Should United Nations agencies merge in 2026? | Experts’ Opinions

For decades, the United Nations (UN) has stood at the frontline of addressing global shocks – from conflict and climate change, to human rights violations and food insecurity. However, this year, the world’s largest development organization faces probably the biggest shock in its history so far: massive budget cuts that threaten its survival as we know it. The crises began in 2025, when U.S. President Donald Trump announced drastic aid cuts. Things got even worse in January 2026, when the U.S. announced its withdrawal from 66 international organisations, half of which are linked to the United Nations system. Given the funding cuts and overlapping mandates, what is the future of the affected UN agencies? Should they struggle to survive independently, or merge and consolidate to establish stronger future systems? Check some expert opinions below.

DevelopmentAid: How will the U.S. withdrawal from multiple UN agencies impact their future? Can other donors compensate for the financial, political, and normative gap left after the U.S. closes the door?

“The U.S. withdrawal from multilateral institutions announced in January 2026 would be extremely difficult to compensate for from a financial perspective. However, the USA’s contributions are not only substantial in volume but also signal willingness and capacity to support development and improve living conditions worldwide. While the United States has the financial capacity, currently it is administered by a president who clearly doesn’t care anymore. That may change over time, but in the short term, the funding gap would place significant strain on UN agencies. In my opinion, this can create a gap local organizations can use because financial leadership is only one dimension. Political and normative leadership in international development does not belong exclusively to one country and can and must be sustained collectively. Other states, foundations, networks, and organizations (local and international) have an opportunity to step forward to defend multilateral principles, international cooperation, and human rights norms. Moreover, the global landscape is evolving. The growth of the middle classes around the world represents a largely untapped source of individual and private contributions. If mobilized effectively, these actors could help diversify funding sources, particularly through more flexible, local and unearmarked contributions, strengthening the resilience of local organizations, compensating the decline of multilateral agencies.”

“With twelve years of experience in senior leadership roles in humanitarian response and development programming across West Africa and the MENA region, I consider the U.S. withdrawal from multiple UN agencies financially disruptive and politically consequential. The United States remains central not only to UN operational financing but also to the credibility of the UNFCCC process (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – editor’s note) and the Green Climate Fund. In fragile contexts, adaptation finance now underpins water systems, climate-resilient agriculture, flood protection, and displacement prevention. Disruption would therefore extend beyond institutions to communities, increasing humanitarian caseloads and reversing resilience gains. Other donors may partially compensate. European institutions could expand multilateral support, while China and Gulf donors may increase bilateral climate and development financing. However, such funding often depends on shifting geopolitical priorities and political recalibration rather than long-term institutional commitments. U.S. contributions, by contrast, have historically been more predictable and system-anchoring. Its absence would create not only a funding gap, but also a leadership and coordination vacuum in climate governance and humanitarian diplomacy.”

“The U.S. withdrawal from the UN would leave a massive funding gap that’s hard to fill. As the biggest contributor, covering 22% of the UN’s regular budget and more for specific agencies, the USA’s role is crucial. No amount of goodwill or financial support from others can fully replace their funding. Without U.S. support, UN agencies will struggle to function effectively. Other donors are unable to compensate for the shortfall, as Europe grapples with its own challenges, and traditional contributors such as the EU and UK face domestic fiscal pressures and increased defense expenditures, notably in supporting Ukraine. Western nations are scaling back aid allocations, driven by budgetary constraints, defense priorities, and ideological shifts. For instance, the UK is reducing its aid budget to 0.3% of gross national income by 2027, signaling a significant reorientation of its foreign aid strategy, particularly concerning the Global South. Although China may augment its contributions to expand its influence, it is unlikely to match U.S. funding levels. Middle-income countries, such as the Gulf States, may provide some assistance, but are unlikely to fully bridge the financial gap. China is a major player in global development, especially in Africa. Its aid often comes with strings attached – infrastructure projects and resource extraction, often financed by loans secured with natural resources. Some philanthropists are stepping in to cover part of the U.S. funding gap, especially for climate work. Still, their contributions only cover a fraction of the overall needs.”

