Integration for greater impact

1.3 GEF progress since OPS7

The GEF-8 Programming Directions were derived from recommendations in the Seventh Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS7). Specifically, OPS7 presented nine strategic-level recommendations to guide the GEF-8 Programming Directions and the operations of the GEF partnership (GEF IEO 2022f). GEF management expressed agreement with these recommendations and outlined planned implementation steps. Throughout GEF-8, the GEF has actively pursued these commitments, taking concrete actions aligned with OPS7 recommendations. While notable progress has been achieved in some areas, advancement in others has been slower. (Further details on progress in each of these areas is discussed in the subsequent chapters of this report.)

1. Demonstrate additionality of integrated programming. Several steps were taken during GEF-8 to strengthen the effectiveness and reach of the GEF, including clearer articulation of the strategic focus and value proposition of integrated programming, improvements to coordination mechanisms, and expansion of knowledge‑sharing platforms. These measures aimed to improve linkages across focal areas and promote cross‑sector collaboration, though further development is needed to fully realize potential synergies and capture lessons systematically.
2. Incentivize innovation and manage risks. Measures included the creation of a dedicated Innovation Window and integration of innovation features within some programs, backed by a risk appetite statement signaling tolerance for higher risk in pursuit of transformational change. As part of its risk appetite statement, the GEF established a high-risk tolerance specifically for innovation aimed at driving such transformation. Utilization of the Innovation Window has been limited, and broader support for early-stage or disruptive innovations remains insufficiently defined.
3. Establish ground rules for Agency interactions. The terms of reference for integrated programs encourage collaboration among Agencies, supporting a more coordinated approach to project development and execution. Rather than adopt strict ground rules—which GEF management cautioned could limit Agency autonomy, complicate access to resources, and be difficult to enforce uniformly—efforts have focused on strengthening operational focal points through targeted training and financial support to improve Agency selection and portfolio management.
4. Develop a strategic approach to country engagement. The GEF introduced measures to strengthen country engagement, including a new Country Engagement Strategy and portfolio planning dialogues and additional support for operational focal points and national partners. Adjustments to the resource allocation system increased access for least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS). Some elements of the engagement strategy have been slow to roll out.
5. Increase support to LDCs and SIDS. The GEF addressed the recommendation to increase support for priority country groups by modifying the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) model and supporting their increased participation in integrated programs. Key changes included raising and harmonizing the focal area country allocation floors for LDCs and SIDS, reducing the country allocation ceiling from 10 percent in GEF-7 to 6 percent in GEF-8, and increasing the weight of the gross domestic product (GDP) index. These adjustments enhanced ex ante country allocations to priority countries.
6. Strengthen private sector engagement. Engagement with the private sector was continued through initiatives on sustainable food systems, nature-based solutions, and the blue economy. Overall progress in mobilizing private capital and removing operational barriers was limited. The use of nongrant instruments was expanded, and innovative financing mechanisms were rolled out.
7. Reappraise vision for the SGP. The GEF redefined its vision for the SGP to broaden its purpose and enhance its potential for impact. Key measures included the elimination of the upgrading policy, increased allocation of core financing, and expanded implementation modalities. The GEF also strengthened direct financing and support for youth, women, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities—most notably through the rollout of the SGP CSO Challenge Program, led by the International Union for Conservation of Nature; and the Microfinance Initiative, led by the World Bank.
8. Enhance efficiency of administrative processes. The GEF has undertaken several measures to enhance the efficiency of its activity cycle, including raising the funding cap for medium-size projects from $2 million to $5 million, establishing a streamlined project cycle for the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, and convening a working group to explore further streamlining opportunities. To identify avenues for improving the efficiency of the project cycle, the GEF Secretariat also engages in regular consultations with operational focal points.
9. Monitor implementation of policies and strengthen results and knowledge systems. The GEF has taken several steps to address the recommendation to strengthen the monitoring of implementation of GEF policies and to adapt its results-based management and knowledge management frameworks to the context of integrated programs. Enhancements include shifting policy reporting toward tracking implementation progress, refining results measurement frameworks, and developing a Knowledge Management and Learning Strategy. Integrated program implementation has shown improved performance, with increased attention to socioeconomic co-benefits and alignment of implementation timelines to support consistent monitoring. Global and regional coordination child projects now oversee program-level progress. The ability to track transformational outcomes is still lacking, however, and requires further attention.