This chapter focuses on how financing mechanisms in development co‑operation impact locally led development. It first looks at contextual influences and constraints such as increased funding channelled by international intermediaries, low levels of quality funding provided directly to local actors beyond central governments and the impact of politically constrained environment on partnerships. It then identifies three enablers for strengthening financing mechanisms, namely i) increasing direct financing flows to local actors, ii) diversifying channels and modalities to support national and local governments, grassroots organisations, and women’s groups and iii) improving financing quality with an emphasis on long-term, core funding that aligns with local priorities including incentives for intermediaries to pass-on quality funding. For each enabler, the chapter identifies existing good practices.
Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation
Abstract
A key enabler for locally led development is to channel resources more directly to local actors and/or to ensure that funding is flexible, long-term, predictable and promotes local agency and sustainability. The quantity and quality of funding alongside the funding channel and modality can reflect the extent to which development co-operation is locally led and the degree of agency local actors have in aligning their official development assistance (ODA) to their own priorities and therefore in framing and designing development co-operation.1
At the global level, and since the development effectiveness agenda, there has been a surge in commitment to channel high-quality funding to local actors, but application has had limited success. Global commitments include: i) the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, including the commitment to address the “failure to provide more predictable and multi-year commitments on aid flows to partner countries” (OECD, 2005[1]); ii) the Grand Bargain core commitment 2.1 “to increase and support multi-year investments in the institutional capacities of local and national responders” in humanitarian aid (IASC, 2021[2]); and iii) the Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development, which commits signatory members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to: “work to channel high quality funding as directly as possible to local actors whilst ensuring mutual accountability for the effective use of funds”2 (USAID, n.d[3]). Despite global and national funding commitments for locally led development, provider funding choices do not always favour local actors, funding flows to local actors are consistently falling short of targets, and for some DAC members have actually decreased (OECD, 2023[4]).
Against a backdrop of falling total bilateral ODA, funding flowing to international intermediaries (multilaterals, DAC member Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and for profit consultancy firms) increased (Whitty et al., 2023[5]).3 In 2022, 43% of ODA was channelled to and through multilaterals, the United Nations (UN) and International Funding Institutions compared to 38.5% in direct bilateral aid (see Figure 3.1) with predictions that by the early 2030s, the multilateral system could become the predominant channel of DAC members ODA (OECD, 2024[6]). 2022 saw a decrease in direct bilateral aid from DAC countries from 63% in 2010 to 57% and a rise in multilateral funding: from 37% in 2010 to 43% in 2022, noting the reduction in core funding but rise in earmarked. This trend has the potential to undermine local ownership and autonomy in aligning ODA to their own priorities when compared to direct budget support, core contributions, and decentralised/subnational support, especially when high quality funding is not transferred by intermediaries to local actors. A cost‑efficiency analysis – Passing the Buck – calculated that local intermediaries could deliver programming that is 32% more cost efficient than international intermediaries, without the higher international overhead and salary costs (The Share Trust, Warande Advisory Centre, 2022[7]).
Source: OECD (2024[6]), Multilateral Development Finance Report 2024, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f1e2b9b-en.
Direct funding to local actors is increasing in volume but not as a percentage of ODA (Figure 3.2). DAC member bilateral aid to partner recipient governments (e.g., central, local): increased from 13% of bilateral ODA in 2011 to 17% in 2022 with volumes increasing from USD 13.9 billion to 30 billion. Direct funding to local private sector increased from 1% or USD 1.3 billion in 20164 to 1.7% or USD 3.1 billion in 2022, with a peak of 3.3% in 2021. Direct funding to local NGOs nearly increased by 100% in volume from USD 1.1 billion in 2011 to USD 2.1 billion in 2022, but only a 0.2% increase in bilateral ODA share. Moreover, a recent review of ten DAC members found that over 90% of civil society support is channelled to organisations from provider countries (Shift the Power Movement, 2024[8]).5 This is attributed to pressure to reduce the number of contracts, increase budget ceilings and is identified as a central obstacle to pursuing locally led development strategic objectives, as well as a preference to build strong coalitions with domestic civil society. The picture is slightly more positive when taking into consideration programme-based approaches – implemented under the leadership of host countries.6 In response to this trend, local actors are increasingly calling for innovative funding models that work towards centering diverse forms of local agency, and recently shared an open letter to the OECD DAC with an urgent call to “end discriminatory funding against Global South Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)” (Shift the Power Movement, 2024[9]).
Note: The remaining % of bilateral aid is channelled amongst other donor governments, INGOs, private sector in provider countries.
Source: OECD (2024[10]), Creditor Reporting System, (database, constant prices 2022), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/c (accessed in 28 July 2024).
Poor quality of funds7 channelled to local actors can challenge local agency and locally led development. Grand Bargain beyond 2023 identified that flexible funding and long-term support to local stakeholders, rather than narrow, project-based funding, enables partners to transform their priorities and needs into tangible positive outcomes in their communities (IASC, 2023[11]). Likewise, funding provided as core support, multi‑year and flexible is considered most conducive to helping local actors operate as development actors in their own right (OECD, 2023[4]), with increasing consensus that high quality funding is key for local actors to exercise agency. Bilateral ODA provided as general budget support decreased from 1.8% in 2011 to 1.2% in 2022 but sector budget support increased from 1.8 % to 2.1% over the same period (see Figure 3.2). Nevertheless, when including the bilateral ODA disbursed by European Union (EU) institutions, the volumes and percentages of general budget support increase significantly. Core support to NGOs, private bodies, public/private partnerships in partner countries as a percentage of bilateral ODA has oscillated between 0.1 and 0.2 over the course of 2011-22 (0.1% in 2022). In addition, when adding funding labelled as programmed based – i.e., that uses local systems – the share of quality funding more than doubles (see Figure 3.3).
Note: The extended definition includes general budget support, sector budget support, and core support to NGOs, private bodies, public/private partnerships, and research institutes in partner countries. The programme-based approach (PBA) is a marker that measures funding flows that meet requirements related to co-ordinated support and local leadership in development programmes. The remaining percentage of bilateral support is provided to amongst others, pooled funds, technical assistance in donor countries, donor country personnel. See Chapter 6 on the rationale for selecting creditor reporting system (CRS) codes.
Source: OECD (2024[10]), Creditor Reporting System, (database, constant prices 2022), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/c, (accessed in 28 July 2024).
Yet, despite some progress, challenges have persisted with the provision of flexible and multi-year funding. DAC members emphasise multiple barriers to directing more high-quality funding to local actors including: i) legislative and regulatory constraints in provider and partner countries; ii) fiduciary risks such as gaps in local actor financial monitoring and reporting mechanisms; iii) ODA commitments and existing earmarks precluding the ability to respond to local priorities flexibly; iv) the ability of large multilateral agencies to disburse sizeable funds with speed and predictability; v) the complexity of funding a larger number of organisations; vi) local actor absorption capacity of external funding; vii) heavy reporting requirements; viii) limited flexibility in budget and financial agreements, including in the provision of overhead costs; ix) gaps in provider capacity to manage direct funding relationships; x) resistance among provider-country CSOs; and xi) difficulties identifying local actors.8 Gaps in long term, core, predictable and flexible funding are therefore consistently identified by local actors as constraining their ability to respond to changing contexts and needs, and undermining their sustainability.9
Politically constrained contexts10 can create both opportunities and challenges to fund local actors differently. The deep dive findings highlighted four main funding channels used to adapt to challenging contexts by DAC members. These include: i) bypassing national-level actors (including national authorities) and working with subnational actors – sometimes considered more legitimate or less problematic partners – for engaging in dialogue and co-ordination; ii) working through multilaterals when the risk of direct partnerships with local actors is considered too high given multilateral flexibility to engage directly with local actors including national authorities; iii) shifting funding towards civil society directly or via local intermediaries to support local initiatives, expand civil society space, and uphold rights; and iv) focusing on humanitarian funding, which is often the default option in conflict-affected and fragile settings with DAC members stepping back from direct government support as observed in Ethiopia.