“A potential U.S. withdrawal is less a singular event than an accelerant for the sector’s transition toward a multipolar funding landscape. Financial sustainability now depends on skillfully engaging emerging economies and the private sector, not merely replacing a single donor. As traditional donors like Canada face a period of intense debate over austerity, there is an urgency to innovate beyond traditional funding models. This demands a shift in managing finances to adapt to a more fragmented, dynamic, and opportunity-driven environment, ensuring stability while navigating the economic and geopolitical challenges of our times.”

“A recurring question among stakeholders is whether a merger would strengthen or weaken the United Nations system, especially given rising global humanitarian needs and recent reductions in U.S. government funding. The United States has long been one of the largest donors and a central actor in shaping global humanitarian priorities. Its withdrawal from multilateral institutions therefore creates a significant financial gap that other donors may struggle to fill, both in scale and influence.”

DevelopmentAid: Should some UN/humanitarian agencies merge in 2026 to reduce duplication and costs, or could this hinder their effectiveness?

“I do not believe UN or humanitarian agencies should merge to reduce costs. The effectiveness of the humanitarian sector comes from the diversity of mandates, principles, and operating models. Some actors are designed to provide life-saving assistance at scale; others are designed to influence policy, expose violations, and defend rights. That diversity is not “duplication” so much as complementarity. Advocacy is essential in humanitarian action, but not every organization can do it publicly. For example, the ICRC’s (International Committee of the Red Cross – editor’s note) comparative advantage is its strict neutrality, confidentiality, and dialogue with all parties, which enables access in highly sensitive contexts where more political or public-facing organizations may be denied access. At the same time, independent advocacy organizations and protection actors play a critical role in documenting abuses, shaping norms, and pushing for accountability work the ICRC often cannot undertake publicly without compromising its operational model. Both approaches are needed, and merging them could dilute each one’s effectiveness. Rather than consolidation, international organizations should reassess their scope, refocus on core mandates, and shift more resources and decision-making power to local organizations, which are often more effective and efficient.”

“Selective and phased consolidation may improve efficiency and coherence, but large-scale mergers in 2026 would carry significant operational and climate-programming risks if driven primarily by fiscal pressure rather than field evidence. From operational leadership across West Africa and the Middle East, fragmentation already imposes substantial costs. Parallel assessments, overlapping sector mandates, duplicated logistics chains, and multiple coordination platforms remain common, particularly in food security, climate adaptation, and protection programming. Strategic consolidation could strengthen accountability, reduce administrative overheads, and better align humanitarian, development, and climate adaptation interventions. This alignment is increasingly important as adaptation finance and humanitarian assistance converge in the same vulnerable communities. However, poorly designed mergers risk weakening technical expertise, slowing emergency response, disrupting climate-finance pipelines, and undermining trust with affected populations. Reform is necessary, but it should be gradual, evidence-driven, and operationally informed rather than imposed as a short-term budget-saving measure.”

“Merging UN agencies could cut administrative costs and boost efficiency. By eliminating redundant offices, procurement systems, and leadership structures, resources could be redirected to core programming. However, merging agencies risks losing specialized expertise and blurring mandates. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), for example, have unique roles, despite some overlap. Consolidation could create inefficient bureaucracies that don’t serve anyone well. We’ve seen this movie before – structural adjustment policies promised prosperity but delivered suffering. Not a script we want to follow again. Zimbabwe collaborates with various UN agencies, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme (WFP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Health Organization (WHO), on issues like food security and child nutrition. While a single agency might simplify coordination, Zimbabwe values the specialized skills each brings – WFP’s logistics expertise in drought response, for instance, is hard to replicate.”

“In this context, institutional consolidation appears logical. Mergers can enhance efficiency, but they should be executed with surgical precision. The primary risk is not operational, but strategic: that consolidation could dilute specialized expertise, obscure nuanced issues, and overshadow smaller, critical mandates in favour of a monolithic agenda. The measure of success for any merger must be its impact on field-level effectiveness and its ability to remain human-centred. True reform is about building a system that is more responsive to the needs of affected populations, not just to donors’ demands. The balance between efficiency and mission integrity is paramount.”

“While merging may offer efficiency and cost savings, it also carries risks in that specialised mandates could be weakened, and the agility required for rapid crisis response may be compromised. Ultimately, mergers must be approached with caution. Efficiency is important, but not at the expense of effectiveness, especially as humanitarian needs intensify and global political consensus is weakening.”

DevelopmentAid: If mergers become inevitable, which UN agencies are most likely to merge and why?

