LocationsEvaluating the Funding Windows
A pivotal moment for development
Development finance is under strain. Official development assistance is sharply declining, and even at its COVID‑19 peak, contributions to the UN development system stalled. In this climate, the Funding Windows—UNDP’s flexible, thematic channel—matter more than ever.
What can be done to make them work better? How can the Funding Windows attract more partners and funds, give UNDP the flexibility it needs and enhance efficiency?
This evaluation was the first comprehensive assessment of the Funding Windows, arriving at a pivotal moment for UNDP and the wider multilateral system. Its findings lay out a roadmap for reform: sharpen the Funding Windows’ identity, elevate governance, test new funding models and refocus on equity and sparking wider change.
A middle ground offer to donors
The Funding Windows were established in 2016 as the principal UNDP mechanism for mobilizing flexible, thematic resources. They consolidated the previous issue-specific Thematic Trust Funds into four broad thematic Windows:
- Poverty and Inequality
- Governance, Peacebuilding, Crisis and Resilience
- Nature, Climate and Energy
- Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment
The Funding Windows offered a middle ground between flexible ‘core’ and tightly earmarked ‘project’ funding, incentivizing more flexible funding in exchange for greater transparency and results-based reporting at a lower management fee.
Catalytic impact
The Funding Windows achieved catalytic impact in three distinct ways:
Piloting new ideas
Funding Window resources enabled UNDP country offices to experiment with new approaches or pilot innovative solutions that would otherwise lack support. These small-scale interventions served as proof of concept, demonstrating the viability of new models or technologies. For example, in Moldova, Funding Window funding helped launch an energy sandbox to test smart electricity meters, which later informed broader energy sector reforms.
Improving quality
Catalytic funding was used to recalibrate existing initiatives, for instance by strengthening gender dimensions, improving access for marginalized groups or adapting programmes to shifting local needs. In Sri Lanka, Funding Window support enabled a revision of the beneficiary list to the national social protection programme, making sure no one is left behind. This did not lead to funding for UNDP, but helped unlock significant International Financial Institution financing for the national social protection programme.
Moving from crisis to development
The Funding Windows helped UNDP and its partners move from short-term crisis response to longer-term development. Funding Window resources have been instrumental in supporting early recovery efforts, rebuilding social infrastructure and fostering peacebuilding in conflict-affected settings. In Ethiopia, Funding Window allocations supported climate adaptation and early warning systems, helping communities respond more effectively to climate shocks and conflict-related crises. In countries like Tunisia and Ukraine, Funding Window support was instrumental in repositioning UNDP’s offer when the programming context changed.
Funding Window funding was an important driver of local resource mobilization in about half the sample countries.
Less than forecast, tightly earmarked
Following their creation in 2016, the Funding Windows faced an initial decline in contributions compared to the former Thematic Trust Funds, which had attracted over $100 million annually. Although contributions recovered, the Funding Windows did not meet their financial targets. Mobilizing US$133 million in 2024, or 3% of total programme resources, the Funding Windows fell short of UNDP’s target of 7% flexible funding.
Contributions rose, but tight earmarking took over
Estimated level of earmarking of annual Funding Window contribution
Source: UNDP Funding Windows Portal, data as of May 19, 2025. UNDP Funding Window Secretariat, Fund Code Mapping, 2025. (Estimated level of earmarking was derived from the fund code mapping provided by the FW Secretariat)
In 2019, UNDP officially opened the Funding Windows to tightly earmarked contributions to offer a simpler, faster alternative to project agreements and broaden donor participation. This shift pushed the share of tightly earmarked contributions from about half to two thirds. While these funds helped keep the Funding Windows afloat, it compromised the flexibility the Funding Windows were designed to offer. Although the evaluation found no evidence that tightly earmarked funds reduced the Funding Windows’ ability to support UNDP’s strategic priorities, this practice went against their intended agility and the spirit of the Funding Compact. It left donors uncertain about the mechanism’s purpose.
By 2024, flexible funding had fallen to 29% and is expected to drop further over the coming years. This mirrors a UN‑wide pattern: despite policy commitments to flexibility and predictability, donors continue to prefer tightly earmarked funding.
