The United Nations, one of the largest organizations in the international development sector, is amidst turbulent times following the 2025 U.S. foreign aid cuts. To sustain its field work with vulnerable populations and adapt to the reduced funding, the UN has announced its intention to relocate or close (consolidate) some offices – not only in middle-income regions but also in parts of the European Union –as well as seeking to merge several of its agencies. Although these actions are intended to minimize costs and strengthen the remaining country offices by focusing on regional hubs and digitalization, critics warn that they may affect the UN’s influence on persistent challenges and hinder the achievement of the SDGs. We discussed these changes with several experts who argued the pros and cons of such moves. If you are interested in the fate of the UN and its long-term impact, check the article below.
Key Takeaways:
- As part of the UN80 initiative, the UN is assessing the relocation of some teams and offices to lower-cost locations, increasing automation, and centralizing services to reduce costs.
- Without strong UN engagement, middle-income countries could face difficulties accessing the resources, knowledge, and partnerships needed to build resilience and to protect their communities.
- On the other hand, according to experts, the opportunity lies in providing more effective, targeted, flexible support that is aligned with today’s global dynamics.
- The digitalization of processes is not negative if it is understood as a tool that can optimize work, but cannot replace the value of human contact or relationships that build trust and mutual understanding.
DevelopmentAid: What are the long-term risks and opportunities of the UN closing offices in the EU and some middle-income countries?
“The consolidation of UN offices presents significant trade-offs. The organization is prioritising reform to ensure it remains effective, cost-efficient, and responsive to the people it serves. The UN chief calls for major reforms to cut costs and improve efficiency, suggesting opportunities for resource reallocation towards fragile contexts. However, the risks are substantial: losing on-the-ground intelligence in countries facing ‘hidden’ challenges such as rising inequality, democratic backsliding, or climate vulnerability that don’t qualify as humanitarian crises. Middle-income countries often harbor deep pockets of poverty and marginalization that require sustained advocacy. The opportunity lies in redirecting savings to underfunded crises, but this assumes regional hubs can maintain the same quality of partnership, political dialogue, and early warning that country offices can provide. The fundamental risk is undermining the UN’s universal mandate, potentially transforming it into a crisis-response mechanism rather than a development partner for all member states.”
“The closure of the UN offices carries inevitable risks as global priorities shift. While many governments focus on traditional security and increase investments in defense, true security lies in the people and their fundamental rights, not in weapons. Climate impacts, such as flooding and population displacement, as well as migration that is driven by conflict and economic or political instability, show that ignoring these challenges has a high human cost. Without strong UN engagement, middle-income countries could face difficulties accessing the resources, knowledge, and partnerships needed to build resilience and protect their communities. However, opportunities also arise. The transition can motivate governments, civil society, and businesses to innovate and assume greater responsibility. By reassessing governance frameworks, creating inclusive programs, and diversifying funding sources beyond a reliance on major powers, countries can foster sustainability in an autonomous and participatory manner. Furthermore, they can leverage tools such as the Paris Agreement to strengthen community resilience, improve infrastructure, build early warning systems, and train populations in preventive measures, reducing loss of life and protecting livelihoods. This approach allows for collaborative and proactive action, ensuring that every measure defends the rights of those most in need and leaves a legacy of hope for future generations.”
“Without a physical presence, the UN may lose its proximity to local actors. This will result in weakened relationships with civil society and dramatically reduce its influence on institutions such as the EU or regional development banks. At the same time, the move can free resources for fragile and low-income states where the needs are greatest. Strategically consolidating operations into regional hubs could improve efficiency, reduce the duplication of efforts, and encourage cross-border approaches to labor mobility and environmental policy issues. However, the opportunity lies not in just redefining its presence in a form of physical offices, but in providing more effective, targeted, flexible support that is aligned with today’s global dynamics.”
“The strategic consolidation of the United Nations represents a classic dilemma of weighing efficiency and effectiveness against the assets of presence on the ground. The most significant opportunity is to change the rare low-level investments to the sites of the most fragility, introducing new measures toward a more adaptive, data-driven model of engagement that will also support greater ownership of states and regional collaboration. However, the trade-offs for the risks of long-term consequences are significant. Closing country offices will entail all sorts of loss, including contextual intelligence and trust-based relationships with national and civil society actors. The transformative challenges found in middle-income states and even European Union countries related to social inequality, democratic deconsolidation, and migration often carry unspoken challenges in their dynamics that require the direct advocacy and convening authority the UN brings with its physical footprint.”