Good practices that DAC members are implementing in relation to financing mechanisms to enable locally led development co-operation focus on: i) increasing financing flows; ii) adapting and diversifying financing channels and modalities; and iii) improving financing quality.
Increasing financing flows
Establishing policy commitments to increase the level of funding flowing to diverse local actors through a variety of funding modalities, can signal attempts to significantly shift power and establish more collaborative partnerships (OECD, 2023[4]). For example, in its Development Co‑operation Principles, Norway committed to “explore methods for shifting more of the funding and the decision-making to the local or national level” (Norad, 2018[12]). Some providers are choosing to set a target or commit a minimum threshold for the level or percent of funding they will allocate to local actors, including partner country civil society. In 2018, France’s Inter-ministerial Committee for International Co-operation and Development (CICID) set a target of doubling ODA to partner country CSOs by 2022 (CICID, 2018[13]).
In 2021, USAID announced its commitment to shift one-quarter of its funding (25%) directly to local partners by 2025 and to have at least half of its programmes create space for local actors to exercise leadership over priority setting, activity design, implementation, and defining and measuring results by 2030. The first status update in 2022 found that direct local funding to individuals, organisations or corporations reached nearly USD 1.6 billion, or 10.2% of obligations – the highest level and percent of direct local funding in at least a decade. One way that USAID Missions are navigating this shift is through transition awards. For example, in 2019 USAID used a transition award to directly fund the Pakachere Institute of Health and Development Communication, a Malawian NGO, following support to strengthen its capacity to manage United States government funds and implement Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) programmes. In its first year as prime partner, Pakachere has exceeded its HIV programming targets and is expanding its work to include 12 clinics in four regions.
Source: USAID, (2023[14]), Moving Toward a Model of Locally Led Development: Financial Year 2022 Localisation Progress Report, https://www.usaid.gov/localization/fy-2022-localization-progress-report.
Applying feminist principles to funding can increase flows reaching women’s organisations. Feminist approaches to funding create opportunities for shifting and transforming power in partnerships and address the lack of funding for women’s rights organisations (WROs), feminist movements and other representative organisations (e.g., LGBTQI+, disability). Whilst WROs and feminist movements are well-placed to address the structural and societal drivers of gender inequalities and deliver transformative change, they often face backlash, legal and systematic barriers, are not always included in decision-making processes, and are continuously under-resourced (AWID, Mama Cash, Count Me In, 2020[15]). Gender transformative programming and locally led development are clearly aligned in their principles and can be mutually reinforcing. However, managing small grants to several local organisations can be labour intensive for development co-operation partners, and therefore new efforts to support WROs are emerging. The Netherlands has implemented several programmes including the Leading From the South programme11, which is a feminist funding alliance led by four women’s funds in the Global South and the Power of Women12 grant instrument. The feminist funding principles applied by the four women’s funds in the Leading From the South alliance ensure that grant making is driven by the needs and priorities of the feminist movement, whilst the flexibility of funds allows for adaptable and responsible allocation of resources. Similarly, Australia supports the Fiji Women’s Fund, which partners with diverse local organisations to reach marginalised women, including in rural and remote areas. Direct funding to feminist and women’s rights organisations is a crucial aspect of the Fund’s efforts to realise the rights of women, girls and gender non-conforming communities (DFAT, 2024[16]). Following successful implementation of its Localisation Strategy, the Fund successfully registered as a Fijian independent entity in 2021. Finally, through the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office’s (FCDO) International Women and Girls Strategy (2023-2030), the United Kingdom committed to work alongside partners to further increase financial and political support for WROs (FCDO, 2023[17]). Partnerships with women’s funds and feminist funds, including the Equality Fund (see Box 3.10) and Purposeful13 in Sierra Leone, are a central part of meeting this commitment, recognising the key role that they plan in providing accessible and flexible funding and accompaniment. In parallel, the FCDO is putting equitable partnerships with WROs at the centre of its approach to key thematic priorities, such as tackling gender-based violence. This includes through awarding all innovation grants to WROs based in the Global South as part of What Works to Prevent Violence: Impact at Scale, and supporting the development of aspirational feminist principles in this programme’s consortium (IRC, n.d.[18]).
There are multiple women’s funds in existence at the global, regional, national, and thematic level that are driving progress on shifting resources to local movements to support those excluded from formal decision making. Mama Cash was one of the frontrunners, established in the Netherlands in 1983, and supports women, girls, trans and intersex people in their fight for their rights. It is supported by multiple foundations, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), Sweden and Global Affairs Canada. Similarly, Prospera, the international network of women’s funds, supports and advances local women’s organisations to transform lives and respond to the most pressing community needs alongside the Global Fund for Women, which aims to provide more philanthropy resources through multi-year, unrestricted, flexible grants for grassroots gender justice movements. Further, through the Support Fund for Feminist Organisations, launched in 2020 within the framework of its International Strategy for Gender Equality, France committed to supporting local feminist CSOs. Finally, Canada’s support for the Equality Fund Initiative provides an example of how international intermediaries can enable Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to reach a network of organisations (which would otherwise not have access to funds) whilst mutually supporting gender-responsive and transformative approaches with locally led development principles and processes (see Box 3.10).
Increasing core funds flowing to local CSOs, including representative organisations (e.g., youth, disability, women) can contribute to strengthening their capacity. Providing funding to civil society as core support (also described as institutional, budget, strategic, unrestricted or unearmarked), to fund an organisation rather than a project, can enable the strengthening of independent, pluralist, civil society in partner countries (OECD, 2023[4]). Core funding also provides flexibility to pivot easily if priorities change, should crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic occur, or adjustments are needed as lessons are learned. Yet, overhead costs are not always covered for local CSOs taking part in programmes or they are covered with smaller percentages than received by international CSOs. This reduces possibilities for local actors to participate in activities that are not directly covered by project funds, such as dialogues with authorities and project proposal drafting, with significant impact on the ability of CSOs to form equitable partnerships (The Share Trust, Warande Advisory Centre, 2022[7]). Further, organisational independence and sustainability is dependent upon having funds to cover staff resources and administration costs (e.g., staff, office costs and operations) and institutional capacity strengthening according to self-defined priorities. Core funding can strengthen local ownership by allowing recipients to control resource allocation and prioritise accountability to their constituencies and form true partnerships in which funds are granted on a basis of trust and solidarity, supporting them as independent actors to realise their goals and missions (Boyes-Watson cited in (OECD, 2023[4]). There is however increasing recognition that a one-size-fits-all approach may not suit all CSOs, and core funding can either be linked to strategic plans, business plans or expansion, and support delivery of local mandates or it can be earmarked core funding, dedicated to a particular service, mandate or geography, and can develop and strengthen organisational capacities.
