The Mandate That No Longer Exists: OCHA, the GHO 2026, and the Political Collapse Behind Humanitarian Triage

Executive Summary
The GHO 2026 sets a prioritised target of 87 million people with $23 billion - a dramatic departure from the $47 billion appeal for 2025 and nowhere near the 250 million people in actual need [1].
For 30 years, the normative consensus held that agencies must "state the totality of humanitarian needs, even if the prospect of full CAP funding is unrealistic" [3]. That consensus has collapsed.
This shift occurred not because OCHA changed, but because donors explicitly abandoned needs-based funding - without ever formally rescinding their commitments.
The GHO is no longer an accountability document. It has become an operational instruction manual for triage.
OCHA now faces an existential choice: maintain its truth-telling function and be ignored, or calibrate to donor appetite and institutionalise abandonment.

Introduction: The Number That Confirms the System Has Changed
On 8 December 2025, Tom Fletcher stepped up to the podium in Geneva and launched the Global Humanitarian Overview 2026 with a number that should force an immediate reckoning across the sector: 87 million. It landed with a thud - not because it was unexpected, but because it confirmed a shift many had sensed and few had been willing to say aloud.

Eighty-seven million is not a technical adjustment. It is not a recalibration. It is not a refinement of targeting methodologies. It is the first time OCHA has openly built donor retreat into the very structure of its flagship appeal.

It is also nowhere near the real scale of need.

The system assesses 250 million people in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. It targets 135 million in the full $33 billion plan. But it has budgeted to reach only 87 million in practice - a "prioritised" subset that now defines what the system believes it can realistically attempt to save [1].

The rest remain acknowledged but effectively unaccounted for in operational terms.

Written off.

The message from Geneva was clear: the humanitarian system has stopped pretending that needs-based planning is still politically viable.

The press understood this immediately. A journalist at the briefing asked the only question that actually mattered:

"How worried are you that the less you ask, the less you will get?"

It was a pointed way of asking: Is this realism, or surrender?

Fletcher's response was unusually direct, almost disarmingly so:

"We don't get more funding just by naming a bigger number… I'm trying to be realistic here about what would be a stretch goal in the current funding conditions." [1]
For a sector still formally anchored in humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and needs-based action, this was not a routine statement. This was a formal acknowledgement that a core pillar of humanitarian coordination has shifted.

That one answer represents the most significant normative break since Resolution 46/182 created OCHA in 1991 and defined its role as the independent arbiter of humanitarian need.

But before we rush to critique this pivot - and there is plenty to critique - we have to sit with a harder truth.

What, precisely, was OCHA supposed to do?

Should it publish 250 million and watch donors dismiss it as overreach? Insist on the full scale of need while political appetite collapses in Washington, Berlin, and London? Cling to a mandate designed for a funding environment that no longer exists?

Or adapt - and institutionalise abandonment in the process?

Here's the uncomfortable reality: there was no good option. Every path carried risk. Every decision would reshape how the world perceives humanitarian need.

And I'll be honest. Having watched this system from the inside - from cluster meetings to donor briefings to field-level triage sessions where you're deciding which villages get food and which don't - I'm not entirely sure I would have made a braver choice than Fletcher. The structural forces he's reacting to didn't begin last week or last month. They've been grinding through the system for years. 2025 simply accelerated what was already coming.

The 87 million figure is not the cause of the system's transformation. It is the symptom.

It is the number that confirms the humanitarian system has crossed a threshold - from denial into a new, more brutal phase of constrained realism.

The Mandate OCHA Was Created to Uphold
To understand what the 87 million figure actually means, we have to go back to the foundations. The architecture we still operate within was not an accident of institutional evolution. It was the product of a political crisis.

In 1991, after the coordination failures of the Gulf War and mounting frustration with fragmented, duplicative, and politically captured relief efforts, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 46/182.

I've been in this sector long enough to watch people's eyes glaze over when you cite UN resolutions. But this one matters. It laid down the core design of contemporary humanitarian coordination and introduced structural innovations that still define everything we do.

