Section 1. Identifying Information
Name of your organisation or entity: [Auto-filled]
1.1 Do you consent MOPAN to publish your responses? (Note that if you do not consent, the information you provide will be shared with MOPAN members only)
☐ Yes, I allow MOPAN to publish my responses
☐ No, I don’t
Respondent details
1.2. Please provide the name, title, unit and email address of the main respondent (To follow-up if needed)
1.3. Which category best describes your organisation or entity? [Multiple answer possible]
☐ UN Secretariat department, office or entity
☐ UN fund or programme
☐ UN specialised agency
☐ Other UN-related organisation
☐ International Financial Institution
☐ Concessional window or fund linked to an IFI or MDB
☐ Trust fund / financial intermediary fund
☐ Vertical fund
☐ Global or multi-stakeholder partnership
☐ ICRC
☐ Other: [Open text]
1.4. Which of the following best describes your organisation’s operating model? Please select all that apply.
☐ Direct implementation / service delivery
☐ Norms and standard-setting
☐ Policy advice
☐ Capacity development / technical assistance
☐ Financing (loans and grants)
☐ Convening / coordination / partnership platform
☐ Procurement / supply chain / operational services
☐ Research, data or evidence generation
☐ Other, please specify
1.4.a. Additional details in response to the previous question [Optional Open Text]
1.5. Does your organisation respond to humanitarian crises?
☐ Yes
☐ No
Section 2. Funding outlook and magnitude
2.1. Please indicate the scale of funding reduction that affected your organisation in 2025, compared with the previous equivalent year or cycle.
☐ 1–10%
☐11–20%
☐ 21–30%
☐ 31–40%
☐ 41-50%
☐ 51% or greater
☐ No funding reduction
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
2.1.a. Please provide any additional details [Optional Open Text]
2.2. Has your organisation received formal notice of funding reductions, contribution withdrawals, lower pledges or reduced replenishment expectations? (multiple answer possible)
☐ Yes, for 2026
☐ Yes, for 2027
☐ Yes, beyond 2027
☐ Yes, for the next replenishment or capital cycle
☐ No formal notice, but informal indications of reductions
☐ No
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other, please specify
2.2.a. Please provide any additional details [Optional Open Text]
2.3. Please estimate the scale of the estimated funding reduction for next budget or replenishment relative to your previous one:
☐ 1–10%
☐11–20%
☐ 21–30%
☐ 31–40%
☐ 41-50%
☐ 51% or greater
☐ No funding reduction expected
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
2.3.a. Additional details [Optional Open Text]
2.4. Where available, please provide the absolute value of the funding reduction, shortfall or increase, for the relevant year or cycle. Please indicate the currency used.
· 2025: [Open text]
· 2026: [Open text]
· 2027: [Open text]
· Next replenishment / budget cycle: [Open text]
· Other, please specify (Not applicable, Unable to answer...)
2.5. If your organisation is currently facing or has received formal notice of funding reductions in the next budget or replenishment cycle, please rank up to three funding sources most affected
Assessed contributions
Voluntary core / regular resources
Voluntary earmarked / non-core contributions
Replenishment resources
Capital contributions
Concessional resources
Trust fund resources
Programme / project fees
Service income or implementation fees
Investment income
Borrowing / market-based financing
Other, please specify in the next question
Not applicable
Unable to answer
2.5.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
Section 3. Impact of funding reductions
3.1. For each selected funding source in the previous questions, please indicate the main areas where impacts are being felt.
Funding source | Programme delivery | Normative work | Policy advice | Technical assistance | Financing / grants / lending | Staffing | Geographic presence | Partnerships | Data / monitoring / evidence | Corporate functions |
| Unable to answer / Don’t know |
Choice 1 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| ☐ |
Choice 2 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| ☐ |
Choice 3 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| ☐ |
3.1.a. Additional details in response to the previous question [Optional Open Text]
3.2. Please rank, by level of impact, the functions most affected by funding reductions or funding uncertainty.
☐ Normative work
☐ Policy work
☐ Knowledge, data and research work
☐ Capacity development or technical assistance
☐ Direct Service delivery
☐ Logistics / supply chain
☐ Advocacy
☐ Convening
☐ Financing / lending / grant-making
☐ Coordination and partnership
☐ Channelling funds to other international organisations
☐ Channelling funds to national and local actors
☐ Other, please specify in the next question
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
3.2.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
3.3. Please rank by level of impact the corporate functions most affected by funding reductions, funding uncertainty or related reform measures, where 1 = most affected
☐ Human resources management
☐ Procurement
☐ Risk management
☐ Strategic planning and performance management
☐ Evidence generation (data, monitoring and evaluation)
☐ IT systems and digital transformation
☐ Capital investments (e.g. office infrastructure, physical assets)
☐ Fundraising and donor relations
☐ Governance and member engagement
☐ Other: [Open text field]
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
3.3.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
3.4. Please rank by level of impact the oversight functions most affected by funding reductions, funding uncertainty or related reform measures
