Mapping of Multilateral Organisations' Response to the Current Funding Environment

The operational challenges created by funding cuts for MOs are significant and far-reaching. In the survey, when asked about the effects of current funding reductions, agencies most frequently reported the need to scale back (14 respondents) or suspend projects (13), and a further 13 reported reducing delivery targets. Other major impacts include project delays (10), reduced engagement with key partners (9) and closure of country offices (7). Only three agencies responded “not applicable” to the operational implications of funding cuts, underscoring how few have escaped disruption. Collectively, these findings illustrate that funding constraints are forcing a marked contraction in implementation, reach and ambition across the multilateral system. 

The survey results reveal that MOs are using a wide range of strategies to cope with funding cuts. Of the 18 survey respondents, 16 are making additional efforts to mobilise resources and diversify their donor base. Thirteen have abolished budgeted posts (many UN agencies had vacant formal posts, due to past budgetary shortfalls) or imposed hiring freezes, and nine have been forced to lay off staff. Ten respondents had consolidated offices or functions, and nine had relocated functions to lower-cost locations, and nine had taken other measures to reduce administrative costs of back-office functions. The survey data underscores the pressure that respondents are under to restructure, reduce their physical footprint or secure new funding streams to maintain key programmes. Impacts are especially pronounced in Africa, South Asia, and fragile or conflict-affected settings, where scaling back or even ceasing activities has sometimes become unavoidable.

The funding cuts are impacting all functional areas of the MOs. Survey respondents list capacity development/technical assistance, service delivery, knowledge and research work, policy work and normative work as significantly affected. Seven MOs report a reduction in the resources they are able to channel to local organisations. The data suggests that both direct implementation capacities and the broader enabling roles of multilaterals, particularly in technical co-operation, evidence-building and normative standards, are coming under pressure as agencies adjust to reduced resources.

This mapping has further classified measures taken into eight types:

• Staff cuts

• Office relocation and consolidation

• Programme consolidation or scale-back  

• Scaling back partnerships

• Geographic reprioritisation

• Austerity and efficiency measures, 

• Evidence generation and evaluation 

• Organisational resilience 

In this context, “organisational resilience” refers to efforts by some agencies to sustain core mandates and service delivery despite funding pressures, through measures such as diversified funding strategies, pre-emptive reform, and maintaining alignment with donor priorities. 

“We have laid off over 30% of our staff because project funding was cut for these projects, and overhead income to fund core capacity likewise was diminished.” (Survey respondent)

Staff cuts are a widespread response to the recent funding pressures, mentioned in public statements by 12 of the 30 agencies we explored. In some cases, the scale of layoffs is substantial. For instance, according to a UNHCR press release, the organisation plans to eliminate approximately 3 500 staff positions overall​ (UNHCR, 2025_[24])​. This is consistent with their survey response, which indicates a reduction in staff by approximately 30% in proportion to the reduction in programmes, while, according to USG Fletcher’s message to staff on the OCHA reset, OCHA anticipates a 20% reduction in its workforce. Similarly, FAO Director General announced in his opening address to FAO’s council that the organisation has already laid off 358 staff, with further plans to reach a total of about 600 redundancies​ (FAO, 2025_[26])​ ​(Karas, 2025_[27])​.

WHO has undertaken extensive staff reductions, with net headcount falling by 409 from January to August 2025​ (WHO, 2025_[28])​. Last June, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, told reporters in Geneva that OHCHR is carrying out the closure or reduction of in-country human rights presences in at least 11 countries​ (Reuters, 2025_[29])​. The ILO Director informed its governing body in May 2025 that the organisation had cut around 225 posts in 2025 and imposed a freeze on external hiring, with further redundancies possible​ (Poidevin, 2025_[30])​, and IOM is reducing headquarters staffing by approximately 250 posts​ (IOM, 2025_[31])​.

Agencies have implemented staff reductions at multiple levels. From our sample, just two organisations are undertaking reductions in senior positions. Public statements by UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, indicate that for UNHCR, the number of senior level positions at HQ and Bureau levels will be reduced by nearly half​ (UNHCR, 2025_[32])​ ​(Farge, 2025_[33])​ while WHO states in its survey response that the Secretariat has implemented a 50% reduction in the Senior Leadership team (ADGs), followed by a significant reduction in the number of departments and directors at headquarters. Other organisations have often prioritised the most junior posts and the youngest staff, which could have a medium- to long-term impact on future capabilities, innovation, and leadership.  

