Mapping of Multilateral Organisations' Response to the Current Funding Environment - 2026 Stocktake

Organisations are responding through a combination of workforce and programme reductions, digitalisation, shared services, changes in geographical presence and new resource-mobilisation strategies. For several organisations, adjustment is moving beyond temporary containment towards longer-term changes in organisational structures and delivery models. 

All 25 survey respondents reported at least one measure taken or planned to respond to the funding environment. Staff reductions were reported by 21 respondents and workforce restructuring by 20. Digitalisation or automation and the use of AI or data tools were each reported by 19, while 18 reported donor diversification efforts. Hiring freezes and streamlining roles and responsibilities were each reported by 16 respondents. Fifteen respondents reported internal consolidation of shared services, relocation of functions to lower-cost locations, and changes to their resource-mobilisation strategies.

This is a broader response than the one captured in the 2025 mapping. The 2026 survey responses describe initial controls such as hiring restrictions, recruitment pauses and expenditure restraint alongside organisational redesign, workforce realignment and wider changes to their operating models with the intention to place organisations on a more sustainable operating footing. 

WHO, for instance, described its measures as serving both immediate cost reduction and longer-term sustainability and reported implementing a new organisational structure following its prioritisation and realignment exercise (2026, MOPAN Survey – WHO). 

WFP stated that in addition to the pause in recruitment, cancelled planned posts, leaving vacant positions unfilled, and postponing position upgrade, and reductions in duty travel and more efficient procurement of utilities, supplies and IT equipment, WFP has since 2023 transitioned into a two-tier organisational structure, bringing authority and decision making closer to the field (2026, MOPAN Survey – WFP). 

And Gavi describes a “combination of cost-reduction and structural reform measures”, including Secretariat resizing, workforce restructuring and lower non-workforce expenditure, alongside changes designed to create a “more country-centred, efficient and sustainable operating model” (2026 MOPAN Survey - Gavi). 

Workforce-related measures have been widespread. They were applied by 22 responding organisations out of 25. Abolition of posts was the most commonly reported measure, cited by 21 respondents. Eighteen reported non-renewal of temporary or fixed-term contracts, 16 a hiring freeze, 16 voluntary separation or early retirement, 15 reductions in consultants, 15 relocation of personnel or functions, and 12 staff layoffs. 

The effects extend across professional levels. Fifteen respondents identified mid-level professionals as among the most affected categories, 12 senior professionals, 12 entry-level professionals and 11 consultants. 

The evidence shows major differences in scale and approach. UNAIDS reduced projected core-funded Secretariat posts from 671 to 296, with only 18 positions remaining in Geneva and its refocused country footprint from 85 to 54 countries ​(UNAIDS, 2026[35])​; UNHCR reported nearly 5 000 job losses and changes affecting 185 locations by October 2025 ​(UNHCR, 2026[36])​; WHO used natural attrition, retirement and voluntary early retirement within a broader realignment: it reported 1 275 voluntary separations and 1 232 abolished posts, while higher assessed contributions enabled approximately 600 posts to be preserved (MOPAN survey, 2026 – WHO). 

“The primary objective throughout this process was to safeguard the core functions of the Organization and align financial and human resources accordingly, while minimizing separations to the greatest degree possible.” 
(MOPAN survey, 2026 – WHO) 

ILO illustrates a more scenario-based approach to workforce adjustment. In March 2026, the organisation set out contingency measures linked to different possible levels of income shortfall. Staff reductions were described as a last resort and no decisions had been taken on the specific posts, units or locations that could be affected. Under the severe scenario considered at that stage, up to 350 positions could have been abolished from January 2027 ​(ILO, 2026[37])​. By June, the contingency framework had been updated: continued cost containment and recruitment controls were expected to generate most of the required savings, with involuntary termination of around 120 positions identified as a measure of last resort if further savings were required ​(ILO, 2026[38])​. In its 2026 MOPAN survey response, ILO reported that it had initiated a workforce adjustment exercise in June after considering reductions in non-staff costs, cost-containment measures, voluntary separations, a hiring freeze, voluntary reductions in working time and unpaid leave, with the workforce adjustment due to take effect from 1 January 2027 (MOPAN survey, 2026 – ILO)).