It created the position of the Emergency Relief Coordinator - the ERC - with responsibility for organising impartial needs assessments, preparing joint appeals, and mobilising resources across the UN system. The ERC was established as a neutral convenor, a figure expected to ensure that humanitarian action was driven by need, not political preference or donor strategy.

It established the Consolidated Appeals Process, the forerunner of today's Humanitarian Programme Cycle and the GHO. The CAP replaced ad-hoc, competing, and often contradictory appeals with a single coherent statement of need. That process was never just technical. It encoded a political expectation: coordination in service of impartiality.

And it enshrined the humanitarian principles - humanity, neutrality, impartiality - as operational obligations. Not abstract values. Functional requirements. Humanitarian need must be assessed impartially, and assistance must be delivered on the basis of that assessment.

This is why 46/182 is often called humanitarianism's magna carta. It created a compact between agencies and donors. Humanitarian actors would assess and state the totality of need. Donors would support action in proportion to that need.

The Normative Consensus: Stating the Totality of Needs
For more than a decade, that compact held.

Nowhere is the operative consensus stated more clearly than in OCHA's 2007 CAP Mid-Year Review:

"Humanitarian agencies have an obligation to state the totality of humanitarian needs, even if the prospect of full CAP funding is unrealistic…" [3]
Read that again. The system always accepted that donors would fall short. What it rejected was the idea that unmet needs should be hidden, diluted, or absorbed into "realistic" targets.

That single sentence captures the two-part discipline that defined humanitarian planning for a generation:

State the totality of need - even if donors won't meet it.

Prioritise within that totality - but never collapse unmet needs into operational targets.

This was the basis on which coordination bodies justified their existence. They were meant to be the custodians of truth-telling. The people who said the uncomfortable number out loud.

The Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative reinforced the same logic. Principle 6 committed donors to allocate funding "in proportion to needs and on the basis of needs assessments." [5]

The language is unambiguous. There was an expectation - even if aspirational - that donor behaviour would follow impartial need. Not the other way around.

The Quiet Unravelling
Here is what is most important to understand: none of the foundational commitments that built the modern humanitarian system have ever been formally rescinded.

No donor government has stood up and declared, "We are withdrawing from the Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles." No General Assembly resolution has rewritten 46/182 or diluted its requirement for impartial needs assessment. No global forum has issued a statement saying, "Needs-based allocation is no longer the backbone of humanitarian action."

On paper, nothing has changed. In practice, almost everything has.

What happened instead was quieter, incremental, and far more consequential. The retreat did not come through formal renegotiation. It came through non-compliance.

Donors simply stopped funding the compact they had helped build. The principles remained in place, still referenced in speeches, still cited in guidance, still printed in documents. But donor behaviour drifted steadily - and then dramatically - away from the norms they once endorsed.

And the system, for years, absorbed this contradiction. It stretched itself thinner, reformulated appeals, restructured HRPs, and rephrased humanitarian narratives to preserve the illusion that the compact was still intact.

For much of that time, the Global Humanitarian Overview served two purposes simultaneously:

A planning instrument - outlining what agencies intended to do, with what resources, in which locations.
An accountability mechanism - documenting the full scale of humanitarian need and exposing the gap between principle and practice.

The GHO once told uncomfortable truths. That was by design. It was the one place in the humanitarian architecture where the system stated plainly: this is the totality of need, this is what we are not funding, this is who we are failing. The 2026 GHO marks the moment that accountability function began to dissolve.

The system is no longer stating the totality of need and then prioritising within it. It is shrinking the totality itself - redefining the outer boundary of need to match what donors might realistically tolerate. Not because needs have decreased. They haven't. But because political appetite has collapsed.

The mandate established in 1991 still exists on paper. What no longer exists is the political consensus that once sustained it.

This is the rupture the sector has been reluctant to name.

The Compact Has Broken
The upheaval of 2025 was not a cyclical shortfall or a difficult budget year. It was the explicit abandonment of the political consensus underpinning OCHA's mandate.

The math is brutal.

The United States - historically the anchor donor, providing roughly 38% of global humanitarian funding in 2024 [6][7] - moved to terminate most of USAID's active portfolio. Internal documents indicated 86% of all USAID awards were slated for termination - some 5,341 mechanisms worth over $75 billion in life-of-project value across development, health, and humanitarian sectors combined [8][9]. The humanitarian component of this collapse was near-total.

