Funding of UN inter-agency pooled funds is highly concentrated among just a few partners. As Figure 20 reveals, the 15 top contributors in 2023 were responsible for 80% of these contributions. Germany, the top contributor, provided US$ 407 million across all fund categories, of which more than 25% went to CERF (US$ 107 million). The next two countries, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, provided US$ 345 million and US$ 304 million respectively. Combined, these three donors accounted for over a third of UN inter-agency pooled funding received in 2023, reflecting their leadership in advancing flexible, collaborative financing.

The UN Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), administered by the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office (MPTF Office), stands out within the peace and transition category as the UN’s primary financial instrument for addressing and preventing violent conflict. In 2023, it received US$ 161 million in contributions, which equates to 39% of the UN inter-agency peace and transition portfolio. The PBF encompasses a broad range of partners and represents a concerted international effort to support joint UN responses to critical peacebuilding opportunities. It is guided by the principles of timeliness, catalytic impact and risk tolerance, and has at its core a strong commitment to national ownership and integrated approaches.

Equally significant is the growing role of climate and environment pooled funds within the development-related category. These funds respond to the UN Common Agenda’s call for action on the ‘triple crisis’ of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. The portfolio has evolved from early forest-focused initiatives, such as the UN-REDD Programme and the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), into a broader range of funds supporting biodiversity and marine ecosystems. These include the Cali Fund, the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, the Systematic Observation Financing Facility (SOFF), the Nature4Health Fund, and the Infrastructure Resilience Accelerator Fund (IRAF), all of which are actively leveraging new climate and environment partnerships for transformative change.⁴¹

Whereas Figure 20 highlights the top donors’ total contributions in absolute terms, reflecting volume-based leadership, Figure 21 showcases Member States with a more than 10% share of earmarked contributions for develop ment activities channelled through UN inter-agency pooled funds. As previously noted, the 2024 Funding Compact commits Member States to providing 30% of non-core contributions for development activities through UN inter-agency pooled funds by 2027. Four Member States have already fulfilled this commitment according to 2023 figures: Finland, Lithuania, Ireland and Norway. Meanwhile, Liechtenstein, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and New Zealand have all surpassed the 25% mark.

Turning to resources transferred from UN inter-agency pooled funds for project/programme implementation, Figure 22 presents the top UN entities receiving such funding, disaggregated by thematic area. Panel A illustrates the transfers made in 2023, while Panel B shows cumulative values for the period between 2016 – when SDG implementation began – and 2023.

UNICEF was the top recipient of UN inter-agency pooled funds in 2023, having been allocated US$ 320 million, 62% of which came from humanitarian pooled funds. WFP was second, with US$ 274 million, the majority of which (83%) was sourced from humanitarian-themed funds, in line with its core mandate. UNDP ranked third, having received US$ 235 million. Looking at the cumulative values for the 2016–2023 period, UNDP was the largest overall recipient of UN inter-agency pooled funds, with $3.0 billion. Of this, 73% came from development-related funds, reflecting UNDP’s role in supporting the long-term development of UN programming countries.

The UN Secretariat ranked among the top three recipients of UN inter-agency pooled funding from 2016 to 2023, primarily due to OCHA’s partner role in channelling funding to NGOs under six humanitarian CBPFs administered by the MPTF Office (Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan). In 2023, following a policy decision by the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, administration of these six CBPFs was transferred from the MPTF Office to OCHA.

Figure 23 presents the top 15 countries or areas that received transfers from UN inter-agency pooled funds, disaggregated by thematic area. Afghanistan continues to be the country receiving the most funding from UN inter-agency pooled funds, predominantly from the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund and CERF. Apart from Bangladesh, humanitarian pooled funds provided the greatest share when it came to recipient transfers, particularly so in the case of the following:⁴² Myanmar (97%); Ukraine (95%); the State of Palestine (94%); Ethiopia (93%); the Syrian Arab Republic (93%); and Sudan (91%). This pattern demonstrates the enabling role of UN inter-agency pooled funds in responding to protracted, complex crisis settings, as well as emerging ones.

Figure 24 shows the countries or areas in which pooled funds accounted for 15% or more of earmarked development-related expenses. In doing so, it illustrates the strategic significance of UN inter-agency pooled funds for UN development-related activities. This is especially the case for lower-income countries, fragile countries and small island developing states (SIDS), where these resources support integrated, multi-stakeholder, priority-aligned programming of – among other things – UNSDCFs and national development plans. In 2023, 34 countries surpassed the 15% threshold, while a total of 54 countries received more than 10%. Despite the former figure remaining at the same level seen in 2022, it constitutes a significant increase on the 28 countries recorded in 2018.

A growing number of countries are benefitting from UN inter-agency pooled funds. Tokelau, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea stood out in 2023, with more than 70% of their UN earmarked development expenses channelled through UN inter-agency pooled funds.⁴³ In Tokelau’s case, funding was provided through the Joint SDG Fund; for Gabon, primarily through CAFI; and for Equatorial Guinea, through the Equatorial Guinea MPTF. All three funds are administered by the MPTF Office.