4️⃣ Strengthen local ownership
Strengthen local leadership and ownership, empowering media partners as well as other actors in the information environment.
In brief — Principle 4: Strengthen Local Ownership
Sustainable media support depends on local leadership — when local actors shape decisions, outcomes are more relevant, resilient, and trusted.
EU institutions can advance localisation by simplifying compliance, rewarding shared leadership, and tracking how funds reach local partners.
Treating compliance capacity as a measurable result turns oversight into empowerment — helping local media grow from sub-grantees to independent leaders.
Why it matters
Sustainable support for independent media depends on the ability of local actors to lead, decide, and shape their own development. Local media organisations are not only beneficiaries but professional institutions, accountable to their audiences, staff, and partners. Strengthening their leadership ensures that support is relevant, resilient, and rooted in local realities. It also helps protect editorial independence, promote innovation, and build trust between citizens and media in contexts where democracy and information integrity are under pressure.
🏛️ At the Political Level (European Parliament & Council)
The European Parliament and the Council play a crucial role in setting the tone for localisation within the EU’s external and development policies. Their oversight responsibilities ensure accountability for EU funds, yet stringent eligibility thresholds and compliance requirements can unintentionally favour large international organisations over smaller or first-time local grantees.
Opportunities:
Parliament and Council can lead the shift by embedding proportionality and localisation targets in budget regulations.
They can require the Commission to track how much support reaches local partners.
This approach would align media assistance with broader EU commitments to democratic ownership and localisation across development policy.
Challenges:
Balancing political accountability with flexibility remains difficult.
There is a tendency to equate financial rigour with risk aversion.
This limits the participation of smaller or regional actors who lack prior EU experience.
🇪🇺 Within the European Commission
Different Directorates-General (particularly DG INTPA, DG NEAR, and DG CONNECT) have advanced frameworks for due diligence and financial control, but these systems are rarely calibrated for the realities of local actors. Interviews highlight that compliance barriers, such as complex procurement rules, short funding cycles, and documentation requirements, discourage local organisations from leading consortia. These systems unintentionally reward those already familiar with EU instruments.
Opportunities:
Apply proportional compliance standards and create first-time grantee tracks with lighter audits and mentorship.
Incentivise international implementers to share leadership, budget responsibility, and decision-making with local partners.
Reward consortia models where local organisations are primary applicants, and international partners serve as technical advisors. Challenges: Institutional inertia and limited administrative capacity make it difficult to adapt audit and reporting rules, even when policy commitment to localisation exists.
EU Delegations
EU Delegations are closest to the local context and often best placed to enable local ownership. Yet interviews show that Delegations face pressure to demonstrate quick, visible results and manage risk conservatively—leading to reliance on known international implementers.
Challenges:
Small budgets limit the capacity to support local media effectively.
Limited staff reduces the ability to maintain consistent engagement.
Complex political environments further restrict meaningful collaboration with local media.
Opportunities:
Budget for consultation and coordination time so that local partners can participate in agenda setting.
Establish standing advisory groups of local journalists and media actors to guide programme design.
Facilitate regional partnerships and co-funding mechanisms that enable domestic ownership and long-term planning.
Use flexible sub-granting schemes or trust funds to reach smaller, independent outlets in fragile or repressive environments.
🌐 Member States, Embassies, and Cultural Institutes
Member States’ bilateral programmes and cultural institutes can reinforce or undermine local leadership depending on how they are structured.
Opportunities:
Pool smaller grants through joint EU–Member State mechanisms to avoid duplication and fragmentation.
Provide mentorship and compliance training to local outlets to strengthen financial management and institutional resilience.
Use cultural institutes as neutral conveners for dialogues between local media, civil society, and donors. Challenges: Bilateral visibility requirements and national branding priorities sometimes overshadow local independence or duplicate EU-level actions, creating administrative burdens for local actors.
💡Making Compliance Capacity a Measurable Outcome
What this means Local partners should complete EU-funded projects better able to meet EU compliance and financial-management obligations than when they began. This shifts compliance from being a barrier to access into a capacity-building goal.
Why it matters Strict eligibility and audit requirements often exclude smaller or local media organisations from acting as lead grantees, forcing them into sub-contractor roles. By treating compliance capacity as a development gain, DG INTPA can help partners graduate from “sub-grantee” to “direct-grantee” status—advancing both localisation and accountability.
How to apply it
Add “localisation and compliance capacity” as an evaluation criterion in calls for proposals.
Require consortia to show how they will transfer administrative and financial-management skills to local partners.
Include mentorship, compliance clinics, or peer-learning exchanges as explicit activity lines with indicators and budget.
Track progress through indicators such as:
Number of partners certified or pre-qualified for direct EU funding after project completion.
Documented improvement in audit readiness or financial controls.
Instances where local partners assume lead-applicant roles in subsequent calls.
Example in practice In the Digital Democracy Initiative (DDI)—implemented through a multi-partner consortium—the EU required each lead organisation to dedicate staff time to compliance mentoring for local sub-grantees. Partners in the Western Balkans and Sub-Saharan Africa reported that, by project end, they were able to manage EU reporting templates and audits independently, qualifying them for direct funding under subsequent NDICI calls. This experience demonstrates that compliance mentoring within implementation both safeguards EU funds and strengthens local ownership.
Bottom line Treating compliance improvement as a reportable result helps DG INTPA meet its dual mandate: protecting EU funds and empowering local actors. It converts an administrative burden into a measurable development benefit—one that directly supports the OECD Principles on local ownership and system strengthening.
Cross-Cutting Insights from Consultations
Across EU institutions and Member States, three recurring themes emerged:
Compliance barriers are the single largest obstacle to local leadership. Even highly competent local organisations are excluded by disproportionate financial rules and past-performance criteria.
Power asymmetries in consortia persist. International implementers often design projects and allocate resources, while local actors are subcontracted to deliver outputs.
Political sensitivity and risk aversion limit Delegations’ flexibility, especially in restrictive environments. Yet examples such as the Digital Democracy Initiative by DANIDA, where feminist organisations in South America were chosen over more established consortia, show that taking calculated risks pays off and can help diversify the partner base.
Last updated
Was this helpful?