“The closure of UN offices in middle-income countries and parts of the EU reflects understandable pressures to consolidate resources, yet it carries significant risks. Country offices often play a unique role in maintaining visibility on issues that may be politically inconvenient, such as migration, inequality, and climate adaptation. Without a local presence, advocacy for marginalized groups can weaken, and relationships with civil society actors may erode. This could gradually narrow the UN’s mandate toward fragile states, reducing its universality and credibility.”
See also: UNAIDS’ future in doubt as UN and agency diverge on closure plans
DevelopmentAid: Can regional hubs and digital platforms truly take on the mandate of supporting inclusive and equitable development?
“Regional hubs offer technical expertise and economies of scale but face inherent limitations. The reform seeks to ensure work is conducted in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Yet physical presence does matter deeply for trust-building, particularly with marginalized communities and civil society. Digital platforms cannot replicate the contextual understanding, political relationships, or rapid responsiveness that in-country teams can provide. Hubs that create one-size-fits-all solutions create the risk of missing local nuances. Whilst they excel at knowledge-sharing and regional coordination, they struggle with grassroots engagement and real-time adaptation to shifting political dynamics. The model may work for stable countries with strong institutions, but for those with emerging vulnerabilities or weak governance, remote engagement risks arriving too late. True inclusivity demands proximity, not just connectivity.”
“The digitalization of processes is not negative if it is understood as a tool that can optimize work, strengthen intersectoral coordination, and integrate all development actors, including governments, private companies, civil society organizations, and financial institutions. However, it cannot replace the value of human contact or relationships that build trust and mutual understanding, as these are the spaces where risks in critical areas such as migration, inequality, and climate adaptation are most clearly perceived. Technology, accompanied by empathy and cooperation, must serve as a bridge that brings people together, not a barrier that separates them. Digitalization can strengthen social programs for displaced populations by integrating all actors into a circular economy model: governments support businesses, businesses strengthen social programs, and institutions, including the UN and NGOs, provide structure, knowledge, and guidance. This approach generates tangible human impact, fosters employment, green financial incentives, and community resilience. Furthermore, it can promote awareness of human rights, reduce migrants’ vulnerability, and ensure access to education and even employment opportunities during their stay. Aligned with the SDGs and the principle of leaving no one behind, digitalization can become a tool of hope, capable of protecting the most vulnerable and strengthening unity and collaboration within communities.”
“Regional hubs and remote platforms can partially reduce the pressure on local country offices by centralizing expertise and leveraging technology for broader outreach. Hubs enable coordinated responses to cross-border issues such as migration or climate change. At the same time, digital tools can facilitate real-time data sharing and stakeholder engagement. Yet, they cannot fully incorporate the nuanced, context-specific advocacy and relationship-building of in-country offices, which are vital for addressing local inequalities and ensuring inclusive development. A wide-scale replacement of regional offices by hubs will only foster criticism against the UN entities about their inability to provide a well-timed response that is adapted to the local circumstances. Moreover, a physical presence is often essential for engaging vulnerable groups, mediating between government and civil society, and ensuring that development programs reflect context-specific needs.”
“No digital engagement or regional hub can replace the role of country offices – they are a great complement for technical assistance, data analysis, and monitoring, but organization engagement that is meeting the demands of equitable and inclusive development cannot use substitutes. Inclusion is ultimately grounded in proximity, being aware of and/or understanding the messy relationship of local social dynamics, and factors in the political context. Besides the value of the engagements or the technological modality, the UN is quickly returning to a technocracy, it limits the UN’s potential to create access to change, and sustained commitment to fulfill its universal mandate and fundamental promise.”
“Regional hubs and digital platforms offer efficiency and can enhance coordination across borders. However, they are unlikely to fully replicate the trust, nuance, and informal influence that in-country staff build over time. The real opportunity lies in hybrid models: using hubs and digital tools to streamline operations, while retaining modest but meaningful in-country representation to ensure inclusivity and sustained engagement with local stakeholders.”
See also: Tracking the humanitarian layoff surge: Who’s losing jobs?
Finding a job in international development in current times is not easy. Even with extensive expertise, background, and skills, candidates need to find new ways to stay ahead of the competition. DevelopmentAid.org comes with a full spectrum of resources and tools to help candidates to more easily navigate through this complex process. The Individual Professional Membership offers access to the largest job board in international development, tenders, and grants for individuals, webinars, reports, and news to always stay up to date and never miss an opportunity.
