Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation

2. Laying the foundations: Policy and institutional frameworks

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the policy and institutional frameworks that have been identified as foundational for the success and integration of locally led development in the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members’ systems. It first discusses the contextual influences and constraints such as the lack of a common understanding of locally led development co‑operation, and DAC domestic environments and politics that may be in tension with locally led development. It then identifies three foundational enablers, namely i) developing enabling policies and strategies around shared goals and commitments, ii) strengthening leadership and engagement by integrating local perspectives into decision-making processes, supported by decentralised decision-making in partner countries and iii) strengthening internal management systems emphasising leadership from local staff and internal champions, fostering a diverse range of skills and cultural sensitivity among DAC members. For each enabler, the chapter identifies existing good practices.

Contextual influences and constraints

Operational and Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member contexts shape their approach to locally led development. Some DAC members benefit from largely conducive political environments, with high levels of political and public support for the principles of locally led development, and development co-operation more broadly. Ireland is a notable example in this regard. Its own relatively recent experience of economic and political transition provides a strong rationale for its engagement in development co-operation and enables it to emphasise mutuality in its partnerships with local actors, including government and civil society. Others, including Switzerland and Spain, connect their approach to locally led development with their own domestic governance models and history of development co-operation. Switzerland's decentralised structure and tradition of citizen participation informs its understanding of development as a participatory process involving multiple stakeholders. Similarly, Spain has built on its decentralised scheme that empowers regional and local governments to nurture its approaches to locally led development co-operation. In Canada, the locally led development agenda is complementary to domestic efforts to empower Indigenous communities. Likewise, the 2023 DAC Peer Review found that New Zealand integrates Indigenous worldviews and Māori knowledge into its foreign policy. For example, its Pacific Resilience Approach Policy (MFAT, 2023[1]) is framed by Māori concepts that acknowledge the connections between Māori and other Indigenous Pacific cultures (OECD, 2023[2]). For some DAC members, the legislative context can also create opportunities or challenges for locally led development co-operation. For example, many providers have legal restrictions on the types of organisations that can receive official development assistance (ODA), and the length of funding cycles, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (OECD, 2022[3]), Slovenia (OECD, 2024[4]) and Czechia (OECD, 2023[5]).

In some DAC domestic environments, however, the dominant politics can come into tension with locally led development. Notably, the requirement for quick wins and easily communicable results, affected by political narratives about the efficacy of development co-operation, can come into tension with locally led practice. For example, successful locally led development co-operation may in fact require longer-term time horizons and defining impact in terms of aligning with local priorities and achieving less tangible outcomes like institutional change. Embracing a longer-term time horizon and investing in activities that pertain to systems and institutional strengthening that are hard to quantify can also constrain scaling the impact of development programmes and innovation. Additionally, the growing emphasis on mutual benefit in development co-operation, particularly in innovation and scaling efforts (including in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Switzerland), can come into tension with locally led development co-operation (OECD, 2022[3]). For instance, this approach may prioritise deploying and developing DAC member national expertise, at the cost of identifying and leveraging existing knowledge and capacities in local contexts. At the same time, the many good practices of triangular co-operation (see Chapter 5) provide a counterbalance to this risk, as most trilateral partnerships can be more locally led.

DAC members can navigate and respond to domestic contextual constraints through awareness raising and promoting public dialogue. Building synergies and relationships with domestic civil society groups that are advocating for change through solidarity with, and amplifying the voices of, Global South stakeholders is a valuable approach being taken by many DAC members (such as Canada, Switzerland and Ireland). Engagement with parliament and citizen education programmes are other important avenues to shape and inform public perceptions and political narratives. For example, in Ireland, widespread public support for development co-operation, particularly among younger generations with an expanded global perspective and better understanding of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), has been bolstered by initiatives like global citizenship education (Irish Aid, n.d.[6]).1 In the United Kingdom, the parliamentary International Development Committee has promoted public debate and engagement on locally led development in subjects ranging from racism in the aid sector (International Development Committee, 2022[7]) to the philosophy and culture of aid (International Development Committee, n.d.[8]). Engaging constructively in these dialogues helps foster a positive agenda for change.

