The scale and urgency of crisis-affected countries’ needs mean they account for the majority of UN system expenses. Beyond this designation, however, funding levels and modalities vary significantly according to country income level. As such, this section examines the distribution of UN expenses across low-, lower middle-, upper middle- and high-income countries, distinguishing how core and earmarked resources are allocated within each group.76 This perspective offers insights into how the UN system balances support for immediate crisis responses with longer-term development objectives across diverse economic contexts.
Figure 33 displays UN humanitarian and development (UN OAD) expenses according to the income level of UN programme countries, while also distinguishing between crisis-affected and non-crisis-affected contexts.77
UN development, humanitarian, and peace operations expenses by crisis-affected country, 2023 (US$ billion)
Source: Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB) and Report of the Secretary-General (A/80/74-E/2025/53).
It should be noted that the total values differ from those in Figure 30, as Figure 33 includes only resources allocated to specific countries, excluding those designated at the global or regional level.
Low-income countries (26) received the highest level of UN expenses in 2023, totalling US$ 18.3 billion, followed by lower middle-income countries (51) with US$ 12.1 billion, upper middle-income countries (55) with US$ 8.5 billion, and high-income countries (29) with just US$ 0.5 billion. Among the four income groups, low-income countries have the highest average UN expenses per country and the greatest reliance on earmarked resources, which accounted for 86% of their total expenses.
UN development and humanitarian expenses in UN programming countries by income status, 2023 (US$ billion)
* The non-crisis-affected and crisis-affected UN programming countries are integrated by a variety of income levels.
Source: Report of the Secretary-General (A/80/74-E/2025/53), World Bank, DPO, DPPA.
The 39 crisis-affected countries received a total of US$ 28.3 billion in UN OAD, accounting for 70% of overall country-level spending across the 162 countries host to UN programmes. This funding was overwhelmingly earmarked (US$ 23.7 billion), with only comparatively modest allocations from core (US$ 2.8 billion) and other resources (US$ 1.8 billion). By contrast, the non-crisis-affected countries (123) received US$ 12.2 billion, which featured a relatively higher share of core (US$ 2.2 billion) and a slightly lower share of other resources (US$ 0.7 billion). Thus, although total funding for the latter group was lower, the structure in place better supports long-term development programming and strategic investment.
The interconnectedness of peace, development and the fulfilment of humanitarian needs – highlighted in section 2.3 – is particularly evident when comparing crisis-affected countries with income classifications: more than half the crisis-affected countries are also classified as low-income. Moreover, protracted crisis may result in an income classification downgrade. For example, Lebanon had been classified as an upper middle-income country since 1997, only to be downgraded to the lower middle-income group in 2011 following a sharp exchange rate depreciation and 11 consecutive years of falling gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.78
Hazardous weather events, such as droughts, floods and other climate crises, have joined conflict among the root causes of famine and displacement. At the same time, the presence of violence and conflict can severely undermine the capacity to respond to climate change impacts.79 This overlap underscores the compounded vulnerabilities many countries face, and therefore the need for integrated, sustained support capable of addressing both immediate needs and long-term structural challenges.