☐ Internal audit
☐ Monitoring
☐ Evaluation
☐ Ethics
☐ Other, please specify in the next question
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
3.4.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
3.5. Which programme or project-level effects has your organisation experienced or does it expect to experience?
☐ Suspension of projects or activities
☐ Cancellation of planned projects or activities
☐ Scaling back of ongoing projects
☐ Delays in implementation
☐ Reduced programme delivery targets
☐ Reduced quality or scope of services
☐ Reduced technical support to partners
☐ Reduced funds channelled to partners
☐ Reduced ability to respond to emerging crises / reduced surge capacity
☐ Reduced ability to scale up successful interventions
☐ Reduced ability to sustain results after project closure
☐ No significant programme-level impact
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other: [Open text]
3.5.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
Section 4. Adaptation measures
4.1. Which measures has your organisation taken, or is planning to take, to respond to funding constraints or preserve effectiveness?
☐ Staff reductions
☐ Hiring freeze
☐ Workforce restructuring
☐ Office closure or consolidation
☐ Relocation to lower-cost locations
☐ Internal consolidation of common/shared services within the organisation
☐ Increased use of common/shared services provided jointly or by other organisations
☐ Digitalisation or automation
☐ Use of AI or data tools
☐ Prioritisation or consolidation across programmes, crisis contexts, or target populations
☐ Exit from selected activities, sectors or geographies
☐ Greater use of partnerships
☐ Greater use of local actors
☐ Donor diversification
☐ Change in resource mobilisation strategy
☐ Increased use of pooled funds
☐ Increased cost recovery
☐ Changes in delivery modality
☐ Scenario planning or contingency planning
☐ Use of reserves
☐ Risk appetite review
☐ Changes in governance or member engagement
☐ Streamlining roles and responsibilities
☐ No measures taken
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other: [Open text]
4.1.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
4.2. For each measure selected in the previous question, please indicate its main purpose.
Measure | Immediate cost reduction | Response to reform agenda | Both | Unable to answer | Other |
Option1 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Option 2 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Option 3 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
4.2.a. Additional details in response the previous question [Optional Open Text]
4.3. What implications, if any, do ongoing reform processes (including the Humanitarian Reset, UN80 Initiative, MDB Roadmap) have for how your organisation has adapted to the changing financing environment? [Open Text]
Section 5. Geographical impact
5.1. Which categories of countries are being most impacted by the funding reductions? (multiple responses possible)
☐ Low-Income Countries (LICs)
☐ Lower-Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)
☐ Upper-Middle-Income Countries (UMICs)
☐ High-Income Countries (HICs)
☐ Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (FCAS)
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
5.2. Has your organisation changed, or is it planning to change, its geographical footprint since 2025? (multiple answer)
Office type | Closure | Reduction | Consolidation | Expansion | Relocation | No significant change | Unable to answer |
Country offices | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Sub-regional offices | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Regional offices | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Multi-country offices | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Liaison/ representation office | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Thematic/technical/knowledge hubs | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Shred service centers | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
4.3.a. Additional details in response the previous question [Optional Open Text]
5.3. How has the change in geographical footprint affected the following capacities?
Capacity area | Protected / prioritised | Reduced | Centralised | Regionalised | Externalised / outsourced | Expanded | No change |
Technical expertise | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Policy expertise | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Normative expertise | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Logistics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crisis response / surge capacity | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Data, monitoring and evaluation | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Oversight, audit, ethics, investigation | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Partnership management | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Resource mobilisation | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Procurement / supply chain | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Unable to answer
Not applicable
5.4. Please describe the main rationale behind any changes to geographical footprint or deployment of expertise. Where relevant, please explain expected trade-offs between efficiency, proximity to country realities, responsiveness, technical quality and risk management [Open text]