Whilst generic guidance exists on providing core funding to CSOs,14 and some DAC members, such as Sweden, have developed their own, providers have made limited progress in terms of developing organisational policies on covering overhead/indirect costs for partner country CSOs (OECD, 2024[6]; 2023[4]). Sweden has updated its guidelines to Swedish strategic partnership organisations, which requires reporting on shares of total budget disbursed to the local partner, irrespective of whether the disbursement is made directly or through other Swedish or international partners (Sida, 2019[19]). Similarly, the Peace Support Fund in Myanmar, a multi-donor trust fund including the United Kingdom FCDO and Australia, has a programme specifically focused on supporting local CSOs with organisational development, independence and sustainability.15 Likewise, the Australia-Indonesia Partnership Towards an Inclusive Society (INKLUSI), Australia’s flagship gender equality, disability and social inclusion programme in Indonesia, provides earmarked core funding to eight CSOs.16 These lead the project and engage more than 60 sub partners to design and deliver activities in line with each organisation’s mandate, experience, strengths, networks and community priorities. Finally, through the Resourcing Change project, the United Kingdom is providing USD 7.4 million (2021-25) of core, flexible funding to WROs in Nigeria, Yemen, and South Sudan, enabling them to respond to context specific priorities (Saferworld, Women for Women International, WILPF, 2022[20]).17
In Canada, the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) has created space for Canada to work more directly with a variety of local women’s rights organisations (WROs) and feminist movements. Launched alongside the FIAP, the Women’s Voice and Leadership (WVL) Programme was the first time GAC used feminist approaches to provide multi-year core funding to WROs at scale. Core funding is complemented by fast, responsive funding to allow WROs to respond to unforeseen opportunities or urgent events, to strengthen capacity in areas prioritised by WROS (based on self-led capacity assessments) and strengthen movements. Guided by commitments, direct funding to local partners is maximised. The programme reflects a commitment to “doing things differently” by designing programmes with WRO agency in framing, designing and delivering; being attentive to power relations; prioritising peer learning and the co-creation of knowledge; and taking an intersectional approach. The programme was renewed and expanded in 2023, with an additional USD 143 million over five years and USD 31.9 million annually thereafter on an ongoing basis. The renewed WVL aims to strengthen its approach to locally led development by reinforcing strategies that shift power to local WROs, LGBTQI+ groups, and feminist movements, engaging more implementing and sub-implementing partners from the Global South and helping them address barriers that hinder local engagement (e.g., heavy reporting). For example, in Colombia, Oxfam-Québec plays a significant role in supporting organisations to overcome administrative and procedural barriers that often preclude grassroot groups to access funding and be sustainable, whilst leveraging their own thematic and territorial expertise to accompany the organisations’ programming and advocacy. The project is successfully providing multi-year funding, fast, responsive funding, capacity strengthening, and support to alliance building to 13 local organisations and two national networks, reaching 77 rural, Indigenous, and Afro-Colombian groups dedicated to women’s rights and gender equality.
Source: OECD (2024[21]), Peer learning on Locally led development – DAC members deep dive: Canada, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)24/en/pdf; and Deep dive in Colombia.
Facilitating autonomy of country offices in financial decision-making is effective. Whilst not applicable to smaller funding partners, country offices are seen by many DAC members as the most effective means of working directly with local actors and can have a significant level of autonomy, if provided with sufficient resources and staffing. In addition to being able to develop locally responsive country and regional strategies (see Chapter 2), grant managers at missions who have autonomy in financial decision-making can provide direct and equitable access to funding for local actors. For example, Ireland is supporting direct and more equitable funding for local actors via its embassies in Viet Nam, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania (OECD, 2024[22]).
Diversifying financing channels and modalities
Funding channels and modalities are at the heart of enabling local stakeholders to exercise more agency across development dimensions, including accountability. The peer learning found that many DAC members are trialling different funding models to shift funding more directly to local actors, as an enabler of local actor agency; this can involve starting with small investments initially and scaling up as success is demonstrated (DFAT, 2024[16]). Key modalities include: i) direct bilateral donor support to local actors; ii) long-term, flexible core or organisational development funds for local actors; iii) multi-donor pooled funding at all levels (regional, country, programmatic, thematic); iv) rapid, accessible, and participatory funding mechanisms; v) innovative mechanisms including channelling via local intermediaries; and vi) funding guidelines to promote more direct support from international organisations. Regular context analysis, including political economy analysis, has been used to select funding channels alongside provider preference and restrictions, balanced by the preferences of diverse local actors (OECD, 2023[4]).
Channelling funds directly to government treasuries and line agencies through general budget support, sector budget support, or programme-specific direct financing support has the potential to be one of the most locally led instruments of development co-operation, if providers do not look to control the outcomes of local decision-making (Swedlund, 2013[23]). Direct support can enable country ownership, accountability to country populations (in alignment with development effectiveness principles), national-level impact and efficiency gains, whilst reducing parallel project systems and duplication. It has proved efficient in response to the need for fiscal space in partner countries since the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Australia’s COVID-19 Budget Support Package and Pacific Direct Financing Fund highlight the growing use of this modality. Similarly, Ireland provided direct support to the Ethiopian parliament in 2019 to facilitate an extensive reform process, including the 2019 law relaxing the tight controls on CSOs, exemplifying systematic locally led development support (AFI, 2022[24]). In addition, the Polish Aid Solidarity Fund, which is able to sub-grant to local partners, further helped national authorities to finance locally designed development instruments, including Local Action Groups in Moldova from the state budget, and to implement the LEADER programme as a public policy to boost local economic growth (OECD, 2023[25]). Co-financing projects with government actors can also have advantages in terms of sustainability, shared responsibilities and increasing local actor agency from framing and priority setting to implementation. For example, for the second phase of the Strengthening Representative Bodies in Mongolia programme, Switzerland partnered directly with three separate government entities, who also funded 50% of the respective projects. The projects included peer-to-peer exchange on topics chosen by the Mongolian Secretariat with the Swiss parliamentary services, and highlighted that sustainability and co-financing was facilitated by working directly with Mongolian entities (SDC, 2022[26]). Finally, the United States Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) model is a further example of central government co-operation, which supports locally identified priorities, including through five-year grants, founded on country ownership18 and accountability (Millennium Corporation Challenge, 2024[27]).
New Zealand provided emergency fiscal budget support to help 12 Pacific Small Island Developing States to maintain stability and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. This included four countries where New Zealand did not have reform-linked budget support programmes in place. Whilst rapid deployment precluded in-depth dialogue on policy reform, the approach allowed partner governments to finance priority measures. As a result, a COVID-19 package of NZD 50 million was rapidly delivered, allowing partner government-driven recovery, and facilitating governments to finance priority measures such as economic stimulus packages, social protection payments and support for small business, particularly tourism. New Zealand’s support not only maintained stability of state institutions and public services, but it strengthened relationships between its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and affected partner countries. New Zealand intends to increasingly use this experience of emergency fiscal budget support, as well as its existing reform-lined budget support, for channelling part of its scaled-up climate financing.
Source: OECD, (2023[28]), Using Budget Support to Respond Rapidly to COVID-19 in Pacific Small Island Developing States, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/using-budget-support-to-respond-rapidly-to-covid-19-in-pacific-small-island-developing-states-sids_10d612ff.html.
Mobilising sovereign loans implies strong national ownership, alignment with governments priorities and the mobilisation of national financial management systems, given their implication for national budgets. For instance, France and Japan are committed to country ownership, seeking to achieve mutually beneficial partnerships, and take a recipient-driven approach in their approach to loans. Japan’s use of partner country financial management systems for loans is significantly higher than the DAC average. Similarly, the deep dive in Ethiopia showed that, prior to the more recent tensions, direct government loans and budget support from funding providers allowed the government primary and direct responsibility to spend “their own money”, which is in line with the locally led agenda. Equally, the approval system for concessional loans ensures a high degree of alignment with country priorities, policies, and effectiveness in Colombia. By implementing clear eligibility and evaluation criteria, projects financed through loans are contributing effectively to territorial socioeconomic development plans and therefore local actor agency and ownership.
