> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://oecd-media-support-principles.gfmd.info/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://oecd-media-support-principles.gfmd.info/toolkit/principle/4-support-local-leadership-and-ownership.md).

# 4️⃣ Support local leadership and ownership

{% hint style="info" %}

### How to use this section

* For a quick self-assessment, see [**Checklist: Support local leadership and ownership**](/toolkit/principle/4-support-local-leadership-and-ownership/checklist-support-local-leadership-and-ownership.md)
* For practical examples and applications, see [**Case studies and field insights**](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights.md)
  {% endhint %}

{% hint style="info" %}

### **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*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-1-credibility-risk-linked-to-donor-visibility.md)). Strengthening local leadership supports **editorial independence, innovation, and institutional resilience**.
{% endhint %}

### 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*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-6-local-leadership-and-adapting-compliance-frameworks.md)).

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*

{% hint style="info" %}

### 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**.
{% endhint %}

{% hint style="success" %}
**For practical examples of how funding structures and compliance requirements affect local leadership and ownership, see:**

* [Case study 6: local leadership and adapting compliance frameworks](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-6-local-leadership-and-adapting-compliance-frameworks.md)
* [Case study 1: credibility risk linked to donor visibility](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-1-credibility-risk-linked-to-donor-visibility.md)
  {% endhint %}

{% hint style="success" %}

### How this links to other principles

* [**Principle 1 (Do no harm):**](/toolkit/principle/1-do-no-harm.md) Excluding local actors or transferring risk to them can create unintended consequences
* [**Principle 2 (Increase funding):**](/toolkit/principle/2-increase-the-amount-and-effectiveness-of-funding.md) Access to appropriate and flexible funding determines whether local actors can lead
* [**Principle 3 (Whole-of-system):**](/toolkit/principle/3-adopt-a-whole-of-system-approach.md) Local actors are essential to understanding and shaping system dynamics
  {% endhint %}