Staffing is often seen as the most immediate and adjustable cost line for agencies in crisis. However, while such cuts may generate rapid fiscal savings, they also risk undermining institutional memory, reducing oversight and constraining programme delivery​ (MOPAN, 2025_[1])​.

Open-ended survey responses indicate that staffing reductions have been widespread and difficult, with agencies confirming that the bulk of downsizing was driven by funding shortfalls. Survey respondents described how these staff cuts often forced trade-offs between preserving frontline operations and absorbing losses in technical, support and headquarters roles. Several agencies reported operating with smaller teams and having to reduce or pause planned programmatic growth to sustain only their most essential functions with limited resources. As one agency put it:

“Reduced capacity to deliver intended outputs and impacts, and reduced engagement with partners. Considerable staff reductions resulted from budget cuts.” (CGIAR) 

The survey findings reinforce that the most affected areas are “core programmatic delivery”, including regional and country operations, along with project-based roles and some technical assistance functions. Several agencies also referenced pressures on administrative capacity, oversight and support functions, underscoring the pervasive impact of funding cuts across the system.

Another prominent response to funding reductions among UN agencies is the relocation and consolidation of offices. Among the 18 survey respondents, 10 have consolidated offices and 9 have relocated functions to lower-cost locations. Several agencies surveyed have reduced costs by shifting positions away from high-cost locations (e.g., New York or Geneva) to regional hubs.  

In a statement by Dr Natalia Kanem, former Executive Director of UNFPA, at the First Regular Session of the Executive Board of UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS in January 2025, UNFPA shared that the HQ Optimization​ (UNFPA, 2024_[34])​ initiative remains on track, including the transfer of its Evaluation Office from New York to Nairobi and integration of its Policy and Strategy and Technical Divisions into a merged Nairobi-based programme​ (UNFPA, 2025_[35])​. Similarly, as reported by Devex​ (Ravelo, 2025_[36])​, UNAIDS is reducing its Geneva footprint, moving key functions to regional hubs and UN Women has continued its prioritisation of the pivot to regions and countries initiative to drive greater value for money. It is relocating 50 institutional budget-funded posts from New York to regional offices in Nairobi and Bonn ​(UN Women, 2025_[37])​, as included in its integrated budget estimates for the biennium 2026-2027, while clarifying that these numbers may increase further in the years ahead. 

WHO reported moving staff and technical functions out of Geneva and New York, reducing the number of HQ departments to 34 and consolidating management structures into 7 core directorates. Four major technical functions have been relocated to lower-cost international hubs (Berlin, Dubai, Lyon, and Jamnagar) to maximise savings and maintain essential operations​ (WHO, 2025_[38])​. IOM has similarly publicly informed moving positions to lower-cost regional offices ​(IOM, 2025_[39])​ and the United Nations Under-Secretary-General (USG) Tom Fletcher, in his message to staff last April 2025, stated that OCHA will reach a 70/30 ratio between country/regional offices and HQ.

OHCHR, according to a statement by High Commissioner Volker Turk, is relocating staff to Bangkok, Vienna, Addis Abeba, Panama City, Yaoundé and Beirut in a cost-cutting and proximity drive, while closing or reducing certain field offices​ (UN Media, 2025_[40])​. Press has also reported that ILO is actively considering relocating some Geneva-based HQ functions to lower-cost centres such as Turin, Budapest, Bonn, Doha, or Pretoria, although no field closures have been confirmed as of September 2025. These measures are expected to generate cost savings and bring staff closer to programme operations. However, there is a risk that such moves may reduce agency influence and visibility within international policy arenas centred in New York or Geneva, particularly for entities with strong normative mandates. 

Alongside relocating positions to regional offices, several agencies are consolidating office networks to further streamline operations and reduce overheads. For example, UNICEF has announced that it is consolidating seven regional offices into five, as well as relocating 70% of staff to lower-cost locations to improve efficiency​ (UNICEF, 2025_[42])​​ (UNICEF, 2025_[43])​. Last March, WFP announced it was closing its South Africa office due to funding constraints and consolidating functions into its regional office in Nairobi​ (Reuters, 2025_[44])​. While these strategies aim to cut costs and reduce duplication of administrative functions, they also carry the risk of diminishing agencies’ ability to maintain broad geographic coverage.

While sometimes rationalised as an effort to be closer to the people and locations served, these moves are largely driven by the higher wage and rental costs typical of headquarters offices. However, evidence suggests that short-term cost savings are only achieved when relocating staff to existing regional offices with sufficient infrastructure and space. If agencies are forced to establish new regional offices or expand into new premises, the high upfront initial costs significantly diminish the anticipated savings​ (Elzarov, 2025_[45])​. As there is currently limited publicly available data to test the true cost-efficiency of relocating staff to existing versus new or significantly expanded regional offices, a systematic review or targeted case studies in future budget cycles may be warranted. Future MOPAN assessment cycles will also seek to answer this question.