However, the absence of a common understanding of what locally led development means in practice, both within and across DAC members can hinder effective and cohesive policy direction. Developing policy for locally led development will require internal champions, including senior leadership, to galvanise support around a common vision across teams, functions, and geographies. Genuine systems change towards locally led development co-operation will require collective efforts underpinned by a common goal based on shared definitions, including of what constitutes a local actor. At least internally, this may necessitate the balancing of bottom-up approaches with ones that critically examine existing practices through a common framework, building on the shared definitions and framing proposed in this peer learning (see Methodology in Chapter 1 and Chapter 6), to establish internal shared definitions, foster collaborative planning, and agree policy direction and targets.

Foundational enablers

Good practices that DAC members are implementing in relation to policies and institutional frameworks to enable locally led development co-operation focus on: i) developing enabling policies and strategies; ii) strengthening leadership and engagement; and iii) strengthening internal management systems, staffing, capacities and skills.

Table 2.1. Foundational enablers: Policies and institutional frameworks

Enablers	Good Practices	Examples
Developing enabling policies, strategies, and guidance	✓ Developing dedicated policy commitments and guidelines based on shared definitions ✓ Aligning and building on existing policy commitments and strategic objectives ✓ Committing to complementary initiatives ✓ Engaging domestic civil society participation in locally led development policy	United States and Australia policy commitments
Strengthening leadership and engagement	✓ Shaping more comprehensive narratives and shared definitions through steering multi-stakeholder learning processes facilitated by internal champions ✓ Examining and reshaping relationships with international partners ✓ Decentralising decision making and promoting autonomy in country offices	Switzerland and Ireland: Locally led working groups and champions
Strengthening internal management structures, staffing, capacities, and skills	✓ Ensuring staff have the resources, time, and capacity to manage differently ✓ Strengthening the soft skills and cultural understanding of DAC member staff ✓ Establishing a strong country presence that draws on the knowledge and experience of local staff ✓ Supporting integration across functions, teams, geographies and clarifying management structures	Poland’s Solidarity Fund: Country presence and staff

Developing enabling policies, strategies, and guidance

Developing dedicated policy commitments and guidelines, underpinned by shared definitions, can support the integration of locally led development indicators and principles into existing guidelines, policies, and accountability frameworks. They can also drive change to address systemic barriers and challenges (Pinnington et al., 2024[9]). For example, USAID’s agency-wide “vision and approach” (USAID, 2022[10]) has spurred action on refining, shifting and better communicating its policies and business practices to enable effective locally led development co-operation. This included refining approaches torisk management (USAID, 2022[11]), updating their acquisition and assistance strategy (USAID, 2023[12]), and releasing a newlocal capacity strengthening policy (USAID, n.d.[13])2. Similarly, Australia’s International Development Policy includes a commitment to supporting “local leadership, solutions, and accountability, including channelling funding to local actors” (DFAT, 2023[14]), which has led to developing targeted guidelines: a Guidance Note on Locally Led Development (DFAT, 2024[15]). In Switzerland, the inclusion of locally led development commitments in the draft of the International Co‑operation Strategy 2025-20283 signals a potential shift towards more structured guidelines and progress-tracking systems.^. Such efforts build on the historical integration of principles and practices to promote the role of local actors in Switzerland’s development co-operation partnerships (OECD, 2024[16]).4 Several other DAC members are also in the process of developing a dedicated policy on locally led development, including the United Kingdom.5 Finally, during the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU), Spain worked on the design and approval of a Council Conclusions on Localisation which were endorsed by all the EU members.

Box 2.1. Developing locally led development policy commitments: Experience from USAID

USAID’s Localisation Vision and Approach includes four commitments. Firstly, to channel a larger portion of its resources directly to local partners, while providing accountability for the appropriate use of funds and achievement of results (25% of direct funding to local partners by 2025). To support this first commitment, USAID has updated its Acquisition and Assistance (A & A) Strategy to embed principles of inclusive and locally led development and launched a new platform to attract local actors: WorkwithUSAID.gov. Secondly, it has committed to adapt its policies and programmes to foster locally led development that is tied to unique country contexts, invest in local actors and capacity strengthening, and foster well-functioning systems and results over a long-term horizon. Thirdly, it has committed to shift power to local actors and create space for them to influence and exercise leadership (including by setting a target that 50% of programming will place local communities in the lead to co-design, set priorities, drive implementation and evaluate impact by 2030). Finally, USAID has committed to serve as a global advocate and thought leader to catalyse a broader shift towards locally led development.

