This discussion paper conceptualizes social protection as part and parcel of overall public service delivery, and examines the role that local governments can play in implementing social protection related policies. It aims to shed light on two important questions that have not been systematically addressed in the existing literature. First, what added value can local government bring to safety net programmes? Does 'going local' improve or strengthen the effectiveness of social safety net initiatives? Secondly, and, inversely, what can safety net programmes bring to local government? Are there advantages for local governments in being more involved in the management and implementation of safety net programmes?

The Government of Lao People’s Democratic Republic began piloting the District Development Fund (DDF) model in 2005, starting in the Saravan Province and then expanding to four more provinces and a total of 35 districts. In the five years since this pilot began, the DDF has made remarkable steps towards empowering district administrations to successfully manage discretionary block grants and engage their communities though a bottom-up participatory planning process.

The first Global Forum on Local Development - held by the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Government of Uganda in Kampala in October 2010 - engaged a large and diverse range of stakeholders around the central question: Do local governments hold the key to faster MDG achievement? Over 600 participants from 81 countries came to Kampala for three days of discussion and debate. The Forum took place at a critical crossroads: immediately after the September 2010 MDG Summit in New York, which focused on the need for acceleration strategies, and at the beginning of the final five year stretch to reach the Goals.

The Note tries to identify and articulate in practical terms what has (or has not) been done by LGs in addressing CC, and what can be done to improve outcomes from this interface. The overall conclusion is that while there is much talk about the role of LGs in addressing CC, there is little hard evidence that CC figures prominently on the routine agenda of most LGs in the developing countries of the Asia-Pacific region. There are specific projects and programmes, funded by donors and governments, which try to address CC at the local level, and which sometimes (but not always) work through LGs. If it is assumed that LGs do indeed have a potentially important role to play in addressing CC, then a good deal more needs to be done to realise this potential. The Note tries to understand why LGs appear to be relatively inactive on CC, and provides some entry points and approaches that might contribute towards greater local government involvement.