Germany and the UK followed with cuts exceeding 50% [10]. Across capitals, humanitarian budgets narrowing by 40-60% were justified as fiscal discipline rather than political retreat.

By November, global humanitarian funding had fallen by around 50% in two years. GHO coverage hovered near 26% - almost certainly the lowest point in the modern humanitarian era [11].

This is not what underfunding looks like. This is what withdrawal looks like.

And once donors abandon needs-based allocation, OCHA's mandate becomes structurally unworkable. You cannot coordinate action around impartial needs assessments when the system's primary funders are no longer willing to be bound by them. You cannot hold donors accountable to norms they now quietly ignore. You cannot mobilise resources for principles donors have effectively walked away from. And you cannot preserve a compact when only one side is still trying to uphold it. The collapse of the compact did not begin with the GHO 2026. But the GHO 2026 is the moment it became impossible to deny.

Let's Be Honest
Let's be honest about what happened here.

The GHD signatories didn't announce they were abandoning needs-based funding. They didn't convene a summit to formally rescind Principle 6. They didn't rewrite any doctrine or update any normative frameworks.

They just stopped writing checks - and waited for the system to adapt around their silence.

That isn't a funding gap. That's a political choice dressed up as fiscal constraint. And the GHO 2026 is the moment that choice became structurally embedded in the system's core planning document.

The Hardest Question: What Should Cluster Coordinators Actually Do?
Before we condemn OCHA for abandoning its mandate, we need to confront a question that anyone who has ever worked inside humanitarian coordination knows far too well:

What is the best use of a cluster coordinator's time?

This isn't an abstract policy dilemma. It plays out every single day in crisis settings, in real meetings, with real trade-offs and real consequences. Think about the Food Security Cluster coordinator in Sudan. The Shelter Cluster lead in northwest Syria. The WASH coordinator in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

These are not people working with limitless bandwidth and large analytical teams. They are overstretched professionals juggling WhatsApp groups, access negotiations, reporting deadlines, partner crises, and the basic survival of their own pipelines.

And they face a choice - a choice the system has never been honest about.

Option A: Bear witness to the totality of needs
This is the traditional mandate. The moral mandate. The mandate encoded in the 2007 normative consensus.

Document every household in need. Map every destroyed water point. Count every child showing signs of acute malnutrition. Capture the scale of displacement even when no response capacity exists. Produce the comprehensive needs assessment that shows the true magnitude of suffering. Create the record that future investigators, historians, and accountability processes will depend on.

This is not busywork. This is the backbone of humanitarian truth-telling. It is the system's answer to the question: who is suffering, and how badly?

Option B: Focus on operational triage
Then there is the other mandate - the one nobody wants to articulate publicly but that dominates daily coordination in every major crisis.

Accept that comprehensive documentation will change nothing. Spend precious hours figuring out which partners are still operational, which roads are open, which warehouses still have stock. Identify the subset of districts where access is even theoretically possible. Concentrate what limited resources remain on these areas - not because they are the most in need, but because they are the most reachable.

Cut programmes you once believed were non-negotiable. Decide which populations will be deprioritised not because they matter less, but because the system can no longer reach them. And rewrite the Humanitarian Response Plan not as an impartial statement of need, but as a politically conditioned, resource-driven survival plan.

This is what Fletcher is signalling when he says the system must be "laser-focused" on the 87 million people it might actually be able to assist [1]. Not the 250 million in need - the 87 million within plausible operational reach.

This is triage. And triage is always an admission of system failure.

The 2007 consensus assumed both functions could coexist
State the totality of needs. Prioritise within that totality.

But that assumption depended on a funding environment where documenting unmet needs created political pressure, embarrassment, and action. The whole theory of change was rooted in visibility: if we show the scale of need, donors will move.

That mechanism no longer works.

Today, when documentation produces no reaction - no surge of bilateral support, no pledging conference, no emergency funding - the opportunity cost becomes impossible to ignore.

A cluster coordinator knows exactly what it means to spend hours documenting a caseload the system will not touch. It means fewer joint missions. Fewer troubleshooting calls. Fewer negotiations with authorities. Less attention to supply chain disruptions. Less bandwidth to prevent the collapse of the few actors still operating.