Source: USAID (n.d[17]), Localization, https://www.usaid.gov/localization; USAID (2023[12]), Acquisition and Assistance Strategy, https://www.usaid.gov/policy/acquisition-and-assistance-strategy.

Aligning with, and building on, existing policy commitments and strategic objectives can help overcome institutional constraints and enable innovative practices. There is no one‑size-fits-all for DAC member approaches to locally led development co-operation. For some members, a dedicated policy may not be suitable, with existing policy frameworks being sufficient for the changes in practice required. For example, Ireland’s commitment to the agenda is embedded in its existing policy frameworks and strategies, including in its international development policy, A Better World (Irish Aid, 2019[18]), and it views locally led development as fundamental to achieving its “furthest behind first” commitment. This is within the context of a flexible and largely decentralised system that provides a conducive institutional environment for locally led development co-operation (OECD, 2024[19]). Others, however, may require a stronger policy signal to give staff sufficient cover to work innovatively. For example, Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) commits Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to working with local actors and directing more international assistance to local organisations. However, a more targeted locally led development policy framework may be required to overcome central constraints and barriers, including those connected to risk aversion (OECD, 2024[20]).

Complementary initiatives have the potential to support locally led development co-operation. A number of DAC members are including commitments to strengthen civil society and strengthen partnerships with local actors in a range of policies such as the Netherlands’ Policy Framework for Strengthening Civil Society (Government of the Netherlands, n.d.[21]), Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy6 and Civil Society Partnerships for International Assistance Policy7, as well as Ireland’s Local Development Policy (Irish Aid, n.d.[22]). Similarly, DAC members have committed to initiatives like the Principles for Locally Led Adaptation (World Resources Institute, n.d.[23]) that aim to increase climate adaptation funding to local actors, devolve decision-making, and leverage local knowledge and capacities (amongst other aims); and the doing development differently principles (Harvard University, n.d.[24]), which promote context-sensitive and adaptive practice. For example, Denmark aims to support locally led development based on these principles, by recognising the need to continually update analysis to ensure approaches remain locally relevant and support local leadership. In 2019, Canada played a pivotal role in formulating the Whistler Principles to Accelerate Innovation for Development Impact (Government of Canada, 2019[25]), which emphasise inclusive and locally led innovation.

Engaging domestic civil society participation in shaping locally led development policy strengthen their quality. For example, Canada is developing locally led development policy guidance internally, ensuring operational relevance and grounding in external perspectives through consultations with a diverse set of actors, including Canadian civil society and local organisations. Canada has also engaged its partners in efforts to address specific administrative bottlenecks in business processes as enablers for locally led development (see Chapter 5). Another example is Ireland’s call for its partners to develop a locally led development policy, through its Civil Society Partnership for A Better World (ICSP) flagship multi-annual funding scheme for Irish civil society8. This spurred a learning initiative amongst Irish civil society, led by Dóchas, the Irish Civil Society Organisation (CSO) national umbrella platform, which involved 53 members, including ICSP partners, and smaller Irish organisations, participating in a series of workshops. The learning exercise covered various aspects of locally led development, including risk management, partnership assessment, funding, capacity, power and decision-making. The exercise aimed to explore the fundamentals of what locally led development means in the long term, creating a safe space for sharing, and deliberately avoiding a rigid definition to accommodate the diversity of partnerships. Swiss civil society has also been playing an active role in shaping and creating space for national dialogue on locally led development. The section on Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) from the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC) supported a strategic dialogue with Swiss NGOs on strengthening civil society and country ownership. This initiative led to the organisation of a conference – “Localisation: Strengthening Civil Society and Changing Power Relations”, which generated key recommendations for advancing the locally led development agenda. This included reflecting on how to increase core contributions to partners, redefining risks with a bottom-up approach, addressing non-inclusive decision-making bodies, and strengthening long-term partnerships, while promoting power shifts and mutual accountability (OECD, 2024[16]).