“Although long-term savings can be realised from moving to more cost-effective locations, the initial costs of relocation can be substantial. Moving office infrastructure, updating technology systems, and setting up new facilities requires significant financial resources. … If agencies need to establish or significantly expand new regional offices, up-front costs may substantially offset or neutralise any potential savings” (Elzarov, 2025)

Among the survey respondents, 14 out of 18 report that they have scaled back programming, 13 have suspended programmes, and 10 have delayed projects. Thirteen report decreased global delivery targets. Humanitarian operations are among the hardest hit. Respondents to the survey described being forced to prioritise core and lifesaving activities, reduce geographic reach and pause or suspend lower-priority projects. 

WFP has announced that it expects to reach 21% fewer people this year, amid measures that include suspending food aid in northeast Nigeria and halting treatment for 650 000 malnourished women and children in Ethiopia​ (WFP, 2025_[46])​. USG Tom Fletcher also announced that OCHA has scaled back operations in 9 countries, including Cameroon, Colombia, Libya, and Nigeria​ (Reuters, 2025_[47])​, while IOM reported last April that it has planned project closures and reductions affecting over 7 000 staff worldwide​ (Reuters, 2025_[48])​. Together, these measures mark a sharp contraction in the multilateral humanitarian footprint.

Other agencies face similar pressures. According to Devex, UNAIDS plans to reduce its presence from 75 countries to just 36​ (Ravelo, 2025_[49])​, and WHO has acknowledged that “a reduced workforce means a reduced scope of work”​ (WHO, 2025_[50])​. UNFPA announced in a press release that it could only fund 47% of the 3 521 midwives it had planned to support in 2025, including none of the 470 posts in Sudan, where needs are particularly severe​ (UNFPA, 2025_[51])​. The Global Fund has started a reprioritisation of interventions aiming at maximising available funding for critical lifesaving services​ (The Global Fund, 2025_[52])​. 

“Activities and resources are rephased from 2025 into 2026 following recent cuts in global health funding.” (GAVI)

Other agencies are implementing more targeted reductions. UNHCR has reported that USD 1.4 billion in essential programs is being cut or put on hold​ (UNHCR, 2025_[53])​. FAO has cut over 100 US-funded projects​ (Devex, 2025_[54])​. The Human Rights Committee Chairperson recalled, in an emergency meeting with States parties, the cancellation of its third session this year due to austerity measures, directly citing the budget crisis and lack of voluntary funding, with future sessions now at risk​ (OHCHR, 2025_[55])​ 

“The pace and scale of the funding cuts are a seismic shock to the sector … many will die because aid is drying up. Right now, programmes are shutting down, staff are being laid off, and we are being forced to choose which lives to prioritise.” Tom Fletcher, UN Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs​ (UN News, 2025_[56])​

These cases highlight that while programme consolidation is not uniform and reflects diverse funding and donor pressures, nearly all UN agencies are being forced to reduce the scope of their operations. This contraction has direct, and often severe, implications for the populations they serve.

In survey responses, reduced engagement with partners was cited as an operational impact by half of responding agencies, suggesting that this may be a widespread consequence of current cuts. Funding cuts have forced MOs to scale back support for local and community-based partners, resulting in contract terminations, reduced technical assistance, and more limited community engagement. 

Open-ended survey responses broadly reinforce the trend of reduced support and engagement with local and community-based partners in the wake of funding cuts. Several agency respondents cited “reduced engagement with partners” as a direct consequence of both staff and programme reductions. 

UN Women research found that 90% of women-led and women’s rights organisations in crisis areas have experienced funding cuts, with 51% suspending programmes and up to half at risk of closure within six months​ (UN Women, 2025_[57])​. While UNHCR states that it remains strongly committed to supporting local organisations and continues to prioritise forcibly displaced and stateless-led organisations, cuts to UNHCR’s programmes have deeply affected local and national partners across its operations globally​ (UNHCR, 2025_[53])​. WFP’s frontline partnerships are overstretched by resource constraints, with remaining local partners reporting greater burdens and heightened risks to service quality and project outcomes ​(WFP, 2025_[58])​. UNFPA has seen key humanitarian budgets and contracts with national or local partners in crisis-affected countries severely reduced or terminated, especially in maternal health services​ (UNFPA, 2025_[35])​. 

