4️⃣ Support local leadership and ownership
Strengthen local leadership and ownership, empowering media partners as well as other actors in the information environment.
How to use this section
For a quick self-assessment, see Checklist: Support local leadership and ownership
For practical examples and applications, see Case studies and field insights
In brief
Principle 4 focuses on ensuring that local media organisations and media development actors are able to lead, decide, and shape their own development, rather than being positioned primarily as implementers of externally designed programmes.
In practice, this means recognising local actors as professional institutions with contextual knowledge, audience relationships, and long-term stakes in the media ecosystem. Their leadership is essential to ensuring that support is relevant, sustainable, and trusted.
When local actors are excluded from decision-making or confined to subcontracting roles, interventions risk misalignment with local realities, weakened ownership, and limited long-term impact (see case study 1: credibility risk linked to donor visibility). Strengthening local leadership supports editorial independence, innovation, and institutional resilience.
Why this principle matters
Local ownership is central to the sustainability and legitimacy of media systems. Media organisations and media development actors operate within specific political, cultural, and market contexts that external actors cannot fully replicate.
However, funding structures, compliance requirements, and risk management practices often favour organisations that are already familiar with donor systems. This can create barriers to entry for local actors, reinforce existing power imbalances in partnerships, and limit the diversity of the media ecosystem (see case study 6: local leadership and adapting compliance frameworks).
Media development actors also report that partnership structures and programme design processes do not always fully reflect local priorities or enable meaningful participation in decision-making.
Applying this principle helps ensure that support contributes to locally grounded, pluralistic, and resilient media environments, while reducing dependency on external actors and strengthening long-term capacity.
Where this shows up in practice
This principle is most visible in how programme design and funding decisions shape the role and position of local media actors within partnerships:
Partnership structures and consortium design may concentrate decision-making power with international actors, limiting the ability of local partners to shape priorities and approaches
Eligibility criteria and access to funding may favour larger or international organisations, excluding smaller or local media actors
Compliance, reporting, and due diligence requirements may create barriers to participation for local actors with limited administrative capacity
Division of roles, responsibilities, and resources across partners may not reflect local expertise or contribution, affecting both effectiveness and ownership
Capacity strengthening and institutional development approaches may prioritise externally defined models rather than building on existing local structures and practices
These tensions often arise in balancing accountability and accessibility, risk management and inclusion, and speed of delivery and meaningful participation. How these trade-offs are addressed shapes whether local actors are positioned as independent partners or primarily as implementers of externally defined priorities.
What this looks like in practice
Do
Enable local media organisations and media development actors to act as lead partners, with decision-making authority and budget control
Design funding and compliance requirements that are proportionate to context and partner capacity
Include capacity strengthening, mentorship, and peer learning as integral components of programmes
Ensure local actors are involved in problem definition, design, implementation, and evaluation
Support pathways for partners to progress from sub-grantee to direct funding recipient over time
Avoid
Structuring partnerships where local actors are primarily subcontracted to deliver predefined outputs
Applying compliance and reporting requirements that exclude or disadvantage smaller or first-time applicants
Concentrating decision-making and financial control with international implementers
Treating capacity strengthening as a separate or optional activity, rather than embedded in implementation
Designing programmes without meaningful consultation or engagement with local actors
Consider
How partnership structures affect power dynamics, incentives, and ownership
Whether current requirements unintentionally favour actors with prior donor experience
How to balance risk management with inclusive access to funding
What support is needed for local actors to meet compliance requirements over time
How programmes can strengthen both institutional capacity and long-term sustainability
Field insight
"Compliance requirements are often the biggest barrier. Even strong local organisations are excluded because they have not worked with these systems before.”
- Donor representative
Key takeaway
Supporting local leadership requires more than including local actors in implementation. It requires shifting decision-making, resources, and accountability closer to those operating within the media ecosystem.
Well-designed approaches strengthen ownership, sustainability, and independence while avoiding risks such as reinforcing dependency and limiting long-term impact.
For practical examples of how funding structures and compliance requirements affect local leadership and ownership, see:
How this links to other principles
Principle 1 (Do no harm): Excluding local actors or transferring risk to them can create unintended consequences
Principle 2 (Increase funding): Access to appropriate and flexible funding determines whether local actors can lead
Principle 3 (Whole-of-system): Local actors are essential to understanding and shaping system dynamics
Last updated
Was this helpful?