“I do not believe mergers are inevitable. Instead, relevance will depend on how organizations adapt their systems, governance, and operating models. The agencies most likely to endure are those that decentralize decision-making and bring leadership and operational authority closer to the contexts in which they work. This includes shifting strategic, programmatic, and financial authority to regional and country levels rather than concentrating power in headquarters far from operations. Organizational structures are also likely to evolve. We may see more distributed leadership models, with functions such as CEO, COO, or senior management increasingly fractionalized or regionally based. A strong but lean core team would remain focused on global positioning, compliance, and relations in the donor countries, while a strong resource mobilization team would develop regional philanthropic strategies in countries of operation, rather than relying predominantly on traditional back-donor governments. Rather than formal mergers, cost reductions are more likely to come from stronger networks and enhanced coordination mechanisms. Mutualizing core support functions such as logistics, IT, finance, or security at the field or regional level could significantly reduce overhead while preserving organizational identity, mandate clarity, and operational effectiveness.”

“Consolidation would likely begin where mandates already overlap operationally and climate exposure is highest. Food systems are a primary candidate. Emergency food assistance, nutrition, agricultural recovery, and climate-resilient livelihoods are increasingly delivered along a single continuum, yet managed through separate institutional structures. Integrating selected operational functions could improve efficiency while preserving technical specialization. Similarly, agencies working in maternal health, child protection, education, and population dynamics increasingly serve the same communities through parallel delivery platforms, creating duplicated procurement, monitoring, and field structures. On coordination architecture, climate-risk analysis, early-warning systems, and needs-assessment functions are replicated across multiple UN entities, slowing response during climate-driven emergencies. Among international NGOs, shrinking institutional grants, higher compliance costs, and the growing importance of climate-earmarked funding are already encouraging regional mergers and shared-service models. The principal risk lies not in consolidation itself, but in maintaining fragmented structures under tightening global humanitarian and climate-finance constraints.

“The weakest agencies are already vulnerable to takeover. Expect development agencies to merge or get swallowed up.

• UNDP, UN-Habitat, and UNEP could merge to form an ‘UN Sustainable Development Agency’, combining development, urban planning, and environmental efforts.
• WFP and FAO could merge, combining food aid and agricultural development expertise to tackle crises more effectively.
• UNFPA, UNICEF, and WHO could consolidate their reproductive, maternal, and child health efforts to eliminate duplication and boost impact.

International NGOs like CARE, Oxfam, and Save the Children might streamline operations, sharing admin functions while keeping their programming distinct. Climate-focused groups could also merge as funding priorities shift. These proposed mergers focus on agencies with overlapping mandates, shared beneficiaries, and similar geographic focus, aiming to boost efficiency without sacrificing specialized expertise. Zimbabwe benefits from these agencies’ support. A UNDP-UNEP merger could boost climate adaptation efforts in Matabeleland, addressing environmental and development challenges. However, splitting FAO from WFP might undermine tobacco crop diversification support, which Zimbabwe needs. Consolidation might save money short-term, but risks undermining the nuanced response complex crises need – and global challenges aren’t getting simpler.”

“As debates about merging UN agencies gain momentum, attention often turns to entities such as UNDP, UNICEF, and UNFPA, whose mandates frequently intersect in development and social protection. They are frequently cited as potential candidates for a merger. Similarly, international NGOs with overlapping humanitarian portfolios may face growing pressure to integrate their operations to reduce duplication and maximize impact.”

See also: Aid cuts force humanitarian agencies worldwide to shed staff

In some previous articles published by DevelopmentAid on how to jumpstart a career with the United Nations, and tips for junior professionals, experts shared some recommendations regarding the required skills, background, common mistakes, challenges, and opportunities. All of them mentioned that the largest development organization in the world has one of the most competitive selection processes. That is why, for those who want to follow the footsteps of those already in the UN system, good preparation alone is not enough. In order to get a position, candidates are encouraged to apply to multiple opportunities or start with short-term consultancies. And in order not to miss any opportunities, consultants and experts can choose the DevelopmentAid’s Individual Professional Membership, which offers access to the largest job board in the international development sector, and also tenders and grants for individuals. Specifically, related to UN jobs, they can search now through more than 800 open positions, or contact the organization directly. Getting a job there is not easy, but not impossible when motivation, preparation, and access to the right tools go hand in hand.