partnership-for-effective-development-co-operation_54de7baa-en.html.

[10] OECD (2025), States of Fragility 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/81982370-en.

[4] OECD (2024), Development co-operation stepping up its role in ending poverty and reducing inequalities, OECD, https://doi.org/10.1787/357b63f7-en.

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

[8] 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 (2023), Framing DAC member approaches to locally led development, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2023)47/en/pdf.

[6] OECD (2021), DAC Recommendation on Strengthening Civil Society in Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/fr/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5021.

[5] OECD/UNDP (2019), Making Development Co-operation More Effective: 2019 Progress Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26f2638f-en.

[11] Open Data Watch (2024), Open Data Inventory (ODIN), https://odin.opendatawatch.com/ (accessed on 11 February 2026).

[12] UN (2025), The Sustainable Development Goals Report, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2025/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2025.pdf.

[3] UN (2017), Equality and Non-Discrimination at the Heart of Sustainable Development Leaving No One Behind: A Shared United Nations System Framework for Action, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1628748?v=pdf.

[7] United Nations (2025), Sevilla Commitment: Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, https://financing.desa.un.org/ffd4/outcome.

Notes

← 1.  These countries are: Albania, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Republic of Moldova, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

← 2.  Seven additional countries have completed data collection by the end of 2025, for a total of 44 countries. A global report, informed by results from all participating countries, will be published in October 2026. No significant changes are expected in the overall values and results presented in this brief.

← 3.  Multilateral partners include Multilateral Development Banks, UN Agencies, Vertical Funds, and other international organisations.

← 4.  The Kampala Principles Assessment (KPA) collects evidence on private sector engagement in development co-operation and is an optional component of the GPEDC monitoring exercise. This brief analyses data submitted by 22 partner countries that undertook the KPA in the fourth round.

← 5.  This finding draws from the responses provided by development partners to the optional questions “Please indicate the main reason for little or no results indicators being drawn from country results frameworks” and “Please indicate the reason for not reporting those indicators using data from the national statistical system”. The analysis builds on the number of responses provided to these questions, noting that some development partners do not use CRFs to their full extent have abstained from responding.

← 6.  There are cases of multiple selection.