Strengthening leadership and engagement

Shaping more comprehensive narratives and shared definitions for locally led development through steering multi-stakeholder learning processes can be facilitated by internal champions. Many DAC members are drawing on bottom-up approaches led by internal champions, assessing their current working methods and programmes to establish a foundation for defining locally led development, including Ireland9 and Canada. Switzerland is also engaged in an ongoing internal learning process aimed at developing a coherent position on locally led development, humanitarian action, and peace-building. Like Canada and others (including the United Kingdom, which committed to developing a local leadership strategy in its 2023 White Paper (FCDO, 2023[26]), the Netherlands and the United States), it has established a locally led development task working group, comprising representatives from various sectors. As a part of these efforts, Canada commissioned a study in 2022 to better understand Canadian international development organisations’ perspectives, practices, successes and challenges related to locally led development (Rao, 2023[27]).10 These internal learning processes have fed into this OECD DAC peer learning exercise to promote wider learning and the proposed shared definition of locally led development co-operation put forward in this report. Other efforts have been made in this area by Belgium, which has commissioned research on the decolonisation of Belgium development co-operation, to understand the coloniality of its aid and imagine alternative futures (Moreno Cely et al., 2022[28]) drawing on Global South perspectives. These initiatives can help refine and direct operational orientation towards locally led development co-operation, support common definitions, and foster greater political support and engagement.

Examining and reshaping relationships with international partners promote locally led development. This includes through the role of DAC members as influencers, particularly in partnerships with multilateral and international non-governmental organisations. Ireland, for example, is interested in learning lessons from the locally led development policies of its Irish civil society partners and, under its ICSP programme, has required all its partners to develop a specific locally led development policy (OECD, 2024[19]). In Switzerland, Grand Bargain commitments11 have been instrumental in the renewed focus on locally led practice, both internally and externally. Switzerland has led efforts to influence and shape multilateral intermediary channels as co‑convener of the Grand Bargain localisation workstream and in its role as co-chair of the OCHA Country‑Based Pooled Funding Mechanism (CBPF) working group. The latter has led to the presence of local humanitarian actors in working group meetings for the first time, as well as the establishment of dedicated funding and capacity strengthening mechanisms to facilitate their continued engagement. Switzerland’s efforts have also involved successfully advocating for simplified and streamlined due diligence requirements of CBPFs, a major funding barrier for local organisations, including in Ukraine and Myanmar. Another example is Denmark, which has introduced new requirements in its partnerships with 18 Danish civil society organisations to report how much funding they allocate to local organisations and their plans for strengthening local leadership (Danida, 2022[29]). Like the United Kingdom, it allows a portion of grants to be used to cover overheads for local partners and caps headquarter spending for Danish aid organisations at 20% to encourage increased flow of funds to local actors.

Decentralising decision making and promoting autonomy in country offices support more locally responsive and adaptive partnerships. In more decentralised systems, country offices are often the main channels for DAC members to provide direct (including core) funding to local actors and engage with them in the development of programmes (see Chapter 5). Decision-making autonomy at the embassy or country office level is a key feature of locally led practice because, if this autonomy and flexibility is passed on to local actors, it creates space and opportunities for local agency in programme design, delivery, and evaluation. It has also been shown to support more contextually appropriate, locally responsive, and adaptive programming (Honig, 2018[30]). Devolving decisions to the appropriate level and providing country/embassy staff, who are working more directly with local realities and actors, with a conducive environment that empowers them to take contextually informed and responsive decisions is critical, including with regards to the identification and selection of local partners. For example, Ireland has a highly decentralised system, with appropriate programmatic autonomy being given to Irish country missions and national grant managers, which have a long history of collaboration with local actors and are perceived as trusted and principled partners. This has supported relationship-building with local actors, enabling Ireland’s continued engagement with local partners in increasingly challenging environments (e.g., Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos). Elsewhere, Denmark introduced a new management approach in 2019 to enable greater agency in decision-making for its embassies. Other examples of decentralised systems include: the United Kingdom (OECD, 2020[31]), Sweden (OECD, 2019[32]) and Iceland (OECD, 2023[33]).

