CC.7.1 Number of community-based organizations with whom WFP has established relationships

CC.7.1 Number of community-based organizations with whom WFP has established relationships

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

CC.7.1

TECHNICAL OWNER

GPI Unit

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Cross-cutting Indicator

Priority Area: Promoting localization

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is applicable at CSP level.

This indicator is applicable to all WFP Country Offices (all CSPs) that engage with Community‑Based Organizations (CBOs) in planning, implementation, advocacy, or capacity sharing, and for CSPs targeting Tier 1 and Tier 2/3 beneficiaries.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Unit of measurement: Number of unique Community‑Based Organizations (CBOs)

Unit of analysis: Country Office (CSP level)

DEFINITION

This indicator aims to measures the number of CBOs with whom WFP has established relationships.

Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:

Community‑Based Organizations (CBOs) are locally rooted entities formed and led by members of a specific community to address issues that directly affect their daily lives. These issues may be economic, social, cultural, environmental, or political in nature. CBOs are grounded in the lived experiences, priorities, and knowledge of the communities they serve and are primarily accountable to those communities.

Types of Community‑Based and Constituency‑Led Organizations

For the purposes of this indicator, CBOs may include (but are not limited to):

1. Women‑Led Organizations (WLOs)
   Organizations with a humanitarian mandate and/or mission that are governed or directed by women, or whose leadership is principally composed of women, demonstrated by 50 percent or more of senior leadership positions being occupied by women.

2. Youth‑Led Organizations (YLOs)
   Youth‑led, non‑profit, voluntary, non‑governmental associations. In some contexts, youth organizations may be part of the state apparatus or be youth worker‑led.
   (Definition adapted from the EU Youth Partnership).

3. Indigenous Peoples–Led Organizations (IPOs)
   Organizations led by Indigenous Peoples, often organized according to ethnicity, language, territory, or geographic area. IPOs may operate at local, national, regional, or international levels. They represent the collective needs, rights, aspirations, and perspectives of Indigenous constituencies and may be member‑based, composed of traditional authorities, or represent a collection of peoples or nations.

4. Refugee‑Led Organizations (RLOs)
   Organizations or groups in which persons with direct lived experience of forced displacement play a primary leadership role, and whose stated objectives and activities focus on responding to the needs of refugees and/or related communities.
   (Definition provided by UNHCR).

5. Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs)
   Non‑governmental organizations led, directed, and governed by persons with disabilities, who constitute a clear majority of their membership. OPDs play a critical role in representing the perspectives of persons with disabilities. Article 4.3 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities calls on States Parties to engage with persons with disabilities through their representative organizations.

What Counts as Collaboration for this Indicator

For the purposes of this indicator, only formal collaborations are counted.

Formal Collaborations

Formal collaborations are engagements documented through a signed instrument that establishes clear roles and responsibilities between WFP and the CBO, including:

• Field‑Level Agreements (FLAs)

• Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs)

• Other procurement contractual agreements

Only CBOs with at least one formal agreement that exists during the reporting year are counted.

Informal Collaborations: collaborations (e.g. consultations, advisory roles, joint advocacy, community engagement, information sharing) may be documented for learning and institutional knowledge but do not count toward the indicator value.

Role of CBOs in Relation to the State

CBOs are intended to supplement-not replace-the role of the state and operate within local, territorial, and national legal and regulatory frameworks, even when engaging in advocacy or social change. In some contexts, CBOs may establish community‑led or alternative systems (e.g. informal protection mechanisms, solidarity networks, or mutual aid structures), particularly where state systems are absent, inaccessible, or exclusionary.

Distinction Between CBOs, National NGOs, and International NGOs

To avoid confusion, it is important to distinguish local CBOs from National NGOs and International NGOs (INGOs).

Community‑Based Organizations (CBOs)

• Operate at the community or local level (e.g. village, neighbourhood, district)

• Are created, led, and governed by community members

• Possess strong grassroots identity and deep contextual knowledge

• Typically, have limited geographic reach and smaller budgets

• Are primarily accountable downward to the community

National NGOs

• Operate at national or sub‑national levels across multiple regions

• Have formal governance structures and professional staff

• May support or partner with CBOs but are not necessarily community‑led

• Often act as intermediaries between communities, donors, and government institutions

International NGOs (INGOs)

• Operate across multiple countries or regions

• Are usually headquartered outside the communities they serve

• Have significant financial, technical, and operational capacity

While they may partner with CBOs, decision‑making and accountability structures are typically external to local communities.

RATIONALE

This indicator contributes to measuring progress toward Objective 2 of the WFP Localization Policy (2025): strengthening engagement with community‑based organizations as technical partners in food security and nutrition.

Formal agreements — such as FLAs, MoUs, and other procurement contractual agreements — represent a concrete and verifiable step toward structured, equitable partnerships that embed due diligence, safeguarding, and accountability. Tracking the number of CBOs with whom WFP has formal agreements supports monitoring progress from informal or ad hoc engagement toward sustained collaboration.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

This is an extract of the questions that will be required for the information on the country-level indicators:

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated by a simple count of CBOs with at least one formal agreement established.

Value = Σ (unique CBOs with ≥1 formal agreement that exist during the reporting year)

Counting Rules

• Count CBOs, not agreements

  Each CBO is counted only once per reporting year, regardless of the number or type of agreements.

