Locally Led Development: Shifting the system will require new perspectives and renewed commitment
In today’s fractured world, marked by polycrisis, sudden donor cutbacks (including USAID’s dramatic reductions), and shifting geopolitical and economic fault lines, the call for locally led development is louder – and more urgent - than ever. But what we have observed is that whilst intentions are sound, what many call “locally led development” still too often means fitting local initiatives into international frames, timelines, and risk appetites.
That is not "locally led." These are international priorities wearing local clothes. And, we see it across the peace, humanitarian and development nexus.
At Ithaca Impact, we have been on many sides of this story. We have been embedded with national organizations. Some of our teams have worked as "international staff" and others “national staff”. We have been inside multi-stakeholder partnerships operating across local, national, regional, and global levels.
There are many examples, but, taking just one at a pivotal moment in the fragile peace processes in Myanmar, a senior national colleague and I were called upon by civil society groups, not to lead, but to shield and support when international funding mechanisms threatened to destabilize delicate local processes. It was not about filling gaps. It was about preserving trust, honoring timing, and protecting the process as defined by those living it.
Across this and many other examples, we learned, firsthand:
When national actors, especially civil society, define their needs, too often donors require an alternative pathway and over time, begin to wonder why that pathway is ineffective.
When local leadership asks for specific types of support, technical or strategic, the "offer" still often arrives shaped by donor optics, rarely by community priorities.
When locally led processes need flexibility and time, the system still demands speed, reporting, and risk control – when local processes or stakeholders require speed, too often the response is just too slow.
This is not just a failure of imagination. Sometimes, it is a failure of courage. Other times, it’s a failure to interrogate administrative practices ill-suited to the contexts donors seek to serve. Either way, we need to build a better pathway.
“We have responsibility, not just to “listen”, but to actively create the conditions under which national actors can challenge, can lead, and can redefine the terms. ”
Locally Led Development means changing international behavior, not just local capacity.
The drive for locally led development is not about shifting burdens. It’s about shifting power, and with it, changing the international system itself. It starts by rejecting the idea that "supporting local actors" means squeezing their initiatives into pre-approved funding formats or rigid frameworks of risk. Indeed, it starts with respecting and elevating the views and voices of national actors.
A different, clearer agenda for the future of international engagement demands sharper changes than are currently being discussed. There are many shifts, but three we see as compelling and urgent actions are:
Create space for true listening and alignment with values: "Listening" must go beyond consultations. It must lead to alignment with the values, goals, and strategies set by national actors, even when these diverge from donor templates and approaches. Spaces for hard discussions, friction, and renegotiation are essential. True solidarity means being willing to be challenged, and to change.
Redesign risk frameworks around reality, not control: Most international support is framed through rigid risk matrices designed to protect donor reputations and limit political exposure. These frameworks often penalize national actors for operating in complex realities. We need new models of risk that recognize the political, economic, and security risks already borne by local actors, and that shift some of the accountability for success or failure onto how well international actors adapt, not just how local actors perform.
Shift the burden of proof: Today, national civil society is expected to demonstrate, often repeatedly, that they can succeed if trusted. Meanwhile, little is asked of international actors to prove that their framing of support is the one that truly adds value. This must change. If national actors clearly articulate the type of support they need, and international actors deliver something else, it is the international approach, not the local actors, that should be held accountable for poor outcomes.
What’s Next?: Pathways Informed by Real-World Complexity, Not Theories
We see a diversity of dynamic pathways toward locally led development. Our Strategic Pathways Framework© has been derived from our engagement with civil society organizations in conflict zones, community networks in fragile settings, and local businesses forging new models of responsible growth.
Lessons flow not only from theory but from bottom-up, real contestations, across humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding contexts, where sectoral silos mean little and local ingenuity is the only real driver of change.
The conversation must now move beyond symbolic support and tackle the architecture of support itself, how decisions are framed, who gets to set the terms, and whose accountability is prioritized.
“The future of development cooperation depends on this fundamental shift. A shift of perspective, of frameworks, of practices, and of relationships. Locally led development is not only about local actors implementing activities; it is about local actors shaping new sources of support, advancing new partnerships, and shaping how international support is framed, delivered, or when necessary, declined. ”
To learn more about our evolving Strategic Pathways Framework© and our 8 strategic pathways – derived from local partners – to support locally led development, contact bm@ithacaimpact.com