Strengthening internal management structures, staffing, capacities, and skills

Ensuring that staff have the resources, time, and capacity is critical to manage differently. A central challenge facing DAC members in their efforts to institutionalise locally led development is ensuring they have the appropriate staffing levels, skills (including soft skills) and expertise in place to work more directly with a range of local stakeholders. This recognises that capacity strengthening is not only applicable to local actors but funders as well (Fine, 2022[34]). Locally led development co-operation is often considered a more staff-intensive business model for members, due to associated efforts to identify relevant partners, the increase in the number of grants, as well as the accompaniment that may be required when working with new partners (Ingram, 2021[35]). USAID’s Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy has an emphasis on “enabling, equipping, and empowering the A&A workforce” to support the localisation of USAID’s international assistance (USAID, 2023[12]). This is based on an understanding that reaching their 25% target will involve working with a larger number of smaller organisations, as well as organisations that are unfamiliar with their systems and requirements. To meet these needs, between financial years 2021 and 2023, USAID created 69 new A&A positions, and further resources were provided to the A&A workforce to support locally led development by communicating more regularly and directly with partners (USAID, 2023[36]; USAID, 2023[12]). DAC members can also create space and time for their workforce through streamlining initiatives. For example, the Netherlands’ streamlined development co‑operation portfolio has freed up time for technical and policy engagement by limiting the number of activities staff engage in, and increasing project size and duration (OECD, 2023[37]).

Strengthening the soft skills, contextual awareness and cultural sensitivity of DAC member staff contributes to a better understanding and access to local partners. The diversity of local actors, cultures and ecosystems presents challenges in terms of understanding of local power dynamics and access to local actors. In response, DAC members are equipping staff to understand local political economies and enhance their contextual knowledge for programming, as reflected in efforts towards thinking and working politically to align development co-operation with existing local change processes, whilst remaining sensitive to the risks and challenges that arise in politically challenging environments (Pinnington, 2023[38]; Dasandi et al., 2019[39]). Some DAC members, including Belgium, are using regular listening platforms, immersion techniques,12 and consulting local staff to understand local perspectives. For example, in New Zealand, staff are being upskilled in Māori familiarity, including through language training and courses on historical relationships. Other DAC members, such as Switzerland, are drawing upon cultural mediators to translate different forms of climate knowledge in local contexts (Box 5.3) or providing staff training. Switzerland’s leave no one behind policy mandates sensitising and training staff, for example on the drivers of poverty and exclusion, as part of regular project management training (OECD, 2021[40]). Other initiatives include USAID’s efforts to build soft skills and increase the diversity of capacity by enabling a morediverse, equitable, inclusive and accessible workforce (OECD, 2022[41]). Change at the individual level can complement and contribute to the normative and cultural change required at the institutional level for locally led development co-operation to succeed, particularly in relation to valuing diverse local capacities and knowledge (see Chapter 4).

Establishing a strong country presence can help drawing on the knowledge and experience of local staff. Efforts to increase partnerships with local actors may require increased human resources in missions or partnerships with local intermediaries. Switzerland’s support for national and local humanitarian organisations in Myanmar and Ukraine demonstrates the value of having in place large, dispersed country teams, composed of empowered local staff in technical roles. Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States have all created senior roles for local staff. This has contributed to better understanding of country priorities and needs (OECD, 2021[42]). The United Kingdom regularly reviews which skill gaps can be filled by local staff or regional recruits and allows local staff to move between country offices. The presence of local advisors, who are not rotated, allows for long-standing relationships and the application of deep contextual knowledge, for example as seen in the Polish Solidarity Fund (OECD, 2023[43]).