Evidence (recommended)
Country Offices should retain agreement references (ID, title, dates/status) or official records confirming that the agreement exists.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Data is entered at CSP level.

BASELINE

For the first reporting year, the baseline will be the number of unique CBOs.

The baseline should reflect unique CBOs (not the number of agreements) that have at least one formal agreement with the Country Office, including:

• Field‑Level Agreements (FLAs);

• Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs); or

• Other procurement contractual agreements

Each CBO must be counted only once, regardless of the number or type of formal agreements in place.

Supporting documentation may be available for each CBO included in the baseline (e.g. agreement reference, dates, status) to confirm that at least one formal agreement exists during the reporting year. Country Offices should retain internal records to enable verification if requested.

If no formal agreements with CBOs exist at the time of baseline setting, enter 0 in COMET to indicate the starting point.

Do not include informal collaborations in the baseline.

TARGET SETTING

Annual target:

Annual targets should start from the baseline, defined as the number of unique Community‑Based Organizations (CBOs) with whom the country office has at least one formal agreement that exists during the reporting year.

• If the baseline is 0, Country Offices should aim to establish formal relationships with at least 1–2 CBOs in the first year in order to initiate localization partnerships.

• Targets should increase progressively over time as WFP systems mature and Country Offices strengthen due diligence capacities and partnership management processes.

Illustrative target progression (context‑dependent)

• Year 1: 1–2 CBOs (pilot phase)

• Year 2: 2–3 CBOs (scale‑up phase), depending on programme size, operational context, and partner mapping

• Year 3: 3–4 CBOs, depending on programme size, operational context, and partner mapping

• Year 4 and beyond: 5+ CBOs or more, as appropriate to country context and capacity

Targets should remain context-specific, taking into account programme scale, operating environment, availability of capable CBOs, and risk management considerations.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Once a year.

INTERPRETATION

A higher number of unique local Community‑Based Organizations (CBOs) with whom the country office has at least one formal agreement that exists during the reporting year indicates that Country Offices are expanding the reach of formalized partnerships with local actors, in line with Objective 2 of the Localization Policy. An increase in this number reflects progress in engaging a broader range of local CBOs and in moving from informal or ad hoc engagement toward structured collaboration through formal agreements.

This indicator measures the number of formal engagements with CBOs, not the quality, depth, or effectiveness of those partnerships. Results should therefore be interpreted with attention to:

• Agreement coverage: the number of unique CBOs engaged, regardless of the number of agreements per CBO.

• CBO composition: the distribution of CBOs across different categories (e.g. WLOs, OPDs, IPOs, RLOs, YLOs).

• Contextual factors: country size, programme scope, operational complexity, and the availability and capacity of eligible local CBOs.

For a more comprehensive assessment, this indicator should be analyzed alongside qualitative insights and complementary indicators related to inclusion, capacity strengthening, and funding flows to local actors.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

In 2026, the country office reported four unique Community‑Based Organizations (CBOs) with whom it had at least one formal agreement that exists during the reporting year. Each organization was counted once, regardless of the number or type of formal agreements in place.

Breakdown by type of CBO:

• 2 Women‑Led Organizations (WLOs)

• 1 Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs)

• 1 Youth‑Led Organizations (YLOs)

All four CBOs included in the reported value had at least one formal agreement that exists during the reporting year. Supporting documentation (e.g. agreement references and dates) was available for verification and audit purposes.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

• CC.7.2 Percentage of WFP operational funding awarded to local partners owned by SCD (OPU)

• CC.2.1 Country office meets or exceeds United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy (UNDIS) standards on consulting organizations of persons with disabilities

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

N/A

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

Localization strategy adjustments: Identify whether Country Offices are successfully formalizing partnerships with local CBOs and where additional support is needed.

Contractual and financial mechanism improvements: Highlight barriers (e.g., complex due diligence, payment delays) and inform HQ decisions on simplifying templates or introducing flexible funding arrangements.

Capacity strengthening priorities: Determine which CBO types (e.g., WLOs, OPDs) are underrepresented and guide targeted capacity-building efforts.

Resource allocation: Inform prioritization of financial and technical resources toward countries and contexts where investment is needed to expand, sustain, or deepen partnerships with local CBOs, including support for partnership management and accompaniment.

Policy advocacy and reporting: Support corporate reporting and evidence‑based advocacy on localization, inclusion, and accountability commitments by demonstrating progress, gaps, and lessons learned in engagement with local CBOs.

VISUALIZATION

A horizontal bar chart displaying the number of unique CBOs by CBO type (e.g. WLOs, YLOs, OPDs, IPOs, RLOs etc.).

LIMITATIONS

1. Focuses on quantity, not quality
   The indicator counts the number of unique community‑based organizations (CBOs) with whom WFP has formal agreements, but does not assess the depth, effectiveness, or sustainability of those partnerships.”

2. Excludes informal collaborations
   Informal engagements, which can be significant for influence and trust-building, are not captured in the indicator.

Contextual variability
Country contexts differ in the availability and capacity of CBOs, making comparisons across countries less meaningful without qualitative analysis.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Localization policy

Localization policy- Glossary

Consulting with Persons with Disabilities and their Representative Organizations at WFP