Blurred identity
The Funding Windows tried to be many things at once: flexible capital, crisis surge, innovation lab, portfolio enabler and donor visibility platform. This blurred their identity and made them hard to explain to partners, who struggled to distinguish the Funding Windows from other UNDP funding channels and inter-agency thematic funds.
The introduction of 25 flagship initiatives in 2024 added to this confusion, with one donor describing it as ‘another layer of jargon to the moonshots, global programmes and signature solutions’. There was no mechanism for donors to softly earmark contributions to the flagships, and the role of the portfolio approach within flagships remained unclear.
The two smallest Windows—Poverty and Inequality, and Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment—came closest to the intended model with a higher share of flexible funding. Yet their small size hampered their transformative potential and made it difficult to attract attention.
Contributions per Funding Window, 2019-2024
Source: UNDP Funding Windows Portal, data as of May 19, 2025
Donor diversification
Fifteen donors—primarily from the OECD—continued to support the Funding Windows. But UNDP struggled to engage non-traditional donors, such as programme countries or philanthropic actors, leaving the Funding Windows overly reliant on a narrow funding base.
Several factors limited traction with non-traditional donors. The multi‑thematic mandate and the Funding Windows’ multi‑purpose design made the offer less specific than many private and philanthropic partners typically seek. Coupled with unclear co-investment pathways and risk mitigation strategies, this constrained private partnership development.
While donor concentration was a systematic challenge across UN thematic funds, other organizations’ funds have more successfully diversified their donor base by offering greater visibility, innovative co-investment opportunities and tailored engagement. Successful models for attracting non-traditional donors include matching funds, challenge-based funding calls and clear avenues for donor participation in governance leading to ‘negotiated flexible funding’.
Recommendations for UNDP
To maximize the impact and relevance of the Funding Windows, the evaluation recommends clarifying and communicating their niche, rationalizing the flagship approach, and enhancing governance through elevated oversight and risk management. Resource mobilization should be prioritized and diversified, with a clear link to broader corporate efforts. The Funding Windows architecture should be streamlined, with reinforced commitment to gender and inclusion, and standard operating procedures and learning loops should be established to foster knowledge exchange and transparency.
Clarify the niche of the Funding Windows, to position them internally within UNDP funding modalities as the channel for flexible and softly earmarked funds and externally vis-à-vis other UN funds through a strong thematic identity. Clear messaging around this niche and the FWs’ purpose, architecture and ways of working, will help align internal stakeholders and appeal to diverse donor groups, including philanthropic and private contributors.
Formalize and rationalize the flagship approach by clarifying the modus operandi of the flagships, reducing the number of flagships, operationalizing soft earmarking to the flagships and boosting integrated ways of working within and across flagships. This will strengthen the thematic identity of the FWs and pitch the flagships as broad frameworks that serve as entry points for donor contributions.
Enhance Funding Windows governance to better oversee funded initiatives, manage risks and foster high-level partner engagement. This will support accountability across levels of the organization and reinforce partner confidence.
Emphasize the Funding Windows within the new Corporate Resource Mobilization Strategy for 2026-29 to bolster organization-wide buy-in for Funding Windows resource mobilization, underscore the need to raise flexible and softly earmarked resources, help diversify the Funding Windows partner base and clearly link up resource mobilization for the FWs to other corporate resource mobilization efforts. Over time, this may boost the volume of unrestricted thematic funding for UNDP programmes.
Adjust the Funding Windows architecture and strengthen the equity and inclusion focus of interventions to maintain strong coherence with UNDP strategic plans, align with the new Funding Windows vision statement, and ensure that gender equality and LNOB commitments are central to all Funding Windows. This will help to safeguard past achievements, while allowing for experimentation in the fields of crisis response, equity and inclusion and beyond.
Create standard operating procedures and foster learning to position the Funding Windows as an injection of both funds and technical know-how, reinforce operating modalities and ensure consistency, transparency and feedback loops. This will strengthen programming, inform planning and adaptive management across UNDP, and send a clear message to partners.
