Share & more
The UN says pooled funds are a tool to fund grassroots aid at scale. But local humanitarian groups appear to be sidelined in early allocations using a much-interrogated injection of US cash.
This is Inklings, where we explore how aid works in the wilds of humanitarian hubs, on the front lines of emergency response, or in the winding maze of the Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week(s) website.
It’s also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.
Today: Where US pooled fund cash isn’t going, “reset” hurdles, and what HNPW says about humanitarianism’s crossroads.
On the radar |
Humanitarians descended on Geneva to tackle the catastrophes of 2026 armed with the reform solutions of 2016.
The wordy Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week(s) conference wrapped three days of in-person meetings and panels last week, set against the backdrop of the unfolding crises in the Middle East and stark budget cuts.
HNPW is part science fair, part trade show, and – in the rubble of last year’s budget destruction – part makeshift summit for a shrinking international humanitarian system. A few recurrent themes cutting across nearly 300 (!) sessions: navigating the consequences of the so-called “humanitarian reset” led by UN relief chief Tom Fletcher, “hyper-prioritised” responses and who they leave behind, local humanitarian leadership, money and power, safety and trust, AI and emerging risks.
Across achingly polite panels, you can see different visions of humanitarianism inching apart in real time. Down one fork of the road: the conventional international aid sector (or “the Fletcher-led system”, as one attendee labelled it) – slimmer, but still commanding billions in increasingly inflexible funding from a slate of increasingly political donor governments. On another path: visions of alternate humanitarianisms often name-checked but never fully embraced by the conventional system – civil society and local leadership, participatory decision-making, community responses and mutual aid.
Ripples in the pool: You see signs of this tension in the brewing hubbub over the country-based pooled funds (CBPFs) run by the UN’s humanitarian coordination arm, OCHA. Fletcher has touted these collective donor funding buckets as a lever for locally driven aid – they were dishing a growing share of cash to local groups. But new US funding allocations from that $2 billion announced in late December appear to be destined almost entirely for big agencies, several sources told us.
- Excluded: From funds in Haiti and Myanmar to Ethiopia, South Sudan, and elsewhere, several humanitarians say early allocations are mostly earmarked for UN agencies like the World Food Programme or UNICEF, or for big international NGOs. “We have been excluded,” said a member of a civil society network in Myanmar, who is familiar with the pooled fund discussions in their country. Another described an allocation for a CBPF in another country where funding for local groups amounted to 3.75%. “It’s pretty appalling,” they said. Some said there’s minimal discussion for country-level advisory boards meant to input on how funding is divided. Others told us the proposals are discussed, but are seen as more or less preordained.
- Why: The implied reason: The US cash is time-limited and must be spent within six months from a mid-March start date. “They’re just coming to advisory boards and saying these are the allocations. It’s predetermined… who will get the funding,” said one humanitarian familiar with the discussions. “The excuse is short-term, and they need to spend the funding.” In some cases, few local organisations had been vetted to receive funds, limiting the potential applicants, said another aid worker.
- Why pooled funds: To Fletcher, these collective donor funding pots are a tool to speed up (and localise) funding, and a key plank of his reset. To others, they’re one of many possible options at best; or worse: a misguided push that concentrates funding through a single, flawed gatekeeper. The divide came to a head when Fletcher struck his December deal – with little to no input from other agencies – that would steer an initial $2 billion and possibly all future US humanitarian money through pooled funds. That deal became more complicated when the US announced that its discriminatory “global gag rule” would cover all foreign aid funding.
- What OCHA says: We sent questions about this to OCHA spokespeople, who didn’t get back to us before publication. Generally, Fletcher has said that funding from other donors will balance whatever restrictions the US ties to its aid. But in the case of many of the pooled funds, US cash now dominates. In Myanmar, for example, US money represents 99.3% of total funds in 2026, according to CBPF data accessed 13 March.
Localisation and the reset: US cash and the pooled funds are another sign of the tension between a stated pledge of Fletcher’s reset – to localise aid – and the economics of a system hardwired for expansion and incentivised against change.
- Transitions: Some of this is seen in how international humanitarians downsize and “transition”. In theory, it should be a smooth handoff to national counterparts. In practice, it can mean haphazard shuttering after years of underfunding and underplanning. “We have cases where OCHA has been closing offices in some areas, handing over to local and national NGOs but without any resources,” Jonas Habimana, executive director at Congolese NGO BIFERD, said during a panel. Similarly, the reset has marked Colombia as a country in “transition”, but the money still flows the same way. “The donors are talking about a transition but the resources are still being sent to international intermediaries,” said Pedro Niño Sequera, executive director of Fundación Apoyar in Colombia. “And they retain the power of decision-making.”
- Clusters: Elsewhere, “reset” pledges to elevate local knowhow in UN-organised coordination can hit roadblocks. Anna Tazita Samuel, executive director at Women for Change in South Sudan, said her organisation is essentially “competing” against a big INGO for a coordination leadership role, but can’t afford to match a coordinator’s salary. “Are we able to be in that space? It means that, literally, the reset is trying to silence us. Our voices will not be in so many spaces,” she said.
BTW: This year’s iteration of HNPW featured the return of a keynote session, but this time, no awkward Slido polls and no stage time for companies named in UN genocide reports.
Acronymage |
If nothing else, HNPW is a treasure trove for acronyms and abbreviations in search of a decoder. Here are three:
GSLSCC: A cluster is born. HNPW saw the public debut of the new reset-sparked cluster, the Global Shelter, Land, and Site Coordination Cluster. This was created by smooshing three previous clusters together. Related: a press release only a humanitarian could understand.
HOPES: This conceptually dicey acronym shortens Humanitarian Opportunities: Protect, Engage, and Stand For.
IASC IAHE SG: The Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluations Steering Group of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee used HNPW to discuss this report. Fittingly, it’s sort of an evaluation of all its evaluations.
Data points |
The United States was not a major contributor to UN-run pooled funds. Then came December’s surprise deal with OCHA:
OCHA has been touting its pooled funds as a lever to fund local aid. Some funds were giving a growing share of their money to local organisations, officials said. But the US funding injection now changes the math: If US funding dominates, then OCHA can no longer sell CBPFs as a lever of localisation based on percentages alone.
Fletcher, his “reset”, and the wider humanitarian system may have to find more genuine ways to meet their localisation promises.
Overheard |
A trend at one early HNPW session: Attendees announcing that they did not speak on behalf of their organisation before launching into questions or comments. In a similar vein, here is a smattering of soundbites overheard at HNPW, stripped of context and attribution:
“Defending principled humanitarian action too often means doing things as they were.”
“As international as possible, as local as necessary.”
“You cannot really count on us to be the disruptive element and push for change.”
“The reform will only succeed if all actors accept a gradual redistribution of leadership.”
“I couldn’t agree with you more.”
“We don’t want to listen to people, because it challenges us too much.“
“We are trying.”
Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]