5.5. Which regions are being most directly impacted by the funding reductions?
☐ Northern Africa
☐ Western Africa
☐ Central (Middle) Africa
☐ Eastern Africa
☐ Southern Africa
☐ Northern America
☐ Caribbean
☐ Central America
☐ South America
☐ Central Asia
☐ Eastern Asia
☐ South-Eastern Asia
☐ Southern Asia
☐ Western Asia
☐ Eastern Europe
☐ Northern Europe
☐ Southern Europe
☐ Western Europe
☐ Australia and New Zealand
☐ Melanesia
☐ Micronesia
☐ Polynesia
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
Section 6 — Workforce and staffing
6.1. Has your organisation implemented or planned any of the following workforce-related measures since 2025?
☐ Staff layoffs
☐ Abolishment of posts
☐ Hiring freeze
☐ Non-renewal of temporary or fixed-term contracts
☐ Reduced working hours (temporary or permanent)
☐ Reduction in consultants
☐ Voluntary separation or early retirement packages
☐ Voluntary unpaid leave
☐ Relocation of staff or functions
☐ Increased use of short-term personnel
☐ Increased use of outsourcing
☐ No workforce-related measures
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other, please specify
6.1.a. Additional details in response to the previous question [Optional Open Text]
6.2. Where workforce reductions or restructuring have occurred, which categories have been most affected?
☐ Entry-level professionals
☐ Mid-level professionals
☐ Senior-level professionals
☐ Consultants
☐ National Officers
☐ General services
☐ Field services
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Field services
☐ Other, please specify
6.2.a. For the selected categories, please select the estimated level of impact:
Category | Limited (1-10%) | Moderate (11-25%) | High 26-50%) | Very high (over 50%) | Unable to answer |
Choice 1 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Choice 2 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Choice 3 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
6.2.b. Please provide any additional details if available, including estimates of the share of personnel or posts reduced since 1 January 2025, or on restructuring effects other than reductions.
6.3. Does your organisation have data on whether workforce reductions or restructuring have had differentiated effects by gender?
☐ Yes
☐ Partially
☐ No
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
6.3.a. If yes or partially, please summarise the main patterns: [Open text]
Section 7 - Comparative advantage
7.1. Have funding constraints or reform processes changed how your organisation defines or operationalises its comparative advantage? [multiple answers possible]
☐ Yes, we are focusing more clearly on thematic areas where we have a recognised lead role
☐ Yes, we are focusing more clearly on functions where we have a recognised lead role
☐ Yes, we are reducing activities where other actors may be better placed
☐ Yes, we are taking on functions or spaces vacated by other actors
☐ Yes, we are shifting toward areas where funding is available
☐ Yes, we are reassessing our comparative advantage but changes are not yet implemented
☐ No significant change
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other, please specify
7.1.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
Section 8. Cross-cutting issues affected
8.1. Have funding constraints affected your organisation’s ability to deliver on cross-cutting commitments?
☐ Gender equality and women’s empowerment
☐ SEAH
☐ Human rights / Protection
☐ Disability inclusion
☐ Leave no one behind / inclusion
☐ Climate / environmental sustainability
☐ HDP nexus
☐ Localisation
☐ No significant impact
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other, please specify
8.1.a. Additional details in response to the previous question [Optional Open Text]
8.2. Where cross-cutting priorities are affected, what is the nature of the impact?
☐ Dedicated programmes reduced or discontinued
☐ Mainstreaming capacity reduced
☐ Specialist staff reduced or reassigned
☐ Partner funding reduced
☐ Data collection or monitoring reduced
☐ Reduced country-level engagement
☐ Reduced global policy or normative engagement
☐ Reduced oversight or accountability mechanisms
☐ Too early to assess
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other, please specify
8.2.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
Section 2.B - MDBs and capital-based IFIs [If 1.3 = International Financial Institution]
2.B.1. Which forms of financial pressure are most relevant to your institution in the current financial environment?
☐ Reduced donor contributions to concessional windows
☐ Lower replenishment expectations
☐ Capital constraints
☐ Pressure on capital adequacy
☐ Demand for increased lending with limited resources
☐ Pipeline constraints
☐ Increased demand from clients
☐ Reduced administrative budget
☐ Pressure to reduce staffing or operating costs
☐ Pressure to increase private capital mobilisation
☐ No significant financial pressure
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other: [Open text]
2.B.1.a. Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
2.B.2 How is the current financial environment affecting your institution’s financial or operational model?
☐ Reduced concessional lending or grants
☐ Reduced pipeline for specific sectors or regions
☐ Increased selectivity in country or sector engagement
☐ Increased focus on balance sheet optimisation
☐ Increased reliance on financial innovation
☐ Increased pressure to mobilise private capital
☐ Increased use of programmatic or regional approaches
☐ Reduced administrative or staff capacity
☐ No significant change
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other: [Open text]
Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
Section 2.C - Trust funds, financial intermediary funds and concessional windows [IF 1.3. = Concessional window or fund linked to an IFI or MDB or Trust fund / financial intermediary fund]
2.C.1. How have donor contributions changed or are expected to change?