When documentation no longer produces resources, documentation becomes a cost the system cannot afford.

And that is the operational void the GHO 2026 quietly fills. By reframing the system's ambition around 87 million people, it implicitly instructs coordination structures to prioritise Option B - triage over truth-telling.

The danger is not just that this narrows the response. The danger is that it narrows the record of suffering itself.

What Fletcher Actually Chose - And Why It's Still Problematic
Understanding the impossible position does not mean accepting Fletcher's specific response.

Fletcher's approach, reflecting decisions made collectively through the inter-agency HPC Steering Committee, attempts to have it both ways. He frames the broader GHO as still relevant while operationally targeting 87 million of 250 million. He describes the reduced ask as "laser-focused" while acknowledging it represents less than half of actual need [1].

The problem is not that OCHA made hard choices. The problem is that OCHA made hard choices while pretending they weren't hard choices.

A more honest framing would distinguish between two documents:

The Accountability Document - the totality of humanitarian need as impartial assessment reveals it. 250 million people requiring $47 billion. This is what the principles of humanity, neutrality, and impartiality require us to state. This is the record.

The Operational Document - what we believe we can actually deliver given current donor behaviour. 87 million people with $23 billion. This is not what people need. This is what we can do. We present it under protest, as documentation of managed abandonment.

Instead, Fletcher merged these into a single "realistic" plan that obscures the political choice donors have made. The 87 million figure is presented as strategic focus rather than forced abandonment. The $23 billion is framed as a "stretch goal" rather than a capitulation.

This framing serves no one.

It doesn't pressure donors - they've already decided. It doesn't help affected populations - they're excluded either way. It doesn't preserve OCHA's credibility - practitioners can see through the language. And it doesn't give cluster coordinators clarity about what they're actually supposed to prioritise.

The Parallel Collapse: UN80 and the Contraction of Coordination
The week before Fletcher launched the GHO 2026, the UN Fifth Committee was debating the Secretary-General's revised budget estimates under the UN80 initiative [12].

The overall numbers are stark: a 15.1% reduction in the regular budget, an 18.8% reduction in staffing, $577 million cut from appropriations.

The picture for the humanitarian pillar specifically is contested. Initial figures suggested a 13.6% cut to OCHA and OHCHR combined, but the ACABQ Chair clarified during the same meeting that humanitarian assistance alone faces a reduction closer to 0.6% [12]. Even that smaller figure, however, represents an effective cut when set against exploding needs. Standing still is falling behind.

Secretary-General Guterres assured member states that "there will be no negative implications in relation to the implementation of mandates" [12]. He defended the staffing cuts by noting they correspond largely to currently vacant posts caused by the UN's liquidity freeze - an 18% vacancy rate that he framed as administrative adjustment rather than real reduction.

But this defence misses the point.

Abolishing vacant posts permanently caps OCHA's surge capacity. The ability to scale up during emergencies - to deploy additional coordination staff when crises escalate - depends on having posts that can be filled quickly. Eliminating them makes the current skeleton crew permanent.

Those unfilled positions are precisely what would allow OCHA to respond to the next Gaza, the next Sudan, the next crisis that demands surge coordination. And the Fifth Committee was not convinced. The Group of 77 and China, along with the African Group, challenged Guterres's assurance in the same meeting, stating they were "gravely concerned" that cuts would inevitably impact mandate implementation [12].

The scepticism is not mine alone. It is shared by the majority of UN member states. What we are witnessing is institutional contraction at every level: donors withdrawing, agencies cutting, coordination structures shrinking, and now the normative framework itself being recalibrated.

The retreat is comprehensive.

The Operational Imperative
The collapse of the funding model creates a secondary crisis that receives less attention: operational efficiency is no longer a strategic choice. It is a survival requirement.

In a world of abundance, administrative inefficiency is a nuisance. In a world where 87 million people must be served instead of 250 million, every dollar wasted on duplicative reporting, manual coordination, or outdated workflows represents a life that could have been reached.

If the top line cannot be increased - and the political signals suggest it cannot - then the bottom line must be radically transformed.