Channelling ODA directly to partner country local governments can be a conduit to broader community ecosystems. Several DAC members identified decentralising support and establishing agreements with subnational governments as an important modality for supporting locally led development, particularly in politically constrained contexts19 and for reaching the wider ecosystem and network of community-level CSOs. Working with local governments, and their established systems for engaging community actors, has been identified as more effective than building parallel systems. For example, the Governance for Resilience (Gov4Res) programme in the Pacific is transitioning to local governments administering its small grants fund rather than a parallel system of support. Similarly, whilst direct financial support to local governments is not legally possible in Ethiopia, new programmes (including the sixth phase of the Productive Safety Net Programme) are linking and establishing agreements with subnational governments enabling the granularity, adaptation and tailoring of programmes to the specific needs and priorities of the sub-region. In Nepal, which transitioned to a federal structure of government in 2015, federalisation has enabled opportunities for direct DAC funding to local governments. The reforms have provided subnational governments with increased opportunity to frame and design development based on local priorities and challenges in their development co-operation partnerships. For instance, Finnish Aid in Nepal works in the WASH (water, sanitation, and hygiene) sector and requires local governments to co-fund projects to secure ownership and accountability. Other good practices include Iceland’s programme-based approach at the district level (OECD, 2021[29]) and the Integrated Territorial Approach20supported by the Alliance Sahel (which includes Japan, Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland and Finland). Spain is also committed to working directly with public authorities as implementers. For example, through its bilateral partnership frameworks (Marcos de Asociación País – MAPs) and to ensure alignment and local ownership, Spain co-drafted manuals with local authorities in Colombia on the management of funds channelled by the government (OECD, forthcoming[30]). As part of its support to the Provincial Government of Cabo Delgado (Mozambique), Spain supported the administration and management of basic public health services in the province by supporting the decentralised government bodies in their implementation process and in their role as planners, managers, and executors of public policies. France is also experimenting with non-sovereign loans, enabling diversification of public counterparts within the country.
Channelling support directly to local non-governmental actors is also a conduit to broader community ecosystems. Whilst OECD CRS statistics show only a minor increase in support to local NGOs (between 2011 and 2022, a 0.1% increase in bilateral ODA) and slightly larger increase for the private sector (between 2016 and 2022 a 1.7% increase in bilateral ODA) (Figure 3.2), DAC members highlighted several examples of direct support to both local NGOs and the private sector. For example, in Nepal, USAID is deploying grant mechanisms that allow them to support local actors (in this case, the private sector and NGOs) working on a specific venture. This is facilitated by USAID’s new Acquisition and Assistance Strategy, which promotes a diverse set of tools including simplified grants, fixed amount awards, and renewal awards to increase engagement with local organisations (USAID, n.d.[31]). Switzerland, which benefits from no legal restrictions on funding partners, also has significant flexibility to partner with a variety of local actors directly. For example, in Myanmar, following the coup and erosion of civic space, the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC) was able to transfer funds directly to a local NGO despite challenges related to increased government scrutiny on money transfers to bank accounts. Similarly, after several years of support in Mongolia, SDC successfully transitioned the project Green Gold and Animal Health programme to the main partner, a local NGO (the National Federation of Livestock Breeders), who continued leading the project but with diversified sources of funding (SDC, 2021[32]). France has established a series of instruments tailored to the specific needs of CSO, including the CSO initiatives platform, which provides grants to support CSO capacity strengthening and thematic co-financing, and the Fund for Innovation in Development, an innovative development financing mechanism, which supports experimentation and impact evaluation and the scaling up of proven innovations.21 In terms of the private sector, FCDO has been using a Separation of Functions approach in the social protection sector, to understand the role of local actors (including the private sector) in components of cash transfer delivery systems to priority households (Cabot Venton and Pongracz, 2021[33]).
Supporting thematic or programmatic multi-partner pooled funds can be useful to efficiently pool resources from an array of development partners to meet a shared goal (OECD, 2022[34]). They are particularly important in fragile or crisis contexts, where bilateral instruments may be insufficiently adapted, and monitoring arrangements complicated by security constraints. Rather than investing in a parallel multi-partner fund, DAC members are supporting and scaling existing systems. For example, in Ethiopia, DAC members are supporting and scaling the existing government via a multi-partner pooled fund (SPEC, n.d.[35]). Multi-partner funds can also provide useful entry points for trying new ways of working, piloting innovative projects, co-ordinating investments, and encouraging system-wide national reforms by supporting innovative or emerging policy areas, in which individual partners do not have the necessary competencies. For example, the Iraq Reform, Recovery, and Reconstruction Fund was founded in partnership with the Government of Iraq in 2018, with initial funding from Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and is managed by the World Bank. Its focus is on promoting targeted national reform and improving the effectiveness of public and private recovery investments. However, the Fund’s performance has been less than optimal given implementation challenges in the post-conflict setting and difficulties capturing and tracking performance (World Bank, 2022[36]). Conversely, Amplify Change is an example of an effective, thematically targeted initiative that delivers funding to local organisations. It supports hundreds of CSOs across Africa, South Asia and the Middle East and advocates for improved policy and action on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Supported by several foundations, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, grant-making is at the core of its work ensuring support to civil society organisations to create change in their communities through innovative approaches, including through organisational strengthening and sharing knowledge for advocacy.22
The Civil Society Support Programme uses pooled funds to spread efficiencies, share risks, provide a critical financing mass, and support smaller DAC members unable to offer direct funding (such as Austria) to improve their locally led development commitments. The programme is a multi-donor pooled fund, managed by the British Council, which provides grants and capacity strengthening to local CSOs and has engaged with key government stakeholders to help create space and platforms for effective civic engagement and learning. During its first phase, it supported more than 600 organisations, facilitated implementation of the 2019 CSO law (aimed at creating a conducive civic space), and is widely appreciated for the flexible support it has provided for civil society to continue and grow despite the complex context.
Source: Deep dive in Ethiopia.
Supporting national pooled funds as a conduit for reaching local actors. National or country humanitarian pooled funds are increasingly identified as an important conduit for channelling more direct humanitarian funding to local actors (NRC, 2022[37]).23 Initially challenged by only meeting the lowest common denominator of accountability and flexibility, more recent innovations are seeking to promote local actors in fund management leadership positions and through more direct support (Conducive Space for Peace, 2023[38]). For example, Ireland and Switzerland have provided considerable support for pooled funding mechanisms, with the former contributing to 14 Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPF) (constituting 25% of the Humanitarian Unit’s humanitarian spending), and these are considered an important and flexible source of funding for local organisations in crisis and conflict-affected settings. This modality can be leveraged as an opportunity to re-shape the humanitarian financing landscape, direct funds to frontline responders, and enable decision making closer to humanitarian needs (Els, 2019[39]). To maximise the full potential of national/subnational pooled funds, and to circumvent the limited accessibility, small grant size, short term, and heavy transaction costs for local and smaller organisations, who rarely qualify to receive direct funding (Carter, 2018[40]), funding partners are moving towards alternative pooled funds and/or increasing access of funding pools to local actors, for example in Northern Syria. Switzerland has also successfully advocated for simplified and streamlined due diligence requirements of CBPFs (e.g., in Ukraine and Myanmar) to increase access for smaller organisations (OECD, 2024[41]).
The Aid Fund for Northern Syria is a new USD 80 million multi-donor pooled funding mechanism that channels more funding to local actors. Established as an alternative to the UN pooled fund, given cross-border uncertainties, it is supported by seven donors including FCDO. The Share Trust helped develop a Localisation Strategy for the pooled fund to help shift power and funding to local actors and to prioritise and channel funding to smaller, grassroots organisations not registered in Türkiye, making it possible for them to bypass eligibility criteria. As a result of the Strategy, the AFNS will only fund interventions that provide full pass through of overheads to local partners, ensuring that indirect support costs charged to a project are allocated in proportion to all subgrantees.