Box 2.2. Prioritising country presence and local staff: Experiences from Poland and Australia

Through its Solidarity Fund, Poland aims to work closely with local partners to drive more systemic change. It does this by investing in country presence and local staff. It established three local representative offices in Moldova (2012), Georgia and Ukraine (2019) and except for country directors, these offices are staffed by nationals of the respective countries. Investment in local staff generates ownership and commitment, supports the development of local networks, and builds trust with local and central administrations.

In addition, the Vanuatu Skills Partnership, a joint initiative by the Governments of Australia and Vanuatu, is led and implemented by a national team that has been a catalyst in influencing the implementation of key government strategies and policies. The Partnership aims to support Vanuatu’s Technical and Vocational Training sector, for which Australia has been providing support since 2005. Whilst initially an international managing contractor was engaged, its inflexible systems, processes and working arrangements, along with the dynamics between international and local staff, resulted in switching the international contractor to a support contractor role, allowing local staff to take the lead, increasing flexibility, whilst allowing international technical staff to provide technical support in priority areas determined by the local team.

Source: OECD (2023[43]), Empowering Local Actors by Prioritising Local Capacity and Networks: Poland's Solidarity Fund, https://oe.cd/5EJ.qr; Australia Government (2024[15]), DFAT Guidance Note: Locally Led Development, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/dfat-guidance-note-locally-led-development.pdf.

Supporting the integration of locally led development across functions, teams, and geographies, and clarifying management structures can help formalise the approach. Whilst several DAC members have established internal champions or focal points for locally led development co-operation as well as cross-sectoral technical working groups, formal management systems to promote the integration of locally led development co-operation across existing structures have yet to be established. Making progress in this area, DAC members can build on existing integration efforts. For example, the SDC Fit4Purpose reorganisation aims to foster an enhanced nexus approach by integrating humanitarian and development personnel within the same geographical units, creating opportunities to move towards more integrated learning, practice and skills development for locally led development (SDC, 2022[44]). Smaller administrations, such as Denmark, the Slovak Republic and Ireland, ensure a regular rotation of staff between policy, programming and support functions, as well as between headquarters and overseas posts (OECD, 2021[42]). In Ireland, this regular rotation has contributed to strengthening the capacity and thematic knowledge of staff, who tend to have a good general knowledge of both headquarter and mission functions. Rotation also creates the opportunity to promote cross-sector, multidisciplinary and integrated expertise on locally led development co-operation, across these different teams, functions and geographies (OECD, 2024[19]). At the same time, regular rotation across geographies can also constrain the development of deep contextual knowledge amongst DAC member staff. This points towards a trade-off that must be navigated between providing a range of career development opportunities, including for local staff, with the need to nurture and leverage contextual knowledge.

References

[29] Danida (2022), Guidelines - Strategic Partnerships 2022-2025 with Danish Civil Society Organisations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, https://reliefweb.int/report/denmark/guidelines-strategic-partnerships-2022-2025-danish-civil-society-organisations (accessed on 26 June  2024).

[39] Dasandi, N. et al. (2019), “What Does the Evidence Tell Us about ‘Thinking and Working Politically’ in Development Assistance?”, Politics and Governance, Vol. 7/2, pp. 155-168, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1904.

[15] DFAT (2024), DFAT Guidance Note: Locally Led Development, Department of Foreing Affaires and Trade, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/dfat-guidance-note-locally-led-development.pdf.

[14] DFAT (2023), Australia’s International Development Policy - For a Peaceful, Stable and Prosperous Indo-Pacific, Australian Government, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/international-development-policy.pdf.

[26] FCDO (2023), International Development in a Contested World: Ending Extreme Poverty and Tackling Climate Change A White Paper on International Development, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-development-in-a-contested-world-ending-extreme-poverty-and-tackling-climate-change.

[34] Fine, P. (2022), “Rethinking the Constraints to Localization of Foreign Aid”, Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-the-constraints-to-localization-of-foreign-aid/.

[25] Government of Canada (2019), The Whistler Principles to Accelerate Innovation for Development Impact, https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/g7/documents/2018-05-31-whistler-development-developpement.aspx?lang=eng (accessed on 30 July` 2024).

[21] Government of the Netherlands (n.d.), Policy Framework Strengthening Civil Society, https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2019/11/28/policy-framework-strengthening-civil-society (accessed on 28 June 2024).