Funding reductions across the UN system are driving agencies to concentrate resources in core regions and priority crisis countries, leading to service contraction and operational withdrawal from less visible, secondary or politically marginalised geographical areas. WFP’s programme suspensions and resource cuts are most acute in West/Central Africa and the Middle East, including office closures and hub consolidations into Nairobi; in this context, WFP expects to drop up to 500 000 recipients per country across 11 crisis-affected nations, with Yemen particularly hard hit (WFP, 2025).

The survey corroborates that the brunt of funding reductions is borne by low- and lower-middle-income countries, as well as fragile and conflict-affected states, as identified by nearly all agencies in their responses. Most agencies are now prioritising their highest-need regions, often at the expense of secondary, protracted, or less visible crises. Regionally, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East are most frequently cited as directly affected, followed by parts of South Asia. Few agencies indicate high-income countries or less crisis-affected regions as a focus for funding withdrawals, reinforcing that reductions are greatest where humanitarian and development needs are most acute. Countries such as Bangladesh, Yemen, Gaza, Nigeria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Cameroon, and the Central African Republic are repeatedly cited in public reporting as facing disproportionate programme loss and service gaps. As a result, less prominent or “forgotten” emergencies are at growing risk of deeper humanitarian shortfalls.

Some agencies have presented cost-cutting as part of broader efficiency or austerity drives. UNDP, for example, has combined in its integrated budget estimates budget tightening with a push for digitalisation, investment in artificial intelligence, and internal integration, framing these actions as steps toward modernisation​ (UNDP, 2025_[16])​ ​(UNDP, 2025_[59])​. UNICEF’s Future Focus Initiative (FFI), which aims to make UNICEF fit for purpose in the 21st century, proposes a renewed efficiency and agility to deliver on the goals of the Strategic Plan 2026–2029. Other agencies, including UNICEF, have similarly characterised their restructuring as efficiency reforms​ (Devex, 2025_[54])​. WHO has proposed a 21% budget cut for 2026–27 ​(Farge, 2025_[33])​​ (Poidevin, 2025_[30])​ emphasising that these reductions will be managed through “strategic prioritisation” rather than wholesale contraction. These approaches indicate that agencies aim to reassure donors and stakeholders that budget cuts are being managed proactively and strategically, and that resources are being used as efficiently as possible.

Some entities in the survey (seven respondents) have reported impacts to information systems and digital transformation, using integrated resource management and remote service delivery to enhance efficiency, sustain capacity, and reassure donors of prudent resource use. For example, UNDP’s investment in AI-driven project management is reported to have improved cross-team collaboration​ (UNDP, 2025_[60])​​ (UNDP, 2025_[61])​. Reviews by the UN80 Task Force highlight these and related innovations as sources of resilience and effectiveness under continued fiscal pressure​ (UN80 Task Force, 2025_[62])​. 

Survey responses indicate that corporate functions, central to organisational credibility and performance, are among the most directly affected by funding reductions. The most frequently cited area was evidence generation, including data, monitoring, and evaluation (10 organisations), followed by fundraising and donor relations (8), and strategic planning and performance management (8).

The erosion of functions linked to monitoring, evaluation, and oversight is particularly significant, as it risks weakening institutional learning and accountability. These pressures may in turn affect how organisations are perceived externally, deepening concerns about transparency and trustworthiness at a time when stakeholders are demanding stronger evidence of results and value for money.

Despite widespread staffing cuts, relocations, consolidations, and programme scale-backs across the UN system, a few of the sampled agencies have not announced any major measures or have remained resilient in the current funding climate. Of the agencies responding to the survey, only two explicitly reported no major cost-cutting or programme reduction measures underway or anticipated, reflecting rare institutional resilience in the current environment. 

