Geneva — "We would question whether the UN and OCHA is the right group to be able to manage these pooled funds."
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 dark corners of aid punditry.
It's also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.
Today: Pooled fund conflict, OCHA's donor era, and who's looking for Mormon money?
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
On the radar |
More pooled fun: Another injection of US cash seems to cement UN pooled funds as a dominant mode of humanitarian funding - and the UN's aid coordination arm, OCHA, as the gatekeeper. A quick recap:
- The US and OCHA announced $1.8 billion more in humanitarian cash to be whooshed through UN pooled funds. This is on top of the $2 billion previously announced and rushed out the door to big aid agencies.
- Aid groups will have 12 months to spend the money instead of the six-month limit that applied to the initial $2 billion. UN agencies and INGOs blamed the tight six-month timeline for why big agencies dominated funding while local organisations were largely sidelined.
- Others have a different narrative. They point to rules that appeared to penalise applications from local organisations - outright exclusion in some cases. The slow vetting and closed registration for eligibility, predetermined lists and a head-start on applications for UN agencies in particular, as well as power imbalances and little meaningful participation on country-level advisory boards.
- UN relief chief Tom Fletcher seems to have successfully sold the US his humanitarian reset and the pooled funds as a "new model" for aid delivery. The State Department has said it plans to eventually push all US humanitarian funding through UN pooled funds.
Who should run pooled funds? This week the Lancet Commission on Health, Conflict, and Forced Displacement launched its proposed blueprint for reforming aid. Central to the 76-page proposal is some sort of global pooled fund. But a key difference: it can't be run by the UN or any one entity.
- Conflict of interest: "We would question whether the UN and OCHA is the right group to be able to manage these pooled funds for a variety of reasons," Paul Spiegel, the commission's chair, told us. "One is purely efficiency and effectiveness. Secondly, is there a conflict of interest when, at least in the past, most of these funds were going to UN, UN agencies, and then international NGOs that were part of the whole humanitarian country team. So it looks like the deck was stacked."
Is the pooled fund donor sales pitch back? Fletcher floated his idea to push more donor cash through UN pooled funds as his reset took shape in the aftermath of the humanitarian market crash last year. Some humanitarian leaders saw it as a cash grab. Fletcher appeared to be mending fences following backlash from other aid leaders in December. But ex-DOGE official Jeremy Lewin and the US seem happy to be the hype man: "We call on other governments and the private sector to increase their contributions to OCHA-managed pooled funds," a State Department statement read.
- Other donors don't appear willing to abandon the UN pooled funds, despite concern about US dominance and the country-based pooled funds' processes.
- Most big aid agencies seem unlikely to let UN pooled funds go, as long as they're funding significant portions of their programme budgets.
- And OCHA, now clearly a US grant administrator and a donor, doesn't seem eager to officially declare the US cash to be separate from the pooled funds.
- A clear separation might take the heat off the big aid agencies guzzling US money (some pointedly call it a "US government reserve allocation", avoiding the PF-word). It might also let OCHA once again claim the funds are a tool to localise aid.
Fundraising |
Mormon money: There's been a modest surge in humanitarian trips to Utah of late. The World Food Programme is hiring a partnership management consultant. A core function: "Support the management of the partnership with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" - perhaps better known as the Mormon church.
- Departing WFP boss Cindy McCain visited LDS church home base in Utah in January, where they highlighted a combined $40 million in previous support. Church officials previously visited Rome (where WFP is based) last year.
- WFP highlights the Mormon church as a private-sector partner. It also highlights its relationship with Palantir, the military contractor and AI arms dealer. Palantir also happens to be highlighted in last year's "economy of genocide" report by UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
- Not to be out-Mormoned, IOM chief Amy Pope just wrapped up a Salt Lake City visit as well. The head of the International Organization for Migration thanked the church "for its continued humanitarian partnership and commitment to practical solutions that improve people's lives," a press release read.
- The church, meanwhile, just gave $25 million to UNICEF.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Linklings |
Local aid funding: Aid groups are murky on how much funding they really give local organisations. An ODI Global report offers the clearest picture to date.
Cash: Boosting cash assistance, especially through local organisations, would make better use of dwindling funds, says the CALP Network, which advocates for cash aid in crises. A new report says $1.1 to $3.3 billion in assistance could be used more efficiently, unlocking help for tens of millions more people.
After aid: If global aid is failing and reform is flailing, what comes next? Peace Direct offers suggestions.
Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]
Irwin Loy, Policy editor