[24] Harvard University (n.d.), The DDD Manifesto, https://bsc.hks.harvard.edu/the-ddd-manifesto/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).

[30] Honig, D. (2018), Navigation by Judgment: Why and When Top Down Management of Foreign Aid Doesn’t Work, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190672454.001.0001.

[35] Ingram, G. (2021), Locally Driven Development: Overcoming the Obstacles, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/locally-driven-development-overcoming-the-obstacles/.

[7] International Development Committee (2022), Racism in the aid sector – Report Summary, UK Parliament, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmintdev/150/summary.html.

[8] International Development Committee (n.d.), The Philosophy and Culture of Aid, UK Parliament, https://committees.parliament.uk/work/1005/the-philosophy-and-culture-of-aid/ (accessed on 30 July 2024).

[18] Irish Aid (2019), A Better World - Ireland’s Policy for International Development, https://www.irishaid.ie/media/irishaid/aboutus/abetterworldirelandspolicyforinternationaldevelopment/A-Better-World-Irelands-Policy-for-International-Development.pdf.

[6] Irish Aid (n.d.), Global citizenship education, https://www.ireland.ie/en/irish-aid/what-we-do/global-citizenship-education/ (accessed on 30 July 2024).

[22] Irish Aid (n.d.), Local Development Policy, Irish Aid, https://www.irishaid.ie/media/irishaid/allwebsitemedia/20newsandpublications/publicationpdfsenglish/irish-aid-local-development-policy.pdf.

[1] MFAT (2023), Briefing for Incoming Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs (Pacific Region), https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-03/BIM%20-%20Assoc.%20Minister%20of%20Foreign%20Affairs%20Pacific%20Region.pdf.

[28] Moreno Cely, A. et al. (2022), Imagine Alternative Future(s) of the Belgian Development Cooperation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, https://cris.vub.be/ws/portalfiles/portal/93966286/Decolonizing_Belgian_Development_Coop_Final_Report_V_EN.pdf.

[4] OECD (2024), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Slovenia 2024, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/79368eab-en.

[20] OECD (2024), Peer Learning on Locally Led Development – DAC Members Deep Dive: Canada, OECD ONE Members and Partners Database, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)24/en/pdf.

[19] OECD (2024), Peer Learning on Locally Led Development – DAC Members Deep Dive: Ireland, OECD ONE Members and Partners Database, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)25/en/pdf.

[16] 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.

[43] OECD (2023), Empowering Local Actors by Prioritising Local Capacity and Networks: Poland’s Solidarity Fund, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/empowering-local-actors-by-prioritising-local-capacity-and-networks-poland-s-solidarity-fund_16162a0a.html.

[5] OECD (2023), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Czech Republic 2023, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eba15a0b-en.

[33] OECD (2023), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Iceland 2023, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1552817-en.

[2] OECD (2023), OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Reviews: New Zealand 2023, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10883ac5-en.

[37] OECD (2023), The Netherlands’ Streamlined Development Cooperation Portfolio for Greater Impact, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/the-netherlands-streamlined-development-co-operation-portfolio-for-greater-impact_02963164-en.html.

[3] OECD (2022), OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Reviews: United States 2022, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6da3a74e-en.

[41] OECD (2022), Towards a More Diverse, Equitable, Inclusive and Accessible Workforce at USAID, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/towards-a-more-diverse-equitable-inclusive-and-accessible-workforce-at-usaid_6f2ddfc5-en.html.

[42] OECD (2021), People and Skills, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=1099_1099375-k4lg16xg9j&title=People-and-skills.

[40] OECD (2021), The Commitment to Leaving No One Behind: Guidance, Training and Integration, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/the-commitment-to-leaving-no-one-behind-guidance-training-and-integration_2b8d68bf.html.

[31] OECD (2020), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: United Kingdom 2020, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/43b42243-en.

[32] OECD (2019), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Sweden 2019, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9f83244b-en.

[38] Pinnington, R. (2023), “To go with or against the grain? Politics as practice in the Budget Strengthening Initiative, Uganda”, Global Policy Journal, https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13259.