Sources: The Share Trust, (2024[42]),Shifting Power and Funding to Local Actors: Localising Humanitarian Pooled Funding in Syria, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b2110247c93271263b5073a/t/662fcbc41f4e172646ddbb0f/1714408388964/SyriaFlyer_OnePage FINAL.pdf; AFNS (2023[43]), Localisation Strategy, https://afns.org/volumes/doc/AFNS-Localisation-Strategy_2023-1.pdf?v=1702479607.
Supporting diverse grant mechanisms can provide rapid funding or fund innovative local projects. DAC members have been exploring rapid and accessible small grants, which aim to provide relevant, tailored, and readily accessible support for local actors, with flexible funding to allow local actor agency in meeting immediate needs rapidly. Similarly, adaptable small grant mechanisms, which are locally accessible and can finance innovative projects outside broad thematic areas, are being supported by DAC members and help CSOs circumvent lengthy application procedures yet prioritise both innovation and the agency of local actors in framing, design and delivery. For example, through its Unsolicited Solutions for Locally Led Development programme, USAID provides missions globally with funding to support unsolicited applications from nascent partners that advance locally led development in any sector.24 To be considered, applicants must have received less than USD 5 million from USAID in the previous five years and are required to show evidence of local demand for, and buy-in to, the proposed activities. A noteworthy example award is in Ecuador, where the programme supports Indigenous organisational leadership, and provides self-identified capacity strengthening of community risk management, preparedness, and response. This is similar to Ireland’s Micro Projects Scheme, which provides country missions with funds to directly support local NGOs to carry out small-scale development projects.
The Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI) is a decentralised programme that funds over 700 new projects per year, implemented in approximately 124 countries, mostly by small and local civil society organisations. It was set up with the objective of addressing local needs through local partners (87% of projects directly fund local partners). The funding instrument used by CFLI involves small contributions (averaging USD 33 000), enabling the programme to be more risk-tolerant and highly responsive to local needs and interests. The application and reporting requirements focus on enabling more recently formed and smaller organisations to more readily access funding for project-based activities, with an ability to adapt the scope of initiatives within 24 hours. However, a recent evaluation of initiatives between 2015 and 2021 highlighted that the accompaniment provided by the country missions to local partners in CFLI projects requires significant staff time, and the short-term nature of the projects limits options for supporting long-term equitable partnerships.
Source: OECD (2024[21]) Peer learning on Locally led development – DAC members deep dive: Canada https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC(2024)34/en/pdf; and GAC (2023[44]), Evaluation of the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI) 2015-16 to 2020-21, https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/assets/pdfs/audit-evaluation-verification/2022/cfli-fcil-report-en.pdf.
Large number of DAC members are investing in challenge funds and prizes,25 with many of them specifically targeting innovators from partner countries. For example, Luxembourg uses a challenge fund to solicit local novel solutions to food security and locally relevant digital learning opportunities in the Sahel region, and also supports the African Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF). Sweden is also providing support to testable and scalable solutions across Sub-Saharan Africa, including to further advance women’s social entrepreneurship. However, these approaches can be resource-intensive, particularly given the need for accompaniment. An alternative is for local networks to administer rapid and accessible small grants initiatives (see Box 3.8).
The Start Network is one of the fastest humanitarian financing mechanisms, and is supported by a range of funding partners including the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Jersey along with several foundations. Similar initiatives supporting local innovations and accessibility to local organisations include the Change Fund, launched by the Network for Empowered Aid Response (NEAR), with pilot funding from the Hilton Foundation, which currently pools funding from multiple foundations. The Change Fund is locally led and managed in its governance and decision making, providing rapid humanitarian response funds to local and national. Likewise, adaptable small grant mechanisms supporting local innovation include the CIVICUS solidarity Fund and the Local Action Fund.
Providing direct support to local intermediaries can reach frontline local actors. As noted earlier, local intermediaries could deliver programming that is 32% more cost efficient than international intermediaries, without the higher international overhead and salary costs (The Share Trust, Warande Advisory Centre, 2022[7]). The Local Coalition Accelerator Model funded by several foundations, and implemented in Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Bangladesh (see Chapter 4, Box 4.6), is an approach that supports coalitions of local and national actors to create shared governance systems, design their own Joint Action Plans based on community priorities, and ultimately to become independent and able to manage funding directly from funding partners. In addition, the Netherlands supported the Leading from the South feminist fund, mentioned previously, which channels funding directly to four local intermediaries (local women’s funds),26 who in turn provide innovative and flexible grants to national and grassroots women’s organisations, movements, networks and change agents, and provide critical spaces for South-South learning to advance the human rights of women and girls (Leading from the South, n.d.[45]). Finally, in Myanmar, the Myanmar Local Intermediary Actors Network – a group of 14 of Myanmar’s largest NGOs – launched in 2022, works to strengthen civil society in Myanmar, including through channelling international resources to wider civil society and frontline groups across Myanmar, and handling partner funding and compliance requirements.
Community agency can be supported within funding streams. Community-driven development is one of multiple modalities of project design and delivery, which transfers decision-making agency, and often technical and financial resources, directly to communities or groups of end-users. It is frequently used to deliver basic services, construct and maintain local public goods and infrastructure, maintain common property resources, and plan and manage community budgets (Holmlund and Rao, 2021[46]).27 Similar approaches include Community and Local Development programmes, which operate on the principle of transparency, participation, local empowerment, demand-responsiveness, greater downward accountability, and enhanced local capacity. The approach is centred on partnering with communities and local units of government, including putting resources under the direct control of community groups, as a foundation for more efficient and inclusive delivery of basic services. Other promising approaches, with an increasingly strong evidence base, include supporting community structures, for example Self Help Groups, which are platforms for community‑driven, collective action supported by a range of DAC members including FCDO.28 Community collectives are aligned with emerging humanitarian approaches such as survivor and community-led responses,29 which enable multiple affected groups to respond rapidly to their own differing and changing opportunities and needs, in ways that respect local culture and practices. They draw upon a combination of rapid transfer of microgrants to local communities (including through community collectives), networking of knowledge and capacities, and learning by doing. For example, Denmark provided support for survivor and community-led responses through community grants totalling USD 335 000 in Myanmar between 2019 and 2020 and reached over 43 000 people (Carstensen, Corbett and Di Vicenz, 2021[47]). Finally, the Bulsho Fund, a locally led fund in Somalia, with pilot funding from Save the Children Denmark, provides “direct, unrestricted and flexible funding through a simplified grant-making framework, rapid in-kind procurement, and match-making” with the private sector, to ensure communities are at the centre of their own development and resilience (Bulsho Fund, n.d.[48]).
Improving financing quality
Providing long-term funding to local actors, which moves beyond short-term projects, to build trust and genuine partnership is emerging as an important enabler. For example, Sweden has been providing long-term support (for four to five years) to some CSOs in Ethiopia with the flexibility to change activities and even objectives if needed, since early 2000. A recent evaluationof Sweden’s work across 60 years in Ethiopia confirms that its long-term, stable support has emphasised partnerships rather than conditionality, and has meant that Sweden has played a more active leadership role amongst funding partners than would be suggested by the volume of its ODA (EBA, 2022[49]). Austria has also committed to working through local partners over the long term and for example, in Moldova, it has provided a decade of support for biodiversity conservation to two local NGOs and the Ministry of Environment (OECD, 2023[50]).
