A major shift is taking place in how humanitarian work under the United Nations will be funded, and the effects are expected to reach countries that rely heavily on international aid, including Kenya.
The United States has confirmed that it is changing its approach to financing UN humanitarian operations, moving away from the system that has been in place for many years.
The announcement was made on Tuesday, December 30, by the U.S Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Mike Waltz. The changes follow a new Memorandum of Understanding signed in Geneva between the U.S Department of State and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, commonly known as OCHA.
According to U.S officials, the agreement is meant to redefine how American money is managed, tracked, and used within UN-led humanitarian programs.
“Today, the State Department and the United Nations signed a groundbreaking agreement to overhaul how the U.S. funds and oversees UN humanitarian programs,” a statement from Waltz read.
U.S officials described the move as a “new paradigm” in the way humanitarian assistance will be delivered across the world.
Under the new system, the United States will no longer focus on funding many small, individual projects run by different UN agencies. Instead, funds will be pooled together at the country or crisis level and managed by OCHA.
This pooled funding model is meant to give humanitarian teams more flexibility to respond to urgent needs without being tied to strict project boundaries.
The shift comes at a time when U.S voluntary contributions to UN humanitarian agencies have increased significantly.
These contributions are estimated to have reached about Ksh 1 trillion, or USD 8 billion, every year.
Despite this rise, Washington has raised concerns about how effective some of these programs have been.
“While annual U.S. contributions to the UN have skyrocketed in recent years, many UN bodies have abandoned their mission,” the State Department said, pointing to what it called “bureaucratic inefficiencies, duplication, and ideological creep.”
Kenya is among the countries likely to feel the impact of this new funding approach. The country hosts major UN humanitarian operations linked to drought response, refugee support, and instability in the wider region.
Before the new agreement, U.S support to UN agencies in Kenya was handled on a project-by-project basis. Funding for drought response, for instance, would be separately negotiated with agencies such as the World Food Programme, UNHCR, and UNICEF.
One drawback of that system was that several agencies sometimes worked in the same areas while performing similar roles. This often led to overlapping mandates and higher operational costs.
Under the new MoU, all U.S humanitarian funding for Kenya will be placed into a country-level pooled fund managed by OCHA. This is expected to allow money to move more easily between sectors such as food, health, and protection depending on where the need is greatest.
The State Department says the new model is designed to “nearly double the life-saving impact of each U.S. dollar spent” on UN humanitarian aid while also reducing indirect costs.
U.S officials estimate that the changes could save American taxpayers about Ksh245 billion, or USD 1.9 billion, compared to previous funding methods.
As part of the agreement, the United States has committed an initial Ksh258 billion, or USD 2 billion, to support life-saving humanitarian work in dozens of countries in 2026. UN leadership has welcomed the move.
“At a moment of immense global strain, the United States is demonstrating that it is a humanitarian superpower,” said UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher.
“It shifts U.S. funding of UN humanitarian work onto clearly defined, accountable, efficient, and hyper-prioritized funding mechanisms.”
For Kenya and other aid-dependent countries, the new funding system could reshape how humanitarian assistance is planned, delivered, and measured in the years ahead.
Add Comment