[9] Pinnington, R. et al. (2024), Why Aren’t We There Yet? Understanding and Addressing Donor Barriers to Localisation in Climate Adaptation, https://odi.org/en/publications/why-arent-we-there-yet-understanding-and-addressing-donor-barriers-to-localisation-in-climate-adaptation/.

[27] Rao, J. (2023), Canadian International Development Organizations’ Engagement with Localization, https://canwach.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EN-Localization-Study-Report-2023.pdf.

[44] SDC (2022), A Learning Journey on the Triple Nexus, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, https://backend.sdc-pge.ch/fileservice/sdweb-docs-prod-sdcpgech-files/files/2024/03/26/f7de045b-1354-4862-9298-65e330f0d711.pdf.

[12] USAID (2023), Acquisition and Assistance, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/USAID-AA-Strategy-Report.pdf.

[36] USAID (2023), Moving Toward a Model of Locally Led Development: Financial Year 2022 Localisation Progress Report, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/FY%202022%20Localization%20Progress%20Report-June-12-23_vFINAL_1.pdf.

[10] USAID (2022), Localization at USAID: The Vision and Approach, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/USAIDs_Localization_Vision-508.pdf.

[11] USAID (2022), Risk-Appetite Statement, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/596mad.pdf (accessed on 30 July` 2024).

[13] USAID (n.d.), Local Capacity Strengthening Policy, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/LCS-Policy-2022-10-17.pdf.

[17] USAID (n.d), Localization, https://www.usaid.gov/localization (accessed on 2024 May 17).

[23] World Resources Institute (n.d.), Locally Led Adaptation: Principles for Locally Led Adaptation, https://www.wri.org/initiatives/locally-led-adaptation/principles-locally-led-adaptation (accessed on 28 June 2024).

Notes

← 1.  For further good practice examples in the area of Global Education, Awareness Raising and Public Support, see https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=1099_1099390-8q6nvd272p&title=Global-education%2C-raising-awareness-and-public-support.

← 2.  For more information see the USAID dedicated websites: Risk-Appetite Statement (https://www.usaid.gov/open/risk-appetite-statement), Acquisition and Assistance Strategy (https://www.usaid.gov/policy/acquisition-and-assistance-strategy), and Local Capacity Strengthening Policy (https://www.usaid.gov/policy/local-capacity-strengthening).

← 3.  More information on Switzerland’s International Co-operation Strategy 2025–28 can be found here: https://www.eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home/sdc/aktuell/newsuebersicht/2024/05/strategie-iza-2025-2028.html.

← 4.  For example, the focus on autonomy and subsidiarity within “Strategy SDC 2010”; partnership and subsidiarity in Concept "E-2010”; and partnership guidelines of the geographical sections.

← 5.  The UK has committed to developing a strategy on how the UK will support local leadership on development, climate, nature, and humanitarian action, see: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6576f37e48d7b7001357ca5b/international-development-in-a-contested-world-ending-extreme-poverty-and-tackling-climate-change.pdf#page=37.

← 6.  For more information on Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, see: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/policy-politique.aspx?lang=eng.

← 7.  For more information on Canada’s Policy for Civil Society Partnerships for International Assistance – A Feminist Approach, see: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/civil_policy-politique_civile.aspx?lang=eng.

← 8.  Further details regarding Irish Aid's engagement with civil society can be accessed via the following link: https://www.ireland.ie/en/irish-aid/who-we-work-with/civil-society/#icsppartners.

← 9.  The principles guiding Ireland's approach to locally led development co-operation emphasise equitable partnership, local ownership, mutual capacity strengthening, and participation, see https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)25/en/pdf .

← 10.  Nearly 100 organisations responded with valuable insights including on barriers for local organisations to accessing funding, and on the changing role of intermediaries.

← 11.  Further information about The Grand Bargain commitments can be found here: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/grand-bargain.

← 12.  A method of learning, sensitising, and “knowing” a community, which involves development professionals living with host families in Global South communities to experience daily life. See: https://www.participatorymethods.org/glossary/immersion.