Providing predictable, flexible, and multi-year funding to local actors, based on long‑term partnerships, provides agency and flexibility to; i) phase approaches to implementation; ii) sequence capacity support; iii) ensure greater revenue certainty; iv) attain transformational outcomes as opposed to transactional outputs and activities; v) build opportunities and invest in staff and leadership; and vi) adapt programming as circumstances change. Whilst several examples, including Ireland’s Civil Society Partnership (ICSP) programme discussed earlier, focus on providing quality funding to DAC member CSOs, there are emerging examples, where flexible funding is provided to local youth, disability, and women’s organisations (e.g., Canada’s Women’s Voice and Leadership Programmem30 and its partnership with the Equality Fund) and larger partner country CSOs, for example Australia’s support for BRAC (Building Resources Across Communities) in Bangladesh.
Australia and Canada’s Strategic Partnership Agreement with BRAC, Bangladesh’s largest NGO, demonstrates how development partners can harness innovation and locally led development by using flexible, core funding approaches and collaborative governance to achieve shared objectives. In its third five-year funding phase, the trilateral strategic partnership (among Australia, BRAC, and Canada) contributes non-earmarked core funding to support the implementation of the BRAC Strategic Plan linked to 17 programmes delivered in multiple sectors, in recognition that BRAC is well positioned to develop tailored and adaptable strategies that are responsive to the needs of the local community. The trio (Australia, BRAC and Canada) have negotiated a unique and innovative financing mechanism, with local ownership and trust at its core. It allows BRAC to take the lead on determining the funding of programme priorities in consultation with partners, demonstrating a shift to a more equitable, strategic partnership underpinned by a funding mechanism, which allows for more flexibility than project-based funding, and creates an operating environment conducive to innovation.
Source: Australian Government (2024[16]), DFAT Guidance Note: Locally Led Development, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/dfat-guidance-note-locally-led-development.pdf.
The Equality Fund’s primary mandate is to support women’s rights organisations and movements that advance women’s rights and gender equality. It provides core, multi-year, flexible funding as well as technical support, institutional strengthening, and network building. It uses a variety of grant-making models with feminist values of collaboration, solidarity and community at the core and has a strong locally led development focus, which emphasises shifting and sharing power with feminist movements in the Global South and ensuring women’s organisations have agency in the design and governance of the initiative. The Equality Fund develops trust-based relationships with grantees to better understand individual realities, challenges and priorities and has developed a common reporting framework, negotiated with its funders to reduce demands placed on grantees, who are also given the opportunity to sign onto the Equality Fund’s code of conduct if they do not have one in place. Since its launch in 2019, it has granted USD 25.6 million to 119 women’s organisations and funds, and to a further 571 women’s organisations through on-grants from the women’s funds in its Global South network. One of the innovations associated with the Equality Fund is its investment strategy, which aims to generate funding for grants through mission-aligned gender-lens investments. Most recently, it launched its Prepare funding opportunity designed to support community-led approaches in building resilience and long-term solutions to crises.
Sources: OECD (2024[51]), Bridging the funding gap for women’s rights organisations: Canada's support through the Equality Fund, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/bridging-the-funding-gap-for-women-s-rights-organisations-canada-s-support-through-the-equality-fund_6aa9a5d1-en.html; OECD (2024[21]) Peer learning on Locally led development – DAC members deep dive: Canada, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)24/en/pdf.
Ireland provides long-term, flexible, and predictable funding and high levels of support to CSOs (mostly from Ireland but also international and country-based organisations) working across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus. Through its Civil Society Partnership (ICSP) programme, Irish Aid signs multi-year memoranda of understanding (MoU), which provide an agreed amount of funding to partners (including to local governments in fragile and conflict-affected contexts) over a five-year period. This enables partners to engage in more innovative programming and locally led development initiatives and prioritise strategic areas according to their own mandate, comparative advantage and strategic focus. Irish partners can in turn pass on this flexibility in the funding agreements signed with local partners. Benchmarks included by Irish Aid in the MoU with Irish civil society partners have further specified the level of on-granting to local actors (currently 31% across ICSP projects) and the coverage of indirect costs for local partners.
Source: OECD (2023[52]) Ireland’s Innovative Funding Empowers Civil Society Partners, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/ireland-s-innovative-funding-empowers-civil-society-partners_5b24d842.html.
Influencing international intermediaries to “pass on” funding using funding agreements can enable locally led development. Whilst funding partners recognise the importance of overheads, institutional and political factors can act as a barrier to passing through overhead funding from intermediaries to local actors. Ireland has played an important role in influencing how intermediaries enable locally led development co-operation, including mobilising more local funding and quality funding.31 Because Ireland gives flexible funding to its multilateral partners, it is able to pose critical questions to them about whether they enable flexible, long-term funding for local actors. Similarly, in line with Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) guidelines on the Provision of Overheads to Local and National Partners (IASC, 2022[53]), Canada updated its International Humanitarian Assistance Funding Guidelines for NGO partners in 2021 to enable local partners to receive overhead costs by including a dedicated budget line for up to 7.5% of their direct costs, rather than a share of the overheads allocated to an intermediary partner. Further, Denmark has introduced new requirements for its strategic partners (18 Danish civil society organisations) to report how much funding they allocate to local organisations and their plans for strengthening local leadership (Danida, 2022[54]). Its 2022‑25 guideline for strategic partnerships with Danish CSOs includes provision of 7% overheads for Danish international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), as well as an additional administrative fee to support local partner overheads. This must be justified based on the organisation’s knowledge and assessment of the local partner’s capacity. Whilst these guidelines are not mandatory, Danish CSOs are now required to report to Danida on the transfer of these funds. Similarly, Australia’s NGO Co-operation Programme also ensures that lead partners earmark a percentage of funds for core costs in partner organisations (DFAT, n.d.[55]). Finally, New Zealand’s Partnering for Impact programme has significantly refreshed its approach to funding and partnering with New Zealand CSOs following an independent evaluation and an open and iterative co-design process including local CSOs.32 A requirement under its Negotiated Partnership approach – multi-year, multi-country, and multi-sector arrangements with larger New Zealand CSOs – is the latter pass on at least 50% of the funding for management support costs to a local partner.33 New Zealand’s aim is to take a whole-of-CSO programme approach to enhancing local partner agency in design, delivering and monitoring of programmes, rather than piecemeal projects to bring greater trust, visibility of risks and challenges, and co-ownership.
References
[24] AFI (2022), Australia’s COVID-19 Response Package for the Pacific and Timor-Leste - Independent Review 2020 - 2022, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).
[43] AFNS (2023), Localisation Strategy, Aid Fund for Northern Syria, https://afns.org/volumes/doc/AFNS-Localisation-Strategy_2023-1.pdf?v=1702479607.
[15] AWID, Mama Cash, Count Me In (2020), Moving More Money to the Drivers of Change: How Bilateral and Multilateral Funders Can Resource Feminist Movements, https://www.mamacash.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/movingmoremoney_mama_cash_awid_cmi.pdf.
[48] Bulsho Fund (n.d.), Bulsho Fund, https://bulshofund.so/about/ (accessed on 5 August 2024).
[33] Cabot Venton, C. and S. Pongracz (2021), Framework for shifting bilateral programmes to local actors, Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19 Expert Advice Service (SPACE), DAI Global UK Ltd, United Kingdom, https://socialprotection.org/sites/default/files/publications_files/SPACE_Framework%20for%20shifting%20bilateral%20programmes%20to%20local%20actors.pdf.
[47] Carstensen, N., J. Corbett and S. Di Vicenz (2021), Survivor- and Community-led Crisis Response: Practical Experience and Learning, https://odihpn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/HPN_SCLR-Network-Paper_WEB.pdf.
[40] Carter, B. (2018), Country-Based Pooled Funds for Humanitarian Funding, IDS, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c701a7fe5274a0ec9a1db86/486_Humanitarian_Country_Based_Pooled_Funds.pdf.
[13] CICID (2018), Statement of conclusions, https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/releve_de_conclusions_du_comite_interministeriel_de_cooperation_internationale_et_du_developpement_-_08.02.2018_cle4ea6e2-2.pdf.