Taken together, these examples show that workforce adjustment is taking different forms and is at different stages across organisations. UNAIDS and UNHCR illustrate large-scale reductions already implemented; WHO combined post abolition with attrition and voluntary measures to limit involuntary separations; while ILO used contingency scenarios to sequence possible further adjustments depending on its financial position to contain an immediate impact on staff. Across the sample, headline workforce figures can therefore refer to layoffs, abolition of vacant posts, non-renewal of contracts, voluntary separation, relocation or reprofiling of functions, or measures that remain conditional. These differences matter because they have different implications for recurring costs, operational capacity and institutional memory, and limit simple comparisons of staff reductions across organisations.

Workforce reductions are weakening organisational agility, surge capacity and the ability to provide sustained technical support, while increasing pressure on remaining staff. The effects extend beyond the direct loss of posts. Respondents identified reduced ability to respond to emerging crises and weaker technical support to partners among the most common programme-level effects of the workforce-related measures. Responses point to a related set of consequences: loss of specialist expertise, thinner country and regional support, greater workloads for remaining personnel, reduced access to external expertise and less organisational flexibility to respond to overlapping demands. 

UN-Habitat described the effect particularly clearly: 

“The principal impact is reduced institutional agility and flexibility. The greatest pressure is on UN-Habitat's ability to sustain upstream normative leadership, policy support, technical advisory services to Member States, surge capacity, innovation, and investments in data, evidence and knowledge. These functions rely disproportionately on flexible resources, yet they are precisely what underpin quality programme delivery and long-term development impact across the portfolio.”

(MOPAN survey, 2026 – UN-Habitat)

Additional evidence illustrates this pressure. UNESCO reported that its hiring freeze “generated capacity gaps, increased workload on existing staff, and reduced the ability to mobilize external expertise”; restrictions on travel and staffing also reduced field-office support and engagement with Member States ​(UNESCO, 2026[23])​. FAO similarly reported that constrained funding had limited its ability to provide technical support to country offices, strengthen staff skills and partnerships, and identify and scale effective practices, while cuts to emergency and resilience programmes reduced its ability to recruit or retain some specialist capacity (MOPAN Survey, 2026 – FAO). 

Effects can be particularly significant when organisations need to respond simultaneously across several locations. Following a workforce reduction of more than one-third, UNHCR reported lower speed, scale and reach in emergencies, especially when several major crises required response at the same time​ (UNHCR, 2026[17])​. OHCHR likewise reduced field presence and Human Rights Adviser capacity, constraining a delivery model that depends heavily on specialist monitoring, investigation, technical support and sustained country engagement​ (OHCHR, 2026[21])​. 

Available gender-disaggregated information does not yet indicate a consistent system-wide gender effect. Thirteen respondents reported having relevant data and two had partial data. Several organisations reported broadly stable gender representation after restructuring. The limited and uneven evidence does not support a system-wide conclusion about differential impact. 

Funding pressures have not yet produced widespread changes in organisations’ geographic footprint, but selective closures, relocations and new regional configurations are starting to be visible. Throughout survey responses, “no significant change” was the most common substantive response across the different types of geographic presence. At organisation level, however, ten respondents reported at least one closure, reduction, consolidation or relocation, nine reported some form of expansion, and six reported both contraction and expansion in different parts of their network. 

Where contraction is occurring, it is concentrated more in traditional country, regional and representation structures than in hubs and shared-service arrangements. In the survey, country offices recorded five closures and five reductions, regional offices two closures and four reductions, and liaison or representation offices one closure and three reductions. No respondents reported closing thematic or knowledge hubs or shared-service centres. Additional evidence shows that closure also frequently involves redistribution rather than complete withdrawal. UNHCR closed its Southern Africa Regional Bureau but transferred regional support to Nairobi and Dakar and retained smaller presences through neighbouring offices and partners. UNEP closed its Washington and Moscow offices while transferring representation to New York and Almaty, and WFP consolidated its regional-office structure.