Contribution type | Increased | Stable | Reduced | Delayed | More uncertain | Unable to answer | Not applicable |
Pledges | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Paid-in contributions | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Multi-year commitments | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Earmarked contributions | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Flexible contributions | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
2.C.2. Has the current environment affected how resources are allocated?
☐ Fewer grants or allocations
☐ Smaller grants or allocations
☐ Delayed approvals
☐ More stringent prioritisation
☐ More concentration on fewer countries or themes
☐ Increased use of performance-based allocation
☐ Increased focus on co-financing or leveraging
☐ No significant change
☐ Unable to answer
☐ Other: [Open text]
Additional details in response to the previous question, including if answer is “Other” [Optional Open Text]
2.C.3. Please describe any effects on implementing partners, recipient countries, local actors or downstream delivery.
Section 2.D - Vertical Funds [If 1.3. = Vertical fund or Global or multi-stakeholder partnership]
2.D.1. How is the current funding environment affecting your replenishment, pledge or contribution outlook?
Area | Positive | Stable | Moderately negative | Severely negative | Too early to assess | Not applicable | Unable to answer |
Total pledges | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Paid-in contributions | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Predictability | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Flexibility of funding | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Country allocations | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Partner technical support | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
2.D.2. How are governance bodies or partnership mechanisms guiding prioritisation under the current funding environment? Please indicate whether decisions are based on need, performance, country demand, co-financing, comparative advantage or any other criteria. [Open text]
Section 3.B – Organisations responding to Humanitarian Crises / If 1.4 = yes
3.B.1. Please rank humanitarian response sectors most affected by funding cuts to your organisation
☐ Camp Coordination and Camp Management
☐ Food security
☐ Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)
☐ Early Recovery
☐ Health
☐ Protection
☐ Education
☐ Emergency telecommunications (system-wide common services)
☐ Logistics (system-wide common services)
☐ Nutrition
☐ Shelter
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
Additional details in response to the previous question [open text]
3.B.2. Please rank operational or functional capacities most affected by funding cuts to your organisation
☐ Surge / rapid-response capacity
☐ Emergency procurement
☐ Field presence and humanitarian access
☐ Needs assessment and analysis
☐ Humanitarian coordination
☐ Information management
☐ Accountability-to-affected-populations mechanisms
☐ Preparedness and anticipatory action
☐ Civil–military coordination / humanitarian access negotiation
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
Additional details in response to the previous question [Open text]
3.B.3. How has your organisation reprioritised humanitarian or crisis-response activities?
Measure | Increased | Reduced | No change | Not Applicable | Unable to answer |
Focus on life-saving activities | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Focus on most severe needs | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Focus on most affected communities / geographical areas | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Assistance value / quantity per beneficiary | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Use of cash and voucher assistance | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Preparedness work / Anticipatory action | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Resilience work | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Volume of funding to local and national actors | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Proportion of programmes delivered by partners | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
3.B.3.a. For each measure where you registered a change, please indicate its main purpose.
Measure | Strategic prioritisation | Alignment with the Humanitarian Reset / UN80 Initiative | Cost-cutting measure | A combination | Other, please specify below |
Choice A | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Choice B | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
3.B.4. Are you withdrawing from any function, sector or geography that you believe no other actor is positioned to cover?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☐ Too early to assess
☐ Unable to answer
3.B.4.a. If yes, please provide additional details. [Open text]
3.B.5. How has your organisation’s engagement with humanitarian pooled funds (CERF, country-based pooled funds) changed?
☐ Increased reliance on pooled funds as bilateral / earmarked funding contracts
☐ Reduced access to, or allocations from, pooled funds
☐ No significant change
☐ Not applicable
☐ Unable to answer
3.B.6. Humanitarian reform initiatives – including the Humanitarian Reset and, for UN organisations, the UN80 New Humanitarian Compact – are pursuing change across several areas. For each area, please indicate how your organisation’s current trajectory relates to it. [one response per row]
Reform area | Advancing through deliberate reform | Maintaining | Scaling back as a result of funding cuts | Not applicable |
Prioritisation and planning (sharper prioritisation; simplified, shorter needs and response plans; community-defined priorities) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Coordinated and principled delivery (leaner coordination and clusters; accountability to affected people; cash) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Devolution and localisation (empowered country leadership; equitable partnerships; financing to local actors) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Defending principles (humanitarian principles and IHL; protection; preventing SEA/SH; humanitarian diplomacy) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Shared services and system efficiency (pooled logistics, procurement and common services; shared data and platforms) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Role clarity and complementarity (defining your distinct role in relation to UN, INGOs and local actors; aligning mandates to reduce overlap) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Additional details in response to the previous question [open text]