[38] Conducive Space for Peace (2023), Innovative Practices: Changing the International System to Better Enable Local Leadership, Learning Note, https://www.conducivespace.org/2023/05/23/learning-note-innovative-practices-changing-the-international-system-to-better-enable-local-leadership/.
[54] 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.
[16] 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.
[55] DFAT (n.d.), Australian NGO cooperation program (ANCP) fact sheet 2021-22, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/the-australian-ngo-cooperation-program-fact-sheet-2021-22.pdf.
[49] EBA (2022), Swedish Development Cooperation with Ethiopia: Sixty Years of Lessons Learned, EBA, https://eba.se/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Swedish-Development-Cooperation-with-Ethiopia_Sixty-Years-of-Lessons-Learned_EBA_2022_06.pdf.
[39] Els, C. (2019), Country-Based Pooled Funds: The NGO Perspective, https://www.icvanetwork.org/uploads/2021/10/country-based-pooled-funds-the-ngo-perspective.pdf.
[17] FCDO (2023), International Women and Girls Strategy 2023–2030, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/640a0bb1d3bf7f02f7d9db18/international-women-and-girls-strategy-2023-2030.pdf.
[44] GAC (2023), Evaluation of the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI) 2015-16 to 2020-21, Global Affairs Canada, https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/assets/pdfs/audit-evaluation-verification/2022/cfli-fcil-report-en.pdf.
[46] Holmlund, M. and V. Rao (2021), Where and When is Community-Driven Development (CDD) Effective, https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/impactevaluations/where-and-when-community-driven-development-cdd-effective (accessed on 8 June 2024).
[11] IASC (2023), Grand Bargain beyond 2023, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/sites/default/files/migrated/2023-06/Grand%20Bargain%20beyond%202023%20-%20Framework.pdf.
[53] IASC (2022), IASC Guidance on the Provision of Overheads to Local and National Partners, Inter-Agency Standing Committee, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/humanitarian-financing/iasc-guidance-provision-overheads-local-and-national-partners.
[2] IASC (2021), The Grand Bargain 2.0 Endorsed frameworks and annexes, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/sites/default/files/migrated/2021-07/%28EN%29%20Grand%20Bargain%202.0%20Framework.pdf.
[18] IRC (n.d.), What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls, https://www.rescue.org/uk/what-works-prevent-violence-against-women-and-girls (accessed on 1 August 2024).
[45] Leading from the South (n.d.), Leading from the South, https://www.leadingfromthesouth.org/.
[27] Millennium Corporation Challenge (2024), “MCC Celebrates 20 years of Impactful Partnerships, https://www.mcc.gov/blog/entry/blog-012324-20th-anniversary/ (accessed on 19 June 2024).
[12] Norad (2018), Norad’s Support to Civil Society: Guiding Principles, https://www.norad.no/contentassets/396cdc788c09405490a96adce80ac040/norads-support-to-civil-society-guiding-principles.pdf.
[37] NRC (2022), Pooled Funds: The New Humanitarian Silver Bullet, https://www.nrc.no/resources/reports/pooled-funds-the-new-humanitarian-silver-bullet/.
[51] OECD (2024), Bridging the Funding Gap for Women’s Rights Organisations: Canada’s Support Through the Equality Fund, Development co-operation TIPs – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/bridging-the-funding-gap-for-women-s-rights-organisations-canada-s-support-through-the-equality-fund_6aa9a5d1-en.html.
[10] OECD (2024), Creditor Reporting System, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/c (accessed on 28 June 2024).
[6] OECD (2024), Multilateral Development Finance 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f1e2b9b-en.
[21] 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.
[22] 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.
[41] 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.
[50] OECD (2023), Austria’s Beneficial Support for Biodiversity Conservation in Moldova, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/austria-s-beneficial-support-for-biodiversity-conservation-in-moldova_7d69c4f8-en.html.
[25] 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.
[4] OECD (2023), Funding Civil Society in Partner Countries: Toolkit for Implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ea40a9c-en.
[52] OECD (2023), Ireland’s Innovative Funding Empowers Civil Society Partners, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/ireland-s-innovative-funding-empowers-civil-society-partners_5b24d842.html.
[28] OECD (2023), Using Budget Support to Respond Rapidly to COVID-19 in Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/03/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_d307b396/using-budget-support-to-respond-rapidly-to-covid-19-in-pacific-small-island-developing-states-sids_10d612ff.html.
[34] OECD (2022), Investing in Multi-Partner Funds (United Nations and International Funding Institutions), OECD, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=1171_1171937-02mtbisxdc&title=Investing-in-multi-partner-funds.
[29] OECD (2021), Partnering for Local Ownership: Programme-Based Approaches at the District Level, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/partnering-for-local-ownership-programme-based-approaches-at-the-district-level_f62ec064-en.html.
[1] OECD (2005), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264098084-en.
[30] OECD (forthcoming), Designing and engaging in horizontal and inclusive partnerships: Spain’s Bilateral partnership frameworks, Development Co-operation TIPS – Tools, Insights, Practices.
[20] Saferworld, Women for Women International, WILPF (2022), Resourcing change: Supporting women’s rights organisations in fragile and conflict-affected states, https://www.saferworld-global.org/resources/publications/1406-resourcing-change-supporting-womenas-rights-organisations-in-fragile-and-conflict-affected-states.
[26] SDC (2022), Strengthening Representative Bodies in Mongolia: Phase II (Exit Phase).
[32] SDC (2021), Green Gold and Animal Health Project: Fact Sheet.
[9] Shift the Power Movement (2024), Too Southern To Be Funded: Open Letter to the OECD DAC and an Urgent Call to End Discriminatory Funding Against Global South CSOs, https://shiftthepower.org/toosoutherntobefunded/ (accessed on 20 June 2024).
[8] Shift the Power Movement (2024), Too Southern to be Funded: The Funding Bias Against the Global South, https://www.peacedirect.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Final-Report-Too-Southern-To-Be-Funded.pdf.
[19] Sida (2019), Guiding Principles for Sida’s Engagement With and Support to Civil Society, Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency, https://www.sida.se/en/for-partners/civil-society-organisations.
[35] SPEC (n.d.), Productive Safety Net Program: Ethiopia, https://socialprotection.org/system/files/SPEC-Infographics-ETHIOPIA.pdf.
[23] Swedlund, H. (2013), From From Donorship to Ownership? Budget Support and Donor Influence in Rwanda and Tanzania, https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1665.
[42] The Share Trust (2024), Shifting Power and Funding to Local Actors: Localising Humanitarian Pooled Funding in Syria, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b2110247c93271263b5073a/t/662fcbc41f4e172646ddbb0f/1714408388964/SyriaFlyer_OnePageFINAL.pdf.
[7] The Share Trust, Warande Advisory Centre (2022), Passing the Buck: The Economics of Localising International Assistance, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b2110247c93271263b5073a/t/63754f2bbf586431bd28fac0/1668632366491/Passing+the+Buck_Full+Report.pdf.
[14] USAID (2023), Moving Toward a Model of Locally Led Development: Financial Year 2022 Localisation Progress Report, https://www.usaid.gov/localization/fy-2022-localization-progress-report.
[31] USAID (n.d.), Acquisition and Assistance, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/USAID-AA-Strategy-Report.pdf.
[3] USAID (n.d), Localization, https://www.usaid.gov/localization (accessed on 2024 May 17).
[5] Whitty, B. et al. (2023), “Outsourcing the Business of Development: The Rise of For‐profit Consultancies in the UK Aid Sector”, Development and Change, Vol. 54/4, pp. 892-917, https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12782.