UNICEF provides a particularly clear example of simultaneous consolidation and redistribution: it combined regional and field-office consolidation with substantial relocation of headquarters functions to lower-cost duty stations and the establishment of Centres of Excellence in Amman, Nairobi, Bangkok and Panama City to position technical capacity closer to country programming.

Relocation measures reported by organisations in the 2026 survey are consistent with the picture presented by MOPAN in the 2025 Mapping report. In 2025, MOPAN found that 10 of 18 respondents were consolidating offices or functions and 9 were relocating functions to lower-cost locations (MOPAN survey, 2025). Relocation remains prominent in 2026: 15 of 25 respondents reported relocation to lower-cost locations. Some organisations are therefore maintaining broadly similar country networks while reducing headquarters capacity and moving functions between existing duty.

At the same time, organisations are creating or strengthening alternative forms of decentralised presence. Survey responses recorded increases particularly in multi-country arrangements and shared-service centres, as well as some regional and technical or knowledge hubs. These are not necessarily new offices: in some cases organisations are adding capacity to existing locations. For instance, GPE explicitly reported an “expansion of decentralized offices in Paris, Brussels, Nairobi and Chennai”. All Africa-facing regional staff are now based in Paris or Nairobi, while its Chennai shared-services capacity has expanded. By December 2025, 53% of staff were in decentralised offices, compared with a model in which 94% of staff were based at Washington headquarters in June 2019. GPE attributes the shift to greater proximity to partner countries, stronger regional gender, finance and programme-management expertise and lower travel costs .

One example of new presence is provided by UN-Habitat, reporting new country offices in Botswana and South Africa, a regional office in Istanbul and technical or knowledge arrangements in Montreal, Bilbao, China and the Gulf region. It linked these changes to greater proximity to country realities, stronger engagement with UN country teams and partners, and improved technical quality (MOPAN Survey, 2026 – UN-Habitat).

It is worth mentioning that not all footprint changes were caused by the latest funding reductions. FAO, for example, reported that its review of the country-office network had been under way for several years and was not a direct response to the current funding contraction (MOPAN survey, 2026 – FAO).

Further reconfiguration is also likely as UN80 and organisation-specific reforms move from design to implementation. UN80 is examining geographic presence through work on UN Country Team reconfiguration, the Regional Reset, Joint Knowledge Hubs and Expertise on Demand, with the aim of making country and regional arrangements more responsive to needs and drawing more systematically on expertise across the UN system. UNESCO, for example, reported that its geographical footprint would be considered as the UN80 work on UN Country Team reconfiguration, the Regional Reset and Expertise on Demand develops, alongside its UNESCO80 roadmap (MOPAN survey, 2026 – UNESCO).

The trade-offs remain significant for organisations undergoing these changes. The potential efficiency gains need to be weighed against changes in proximity, responsiveness and access to expertise. Among organisations able to assess the effects of footprint changes, crisis-response or surge capacity and partnership management were among the capacities most frequently reported as reduced, while technical and normative expertise and oversight were more often protected or prioritised; however, high levels of “unable to answer” responses limit comparison across the full sample.

Nevertheless, some organisations also reported in open-ended responses that moving functions to lower-cost locations or shared-service centres can reduce salary, premises and travel costs, while regional or knowledge hubs may bring expertise closer to programme countries. Conversely, where offices are closed, reduced or functions are centralised, respondents highlighted risks such as stretched technical capacity across larger geographies, reduced proximity to operations, weaker responsiveness and challenges in maintaining continuity of country knowledge and support functions. At the same time excessive consolidation, according to respondents, can also reduce access to policy and governing processes concentrated in headquarters locations. This reinforces MOPAN’s 2025 Doing Better with Less finding that relocation and consolidation can yield efficiencies, but that the benefits depend on transition management, strategic workforce planning and monitoring whether service quality and organisational capability are maintained.