The old administrative ways of working are now too expensive to maintain. Organisations that do not adopt fundamental efficiency gains will find themselves unable to deliver even the triage-level assistance the GHO 2026 represents.

Consider what cluster coordinators currently spend their time on: consolidating partner reports into cluster reports, reformatting data for different donor templates, attending coordination meetings that produce meeting minutes rather than decisions, maintaining information management systems that nobody uses for actual decision-making.

In a world of 50% funding, that overhead is not sustainable.

The choice is stark: automate the administrative burden or accept that administrative burden will consume the resources meant for response.

The humanitarian sector has talked about "doing more with less" for years. That rhetoric has now become mathematical reality. The organisations that survive will be those that ruthlessly eliminate every hour of staff time that doesn't directly contribute to saving lives.

We've Seen This Before
The humanitarian system has reached normative breaking points before.

In the mid-1990s, the failures in Rwanda and Bosnia triggered a profound reckoning. The international community watched genocide unfold while peacekeepers stood by. Humanitarian actors were implicated in feeding camps that sustained perpetrators. The principles the system claimed to uphold were exposed as hollow.

Those crises generated the Sphere Standards, the cluster system, and the 2005 Humanitarian Reform Agenda. The failures of the 1990s produced structural reform because political will could still be mobilised through documented failure.

The difference now? The current collapse is not generating political will for reform. It is generating political will for retreat.

We aren't redesigning a system to meet rising needs. We're shrinking a system to fit political appetite.

That is the most significant reversal of the humanitarian ambition that resolution 46/182 established.

What OCHA Should Have Said
If I were in Fletcher's position, here is what I believe OCHA should have told the General Assembly:

"The humanitarian system was built on a compact between member states. Resolution 46/182 established that we would assess needs impartially and donors would fund in proportion to those needs. That compact has been broken.
That statement would be career-ending. It would generate diplomatic fury. It might accelerate the collapse it describes.

But it would be true.

And it would give cluster coordinators in the field something they desperately need: clarity about what they're actually supposed to do with their limited time.

Conclusion: The Mandate That Must Be Renegotiated
The GHO 2026 is not a technical document about funding priorities. It is the moment the humanitarian system acknowledged - without quite admitting - that the political consensus behind its creation no longer exists.

The 87 million figure is not a "laser-focused" plan. It is the institutionalisation of triage as the new normal. The $23 billion ask is not a "realistic" goal. It is the acceptance that two-thirds of people in need will receive nothing.

But the problem runs deeper than funding levels.

The United States has not merely cut humanitarian assistance. It has explicitly rejected the policy frameworks that were supposed to underpin the entire system. In March 2025, the US formally rejected and denounced the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals - becoming the first nation to abandon the framework since its unanimous adoption in 2015 [13]. The Grand Bargain - the 2016 agreement meant to make humanitarian financing more efficient and effective - remains on paper, but in practice its core commitments have been gutted. The US is still a nominal signatory, but the termination of over 60% of USAID awards to local and national actors has effectively nullified the localisation commitments at the heart of that agreement [10].

The normative architecture built over three decades is not being underfunded. It is being repudiated.

This is not a funding gap that better advocacy can close. This is a political rupture that demands a different response.

The honest path forward requires confronting several uncomfortable realities.

First, the sector must stop pretending the old consensus can be restored through incremental pressure. It cannot. The political foundations have shifted. The question is not how to get back to 2019 funding levels. The question is what kind of humanitarian action the new political reality can actually sustain - and how to maximise lives saved within those constraints.

Second, OCHA must separate its accountability function from its operational function. The totality of needs must still be stated - for the historical record, for future accountability, for the populations whose suffering deserves witness even if it doesn't produce funding. But this must be clearly distinguished from operational planning. Conflating the two serves no one.

Third, the General Assembly must be forced to clarify what it actually wants from humanitarian coordination. The current ambiguity is cowardice dressed as diplomacy. Either recommit to needs-based funding or explicitly authorise triage. Make the political choice visible. Stop asking OCHA to pretend that managed decline is strategic focus.