[36] World Bank (2022), Iraq Reform, Recovery and Reconstruction Fund I3RF : Trust Fund Annual Progress Report to Development Partners 2022, World Bank Group, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/iraq/publication/iraq-reform-recovery-and-reconstruction-fund-i3rf-trust-fund-annual-progress-report-to-development-partners-2022.
← 1. Recent emphasis on local agency in accountability (and more inclusive approaches to accountability, which confers more responsibility on local partners and locally embedded systems and processes) cannot be realised without adequate funding or provision of support, as these are key to autonomy (and local actor agency) (Accountability deep dive).
← 2. The commitment goes on to note: “This shift will require a long-term development perspective, more flexible mechanisms, and support for organisational development and capacity strengthening. Implementing this approach will require creativity and innovation (…), it will also require building trust, simplifying reporting requirements, and re-examining the role of intermediaries.”
← 3. This trend was mirrored in the deep dive countries, for example in Canada there was a rising share of multilateral spend and decreasing bilateral share (38.5% in 2021 compared to 48.8% in 2020). Further, the share of Canada’s multi-bi aid (bilateral ODA that is channelled via multilaterals) sat at 50.9% in 2021.
← 4. The year of reference for this datapoint is 2016 as it is the first year for which this information on private sector has been collected.
← 5. The report Too Southern to be Funded found that of the total USD 24 billion in DAC funding to CSOs, just over USD 2 billion was channelled to Global South CSOs. It identified this as a form of tied aid, linked to a loophole in the rules for tied aid, which exempts CSO assistance. The report calls for the removal of legal and regulatory barriers to allow more direct funding to local CSOs, the redefining of tied aid policies, enhancing transparency in funding, and continued advocacy for reforms to prioritise the voices of the most affected communities.
← 6. PBA is a marker that measures funding flows that meet requirements related to co-ordinated support and local leadership in development programmes. For an activity to qualify as PBA, all four of the following tests must be met: 1) the host country or organisation is exercising leadership over the programme supported by donors; 2) a single comprehensive programme and budget framework is used; 3) there is a formal process for donor co-ordination and harmonisation of donor procedures for at least two of the following systems: (i) reporting, (ii) budgeting, (iii) financial management and (iv) procurement; and; 4) support to the programme uses at least two of the following local systems: (i) programme design, (ii) programme implementation, (iii) financial management and (iv) monitoring and evaluation.
← 7. The IASC has described “quality funding” as enhancing collaborative multi-year planning with reduced earmarking.
← 8. For more information on barriers to localisation, see https://odi.org/en/publications/why-arent-we-there-yet-understanding-and-addressing-donor-barriers-to-localisation-in-climate-adaptation/; https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/humanitarian-financing/iasc-guidance-provision-overheads-local-and-national-partners; https://odi.org/en/publications/are-wethere-yet-localisation-as-the-journey-towards-locally-led-practice; and https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/Instrument%20s/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5021.
← 9. For example, CSOs in Ethiopia and Nepal highlighted rigid payment schemes, delayed payments (including post delivery), inflexible financial reporting systems, and the failure of international intermediaries to transfer the quality of funding they themselves receive from DAC members in terms of duration, flexibility, administration costs, and overheads.
← 10. Defined in the peer review as contexts where: DAC member relations with national authorities have deteriorated, partially or completely (e.g., following coups, gross human rights violations, corruption); varying from autocratic, but stable, to protracted crises and conflict contexts; or affected by a constrained geopolitical environment characterised by fragmentation and competition (politically constrained deep dive).
← 11. For further information on the Leading From the South programme, see https://www.leadingfromthesouth.org/.
← 12. This fund supports women’s organisations in various areas, including in capacity building for advocacy. More information on Netherland’s Gender Programmes is available here: https://www.government.nl/topics/development-cooperation/the-development-policy-of-the-netherlands/equal-rights-for-women-and-girls.
← 13. Purposeful is a feminist hub for girls' activism. For more information, see: https://wearepurposeful.org/.
← 14. The OECD Funding Civil Society in Partner Countries toolkit provides concrete guidance on how to fund local civil society.
← 15. For more information about the Peace Support Fund, see: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/myanmar-peace-support-fund.
← 16. For further information on Australia-Indonesia Partnership Towards an Inclusive Society, see: https://inklusi.or.id/about/about-inklusi/.
← 17. This is supported by the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which is transitioning to the Integrated Security Fund, and a cross-government fund tackling conflict, stability and security challenges overseas which threaten UK national security.
← 18. To learn more about MCC’s approach to country ownership, see: https://www.mcc.gov/resources/doc/paper-country-ownership-consultation-draft/.
← 19. However, statistics suggest that DAC member bilateral ODI channelled to local government only increased from 0% (2011) to 0.2% of total bilateral ODA (see Chapter 7).
← 20. For more information about the Tools to facilitate the implementation of the integrated territorial approach https://www.alliance-sahel.org/en/press/next-events/tools-to-facilitate-the-implementation-of-the-integrated-territorial-approach/.
← 21. For more information on France’s financing instruments for CSO, see: https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/afd-financing-civil-society-organizations; CSO initiatives platform, https://www.afd.fr/en/financing-ngo-projects; and the Fund for Innovation in Development, https://fundinnovation.dev/en/about.
← 22. More information about Amplify Change is available at: https://amplifychange.org/.
← 23. In 2022, 28% of Country-based Pooled Funds went to local or national organisations.
← 24. More information on USAID’s Unsolicited Solutions for Locally Led Development can be found here: https://www.usaid.gov/local-faith-and-transformative-partnerships/unsolicited-solutions-for-locally-led-development.
← 25. Challenge funds allocate funds for specific purposes using competition among organisations or individual innovators as the lead principle. They seek to identify testable and scalable solutions, premised on the assumption that the best expertise to develop, test, and scale solutions can often be found beyond the organisational boundaries of the entity or entities managing or funding the challenge fund. Challenge prizes address development challenges by rewarding the first innovator to advance progress against the problem most effectively.
← 26. The African Women’s Development Forum (AWDF), Fondo de Mujeres del Sur (FMS), International Indigenous Women’s Forum (FIMI)/AYNI Fund (AYNI), and Women’s Fund Asia WFA.
← 27. Key features include: i) the creation of a local committee to manage the process or project; ii) external facilitation to support decision making within the Community Driven Development framework; and iii) a community contribution in cash or labour.
← 28. A Self Help Group is a community-based organisation composed of 15 - 25 individuals sharing similar socio-economic backgrounds. These groups are self-governed and focus on empowering members through collective decision making and resource pooling. SHGs address not only the financial aspects of poverty but also the broader dimensions of social capital and self-efficacy. For more information see: https://thesharetrust.org/self-help-groups.
← 29. Local to Global Protection defines the survivor and community-led response (SCLR) as “a way of working which recognises that crisis-affected people are the first and last responders in any disaster. SCLR provides a means for aid actors to strengthen the scope, scale and impacts of this autonomous self-help and build on its collective nature.” For more information see: https://www.local2global.info/sclr/.
← 30. Further information about Canada’s Women’s Voice and Leadership Programme can be found at: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/gender_equality-egalite_des_genres/wvl_projects-projets_vlf.aspx?lang=eng.
← 31. Ireland allocated 46% of total ODA as core contributions to multilateral organisation in 2021.
← 32. For more information on New Zealand’s Partnering for Impact programme, see: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/aid-and-development/working-with-the-new-zealand-idc-programme/funding-opportunities/partnering-for-impact.
← 33. New Zealand’s current Negotiated Partnerships are available at: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/aid-and-development/working-with-the-new-zealand-idc-programme/funding-opportunities/partnering-for-impact/negotiated-partnerships.