Shared services are being used more extensively to reduce duplication and operating costs, with arrangements ranging from established global service centres to common back offices, common premises and shared operational platforms for procurement, logistics and mobility. Fifteen of 25 respondents reported consolidating common or shared services within their organisation, while nine reported increased use of services provided jointly or by other organisations. Among humanitarian respondents, nine of 17 characterised “shared services and system efficiency - including pooled logistics and procurement, common services and shared data and platforms” - as advancing through deliberate change.

UNDP’s Global Shared Services Centre (GSSC), established more than two decades ago, supports more than 70 UN partner entities. In 2025, it executed USD 6.8 billion in payments across 122 currencies, processed USD 2.3 billion in payroll for more than 50,000 personnel and handled 126,000 HR transactions across 170 countries. It also expanded its client base, adding ICAO and WMO and launching end-to-end personnel administration services for seven additional partner organisations. UNDP also reports service-performance indicators alongside transaction volumes. According to their own report, all monthly payroll transactions were disbursed on time, finance services achieved a 94.2% service-level agreement rate, and process improvements reduced average invoice-processing time by 36% and supplier-processing time by 26% in 2025 .

UNFPA reports participation in Business Operations Strategies across all country offices, 82% of offices operating from common premises and participation across common back-office arrangements. It is also an early adopter of global shared services, including treasury and payroll, and has relocated selected headquarters support functions to Nairobi in connection with the UN Office at Nairobi common back office. UNFPA reported USD 27.7 million in operational efficiencies in 2025, almost twice the USD 14.7 million reported in 2024 .

UNOPS also provides shared transactional services in procurement, payments and human resources, with its Global Shared Services Centre serving more than 30 UN entities and 19 hosted entities and programmes. In 2025, UNOPS reported USD 69 million in entity-specific efficiency gains through annual reporting facilitated by DCO, including USD 45 million associated with its contract modalities

WFP manages 113 of the 190 common services provided by UN entities in 81 of the 132 countries implementing Business Operations Strategies. WFP also provides six global shared services, including the UN Fleet and the UN Booking Hub. The Booking Hub operated in 140 countries for 22 UN entities and generated a reported USD 18 million in efficiency gains in 2025, including USD 9.3 million through shared mobility, USD 5.9 million through accommodation services and USD 1.9 million through shared medical and wellness services. WFP also reported USD 11.2 million in realised benefits from Business Operations Strategy initiatives in 2025, principally from joint premises . More broadly, WFP reported USD 235.6 million in efficiency gains across 52 initiatives in 2025, exceeding its USD 169.9 million target.

These examples illustrate what stronger monitoring can look like, encompassing transaction volumes and service-quality indicators. Such practices remain exceptions rather than the norm. Across much of the evidence base, organisations report participation in shared services or anticipated savings without yet demonstrating whether gains are net of transition costs or whether service quality, responsiveness and organisational capability have been maintained.

Digitalisation, automation and AI are among the most widely reported organisational responses and their role increasingly extends beyond cost-saving measures to changes in how organisations manage workflows, grants and data. Nineteen of 25 respondents reported digitalisation or automation and 19 reported uses of AI or data tools. Only two of the 19 respondents reporting digitalisation or automation characterised it primarily as an immediate cost-reduction measure; most described it as serving both financial and broader organisational objectives or as part of an existing transformation process.

This builds on the pattern identified in MOPAN's 2025 Doing Better with Less thematic brief which found that digitalisation, cloud-based ERP systems and automated processes were already reducing some administrative delays and processing costs, while highlighting uneven adoption, fragmented systems and significant transition costs . The 2026 evidence suggests that these tools are now being used more widely as organisations seek to sustain functions with tighter resource envelopes.

The Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol reported that “through the new Knowledge Management System (KMS), the full spectrum of the Multilateral Fund's workflow processes has been automated, and its document management system has been fully digitalized. In addition, the introduction of AI-assisted translation has enabled the Secretariat to achieve immediate cost savings while enhancing the efficiency and timeliness of document processing” (2026 MOPAN Survey – MLF).

Other organisations are embedding digital tools more deeply in their operating models. Gavi's digital grant-management system centralizes tracking, submissions, and workflow execution into a fully digitized platform intended to simplify processes while strengthening oversight and accountability (MOPAN Survey, 2026 – Gavi). The Global Fund similarly reported greater use of automation and AI alongside changes to its operating model and decision-making processes (MOPAN Survey, 2026 –Global Fund).

At the same time, digitalisation requires investment before efficiencies can be realised. UNOPS illustrates this constraint: From its inception, the Process Innovation and Digitalization Programme, a multi-year programme that required multi-year financial commitments, had no multi-year funding visibility. Until August 2026, UNOPS had no mechanism for multi-year capital investments, depending on the Executive Board authorisation for use of its own operational reserves. Funding authorisation came in tranches, often a year at a time, which did impact the programme’s ability to efficiently plan and deploy resourcing and investments . The experience reinforces the 2025 MOPAN efficiency finding that organisations cannot rely on digitalisation to generate savings without adequate transition financing and sustained investment .

Organisations are seeking to diversify both their funding sources and financing mechanisms, through donor diversification efforts, changes in resource-mobilisation strategies and greater use of partnerships. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that where changes in the funding mix are already visible, they can partly offset reductions in traditional donor funding but do not necessarily provide the same flexibility or predictability.

Among survey participants, 18 respondents reported efforts to diversify their donor base, including greater engagement with non-traditional sovereign donors, programme countries, vertical funds, international financial institutions, foundations and private-sector partners. FAO provides one of the clearest examples. With traditional-donor funding expected to fall by around 15% in 2025, it reported increasing reliance on GCF, GEF, the World Bank and ADB. More than 40% of its resources were coming from vertical funds, which helped offset the decline in traditional funding but also reduced flexibility

Organisations are also changing how they mobilise and structure resources, rather than only approaching different donors. Change in resource mobilisation strategies was selected by 15 out of 25 survey respondents. Measures include greater emphasis on flexible and multi-year funding, portfolio and umbrella programmes, pooled and trust funds, private-sector finance, blended instruments and domestic co-financing. FAO, for example, is pursuing portfolio-level planning, umbrella programmes, pooled and trust-fund options and deeper private-sector engagement to improve funding predictability IOM has similarly sought to increase the share of flexible financing available to support integrated programming and enhance organizational resilience and sustainability, including through its Resilience Campaign and greater engagement with donors on unearmarked and softly earmarked funding . Increased use of pooled funds, reported by nine survey respondents, also forms part of this wider effort to mobilise resources.

Greater use of partnerships was reported as a response to the funding environment by 15 organisations. These partnerships can combine additional financing with the technical, operational or institutional capabilities of other organisation. For instance, CDB's agreement with the OPEC Fund provides for parallel financing and co-financing alongside technical assistance and knowledge sharing , while CGIAR's partnership with the OPEC Fund combines development finance with CGIAR's scientific expertise through a new Food Security and Climate Adaptation FacilityThe Global Fund and World Bank have gone further, agreeing to mobilise at least USD 2 billion in joint financing over three years while aligning investments in health systems, public financial management, procurement, supply chains and regional manufacturing.

The extent to which these approaches can replace declining traditional funding is not yet clear. Some organisations report that alternative resources or co-financing have helped offset expected losses, but the evidence does not consistently quantify the additional resources generated or isolate their effect from timing, reserves and other financing changes. The composition of funding secured in this way is also  important: greater reliance on earmarked vertical funds or tightly projectised funding can reduce flexibility, while new partnerships and financing arrangements may increase transaction and co-ordination costs.