Beyond aid: a Global Majority manifesto for the 2026 Global Partnerships Conference

The upcoming Global Partnerships Conference in London on 19–20 May comes at a critical moment for international cooperation.

The global system is undergoing deep structural shifts. Old alliances are weakening, new ones are emerging, and development is increasingly shaped by geopolitics, economic pressure, conflict and uncertainty.

We are operating in a multi-aligned world where influence is fluid, and no single actor holds all the power.

For those of us across the Global Majority, this moment is not only one of disruption. It is also one of possibility. It creates space to move beyond outdated models and reimagine how development cooperation works in practice.

The question before us is not whether change is needed. It is whether we pursue incremental reform or embrace the deeper systems change required to build a more just and effective global development architecture.

The role of aid within a changing system

Development cooperation, including aid, continues to play a critical role. Aid flows remain a unique form of financing. They are largely concessional and designed to support initiatives that are not commercially viable but are essential for reducing poverty and inequality.

This is particularly true in humanitarian contexts and in sustaining a global civil society that defends democratic values and minority rights, often under increasingly restrictive civic spaces.

At the same time, there is growing recognition that development cooperation must evolve to respond to today’s realities. The challenge is not to discard aid, but to reposition it within a broader and more equitable system that reflects shared responsibility, mutual accountability and local leadership.

Power, history and structural inequality

Any meaningful transformation must begin with honesty. The current development system is not neutral. It has been shaped by historical and colonial power dynamics, which continue to influence who decides, who benefits and whose knowledge counts.

These dynamics are visible in everyday practice:

• Funding decisions are often made far from the communities they affect.
• External expertise is prioritised over lived experience.
• Accountability flows upward to funders rather than downward to communities.

These are not technical inefficiencies. They are structural features of the system. Addressing them requires more than improved language or better coordination. It requires a deliberate shift in how power is understood, distributed and exercised across the system.

This also connects to broader global justice conversations. The growing momentum around reparative justice, including the recent United Nations-backed resolutions on reparations, signals an important shift. These are no longer abstract debates. They are increasingly shaping expectations around responsibility, equity and redress in international cooperation.

From funding reform to systems change

If power is the issue, then funding is where it is most visible.

Despite longstanding commitments to localisation, less than 10% of development funding reaches local organisations directly in most systems. The majority continues to flow through intermediaries, often adding layers of cost, control and complexity.

This is not simply inefficient. It reinforces dependency and limits impact.

Local organisations:

• understand context deeply
• maintain long-term relationships with communities
• operate with forms of accountability that external actors cannot replicate.

Yet they remain under-resourced and overburdened.

A minimum of 25% direct, ring-fenced funding to local civil society is an important step. However, percentages alone are not enough. What matters is how resources are structured, for instance:

• whether funding is flexible or tightly restricted
• whether it supports core organisational capacity or only project activities
• whether it enables long-term resilience or short-term delivery.

Without addressing these underlying dynamics, localisation risks will remain aspirational rather than operational. Emerging frameworks, including recent OECD-led efforts on locally led development, already provide concrete pathways to operationalise these shifts, including clearer standards on co-creation, equitable partnerships and direct financing to local actors.”

Rethinking the financial architecture

The current model is heavily dependent on short-term grants. This limits innovation, weakens institutions and reinforces cycles of dependency.

A systems approach requires a broader financial architecture. One that combines concessional funding with long-term investment in public goods and institutional capacity.

This includes:

• unlocking larger pools of capital, including Special Drawing Rights and development finance
• strengthening collaboration between public, private and civic actors
• supporting civil society organisations to build diversified and independent revenue streams
• addressing structural constraints, such as unsustainable debt.

These are not isolated issues. They are interconnected elements of a system that must be rebalanced to support long-term development outcomes.

Redefining accountability

Accountability remains one of the most contested areas within development cooperation.

Current systems often prioritise risk management for funders rather than meaningful accountability to communities. This results in:

• heavy reporting burdens
• standardised indicators which overlook local realities
• a focus on compliance over learning.

A shift is needed towards accountability systems that are both rigorous and relevant.

This includes:

• supporting community-defined measures of success
• using adaptive and flexible reporting approaches
• leveraging technology to reduce administrative burden
• embedding learning as a core function, not an afterthought.

Trust-based accountability does not weaken oversight. It strengthens it by aligning it with impact rather than process.

Strengthening the ecosystem

Development outcomes are not delivered by individual organisations alone. They are shaped by ecosystems.

Networks, coalitions and intermediary actors play a critical role in:

• connecting local and global actors
• facilitating knowledge exchange
• supporting collective action and advocacy.

Despite this, they are often underfunded because their contributions are less visible than direct service delivery.

A systems approach requires recognising and investing in this infrastructure as a core part of development cooperation.

Protecting civic space

Across many regions, civil society is facing increasing restrictions. Legal barriers, political pressure and security risks are becoming more common.

At the same time, expectations on civil society continue to grow.

This creates a fundamental imbalance.

Protecting civic space requires:

• rapid response mechanisms for organisations under threat
• investment in wellbeing and resilience
• strengthened digital and physical security
• long-term support for organisational sustainability.

Without these measures, the actors essential to driving change will continue to operate under significant risk.

From conversation to commitment

Global conferences often succeed in identifying challenges. Their limitation lies in translating discussion into action.

This moment requires a different approach.

It requires:

• time-bound commitments on localisation and funding shifts
• clear accountability mechanisms to track progress
• outcomes co-created with Global Majority actors.

Credibility cannot be built through statements alone. It is built through measurable change. The growing body of commitments, including recent OECD-led efforts on locally led development, demonstrates that the challenge is no longer conceptual. The tools exist. The question is whether they will be implemented with sufficient ambition and urgency.”

A choice that cannot be avoided

The development system is at a turning point. The pressure is real. Shrinking budgets, increasing needs and rising complexity.

However, this moment also presents a clear choice.

We can continue to adjust a system that is no longer fit for purpose. Or we can pursue the deeper transformation required to build a system that is equitable, effective and sustainable.

This shift is practical. We need to move:

• from aid to broader development cooperation
• from control to shared power
• from external solutions to locally led action.

Moving beyond aid does not mean abandoning it. It means strengthening and complementing it within a wider system that reflects today’s realities. The future of development will not be shaped by what is said in conference rooms. It will be shaped by what changes because of them.

This manifesto is both an invitation and a challenge. To move beyond rhetoric. To confront power honestly. And to build a system that reflects the world we are working towards.