Fourth, humanitarian organisations must accept that operational efficiency is no longer optional. The administrative models of the growth era cannot survive the contraction era. Every hour spent on overhead that could be eliminated is an hour stolen from response. The hard changes the sector has avoided for years - consolidation, automation, elimination of duplicative structures - are now unavoidable.

The critique of OCHA must be tempered by the reality that cluster coordinators face every day: documentation that produces no response is documentation that competes with response. The normative framework built in 1991 assumed a donor environment that no longer exists. The framework built in 2016 assumed a political consensus that has now been explicitly rejected.

The mandate that created OCHA assumed donors would fund in proportion to needs. That assumption is no longer valid.

Until the sector stops mourning the system it had and starts building for the system it can sustain, we will continue pretending that "realistic" appeals and "laser-focused" plans are something other than what they are: the humanitarian system accepting its own transformation into something far smaller than what 250 million people need.

The question is not whether this transformation will happen. It is already happening.

The question is whether we will be honest about it - whether we will name the new political reality clearly enough to understand what it can support - and whether we will make the hard operational changes necessary to save as many lives as possible within the constraints we actually face.

I Want to Hear From Colleagues in the Field
In your context, is the GHO 2026 being framed as prioritisation - or as institutionalised abandonment?
How are cluster coordinators dividing their time now: documenting unmet needs or delivering within shrinking operational space?
Have your HRPs already been reshaped around an implicit "87 million logic"? How did that process unfold?
What difficult trade-offs are already being forced at country level that global documents still refuse to name?

The field evidence matters more than Geneva's choreography.

References
[1] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). "Global Humanitarian Overview 2026 Launch: Press Conference by Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher." Geneva, 8 December 2025. See also Reuters, "UN cuts its aid appeal for 2026 despite soaring need," 8 December 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/un-cuts-its-aid-appeal-2026-despite-soaring-need-2025-12-08/

[2] United Nations General Assembly. "Resolution 46/182: Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations." A/RES/46/182, 19 December 1991. https://undocs.org/A/RES/46/182

[3] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). "Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP): Mid-Year Review 2007." Geneva: OCHA, 2007.

[4] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). "Global Humanitarian Overview 2025." Geneva: OCHA, December 2024. https://humanitarianaction.info/document/global-humanitarian-overview-2025

[5] Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative. "Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian Donorship." Endorsed in Stockholm, 17 June 2003. https://www.ghdinitiative.org/ghd/gns/principles-good-practice-of-ghd/principles-good-practice-ghd.html

[6] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). "Financial Tracking Service: Global Humanitarian Funding 2024." https://fts.unocha.org/global-funding/overview/2024

[7] Tamonan, Miguel Antonio. "The largest donors in 2024 — and how they spent their aid." Devex, 23 December 2024. https://www.devex.com/news/the-largest-donors-in-2024-and-how-they-spent-their-aid-108979

[8] Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "What Has Happened to U.S. Government Capabilities for International Humanitarian Assistance, Disaster Response, and Resilience?" November 2025. https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-has-happened-us-government-capabilities-international-humanitarian-assistance

[9] Lawder, David and Shalal, Andrea. "Trump administration moves to shut down USAID, firings begin." Reuters, February 2025.

[10] ALNAP / Development Initiatives. "Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2025." July 2025. https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/global-humanitarian-assistance-gha-report-2025-e-report/

[11] Byrnes, Thomas. "The 26% Reality: What the Numbers Tell Us About Humanitarian System Collapse." LinkedIn, November 2025.

[12] United Nations General Assembly, Fifth Committee. "15th Meeting, 80th Session: Programme budget for 2026 — Revised estimates resulting from the strategic review of the UN Secretariat (UN 80)." New York, 1 December 2025. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statements/2025-12-01/secretary-generals-remarks-the-fifth-committee-the-revised-estimates-un80

[13] ESG Today. "US Rejects UN Sustainable Development Goals, Becoming First Nation to Abandon Framework." 7 March 2025. See also Associated Press / Washington Post coverage of the same date.

#HumanitarianCrisis #OCHA #UN80 #GHO2026 #HumanitarianReform #HumanitarianPrinciples #ClusterCoordination #HumanitarianFunding #Resolution46182 #GoodHumanitarianDonorship