Audrey Azoulay, UNESCO Director-General, reported that the organisation had prepared for US withdrawal by implementing prior structural reforms and diversifying its funding, stating in a press release that UNESCO will “continue to carry out these missions, despite inevitably reduced resources”​ (UNESCO, 2025_[14])​. IFAD has experienced a slight uplift in its core budget for 2025 and is pursuing increased efficiency, decentralisation, and technology investment​ (IFAD, 2024_[63])​. UN-Habitat has announced no measures in response to the current funding environment, rendering its status unclear. UNIDO stands out as one of the only major UN development agencies to report a substantial increase in voluntary funding reaching a record USD 663.6 million of resource mobilised in 2024 (this also led to a 29% increase in the technical co-operation delivery over previous year​ (UNIDO, 2025_[64])​ while UNIDO nevertheless reported zero real growth as compared to approved 2024–2025 budget.​ (UNIDO, 2025_[65]). The organisation attributes this resilience to strong EU donor engagement and strategic alignment with industrial co-operation mandates​ (UNIDO, 2025_[66])​. UNIDO has also indicated that it applied mitigation measures where possible, anticipating pressures facing the wider UN system and the challenging medium-term outlook for voluntary contributions. The agency remains mindful that these trends are likely to affect not only its own operations but also the sustainability of vertical funds. However, UNIDO also indicated that it had already implemented a staff reduction exceeding 40% in the late 1990s for similar reasons as those motivating the UN Secretariat in its current proposals. 

This pattern may suggest that a small number of agencies remain resilient in the current funding environment, potentially due to effective planning, successful funding structures, or alignment with donor preferences. However, it is also possible that these agencies are actively preparing efficiency measures but have not yet made them public. 

The UN80 Initiative was launched in March 2025 “to ensure the UN remains effective, cost-efficient, and responsive to the people it serves,” in response to major financial constraints and long-running fiscal challenges, notably the non-payment of member state dues​ (The Global Observatory, 2025_[67])​. While UN80 was developed before the 2025 donor budget cuts, including those by USAID, and was originally intended to address long-standing structural financial pressures faced by the UN system rather than the most recent funding crisis, it has since been retooled to prioritise short-term cost-saving measures and immediate responses to the current fiscal constraints. 

During an informal UN General Assembly (UNGA) meeting on 24 June 2025, Under-Secretary-General for Policy and Chair of the UN80 Task Force Guy Ryder briefed UN Member States on the initiative and indicated that the UN is reviewing the programme budget proposals for 2026, with a view to achieving 15-20% reductions, including staff reductions. Reporting indicates that in March 2025, the Secretary General sent a memo to all Secretariat entities requesting proposals for 20% reductions in budgeted staffing positions, alongside other urgent measures such as hiring freezes, travel restrictions, and relocating staff away from expensive duty stations​ (Goldman, 2025_[68])​. It is important to note that these 20% reductions refer to formal, budgeted positions rather than current staff levels; due to ongoing cash flow shortages, the Secretary General has not paid out full budgets for the past two years, and most agencies had already addressed gaps by eliminating unfilled posts.

Several sources indicate that efficiency measures adopted by multilateral organisations within the UN system broadly align with the aims and “good practice recommendations” issued by the UN80 Task Force, though each agency’s actions are shaped by its distinct financial realities and political priorities ​(DevelopmentAid, 2025_[69])​

A Security Council report notes, “Efforts under the UN80 Initiative are focused on achieving efficiency gains and cost reductions by eliminating redundancies, streamlining processes, and relocating services to low-cost locations, among others,” with impacts varying and implementation being largely agency-driven​ (UN Security Council, 2025_[70])​ 

Reflecting the implementation of UN80 proposals under workstream 1, and the financial pressure across the organisation, the Secretary-General’s budget presentation to the fifth committee, last 17 October 2025, sets out concrete targets: the proposed regular budget for 2026 is USD 3.238 billion, representing a reduction of 15.1 % compared with the approved 2025 appropriation and staffing levels approved for the regular budget declined from 13 809 posts (10 667 regular posts and 3 142 special political mission posts) in the original proposal to 11 594 posts – a reduction of 18.8 %. Among other cost-saving measures explicitly cited are the creation of administrative hubs (e.g., New York, Bangkok) to consolidate global back-office functions; the relocation of roles from high-cost duty stations (New York, Geneva) to lower-cost locations and the pooling of payroll functions across New York, Entebbe, and Nairobi. 

The MOPAN survey shows that only 5 of the 18 respondents are attributing their staff cuts to the 20% staff reduction requested by the Secretary-General. For the time being, this requirement applies only to agencies within the UN Secretariat. However, several organisations indicated that previously undertaken staff reductions, in some cases of a higher magnitude, or are implementing similar measures on their own initiative, as they do not fall under the mandate of the Secretariat.

The evidence presented here demonstrates that while nearly all multilateral agencies are adapting to intense resource constraints, there is no single, uniform path forward. Agencies are employing a broad spectrum of strategies. Most MOs are restructuring, downsizing, and adopting efficiency gains in response to resource constraints, and there is significant diversity and flexibility in how these changes are implemented. Most operational measures align with the priorities and recommendations articulated under the UN80 Initiative, but explicit public attribution to UN80 remains rare.