Integration for greater impact
Eighth Comprehensive evaluation of the GEF
Because environmental challenges are increasingly complex and dynamic, it is imperative that organizations like the GEF learn systematically from both successes and failures, with an emphasis on adaptive management from the design stage through implementation. A recent evaluation of underperforming projects and an assessment of the GEF’s 2023 Knowledge Management and Learning (KM&L) Strategy implementation provide complementary insights into the GEF’s evolving knowledge management system, highlighting achievements, persistent gaps, and the road ahead (GEF IEO 2025e, 2025h).
The evaluation examined the experience of less successful initiatives, representing approximately 20 percent of the overall portfolio, to distill lessons on risk management, adaptive strategies, and the role of learning in addressing implementation barriers. The analysis covered 202 underperforming projects, with a primary focus on 141 that had been completed.
A key finding from this analysis was the critical importance of robust risk assessment and mitigation during the project design stage. Underperforming projects generally face higher risk levels compared to the overall GEF portfolio. While 80 percent of closed underperforming projects recognized external risks within their control at design—such as limited government capacity and policy gaps—these assessments and mitigation measures were often not addressed comprehensively. As a result, nearly half of the projects continued to face legal and policy barriers by the time of closure, and over a third encountered challenges from low government capacity. Additionally, risks perceived as beyond direct project control, including political instability and insufficient government ownership, were frequently overlooked during design, leading to implementation challenges.
Adaptive management played a key role in improving project performance. Among closed underperforming projects, 27 percent improved outcomes by learning from challenges and adapting during implementation. These improved projects implemented more comprehensive restructuring by analyzing and addressing root causes across all challenges. On average, improved projects mitigated more risks and applied more adaptive measures than unimproved ones. While unimproved projects also employed adaptive management, it was usually too late or narrowly focused rather than addressing the full range of challenges.
A compelling example of a successful turnaround is a World Bank–led biodiversity conservation project in Eastern Paraguay (GEF ID 2690). Initially underperforming because of competing land use priorities and weak government support and capacity, the project underwent a major restructuring following its midterm review. The pivot toward engaging Indigenous communities, which owned large land areas and had a vested interest in conservation, coupled with transferring execution leadership to the environmentally active Itaipu hydroelectric company, turned the project into a success. By closure, the project had successfully created the intended forest corridor in one of the globally most important ecosystems for biodiversity conservation. The Atlantic Forest Corridor became a national priority and Itaipu continues restoration work. This transformation was rooted in context-sensitive adjustments and strategic stakeholder engagement, showcasing the power of adaptive learning.
The Paraguay case exemplifies how successful turnarounds must navigate two fundamentally different kinds of challenges: technical problems that can be solved through established expertise, and socially complex adaptive problems requiring sensitive negotiations between diverse stakeholders with different understandings of both problems and solutions. This example highlights the critical insight that effective knowledge application is not only about replicating solutions, but also about learning how to adapt approaches to specific contextual conditions.
Learning from failure needs to be institutionalized. It should not be an incidental exercise but a deliberate component of project management. Monitoring should go beyond compliance to support innovative problem solving. The GEF partnership needs to invest in real-time learning systems, contextual intelligence, and a culture of continuous adaptation.
.jpg)
In response to gaps identified by the GEF IEO in its Seventh Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS7; GEF IEO 2022f), the GEF Council approved a new KM&L Strategy in October 2023 (GEF Secretariat 2024b), developed with inputs from the GEF’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, which has long championed and supported GEF knowledge management approaches (Metternicht and Stafford Smith 2022).
The strategy introduces a more structured approach to addressing knowledge management across the GEF partnership. As part of a broader reorganization of the GEF Secretariat, a new Integration and Knowledge Division was established, and two dedicated staff were recruited in 2024 to support implementation of the strategy.
The KM&L Strategy is built around three foundational pillars—people, processes, and systems—and structured into four strategic directions encompassing 10 action areas. These directions aim to align KM&L with GEF-8 delivery, strengthen KM&L in programming, invest in the generation of global public goods, and link KM&L with communications and outreach. Some of these identified action areas predate the formal KM&L Strategy, such as the GEF Brown Bag Lunch learning series and the development of GEF online courses. In this context, the Secretariat has worked to integrate both ongoing and new learning activities into the KM&L Strategy. While this integration promotes coherence between knowledge management and learning, it also raises the risk that learning activities may overshadow other dimensions of knowledge management. As of June 2025, progress had been made in approximately half of the action areas.
There is broad support among GEF Agencies for the KM&L Strategy, along with a strong call for more practical guidance on applying knowledge management in projects. Survey responses from GEF Agency coordination units show that 84 percent agree the GEF partnership now has clear priorities and objectives for knowledge management. Agencies appreciated the inclusive development of the strategy and the appointment of dedicated KM staff, with one respondent calling it a “game changer.” Despite this positive reception, many noted that the strategy’s impact on the portfolio has been limited to date and emphasized the need for more practical operational guidance. This is reflected in divided views on the adequacy of current knowledge management resources, with 48 percent of respondents finding them sufficient and 47 percent indicating they are not. To address the issue, the GEF Secretariat has indicated that an action plan is under way and that key performance indicators will be used to track progress. To support implementation, the GEF IEO has also proposed eight guiding principles to strengthen the GEF partnership’s role as a learning organization (GEF IEO 2025h).
Strengthening knowledge capture remains a priority for the GEF partnership, but persistent gaps continue to limit its effectiveness across the portfolio. Since OPS7, progress has been made in strengthening knowledge capture within the GEF partnership. The GEF Secretariat has redesigned internal systems, adapted project templates, and uploaded over 1,700 lessons to the GEF Portal. Nearly all CEO-endorsed projects between July 2023 and June 2024 (97 percent) included dedicated knowledge management components, reflecting stronger integration of knowledge management into project design. The KM&L Strategy includes plans for a new knowledge and collaboration platform, a long-standing recommendation by the GEF IEO and a top priority identified by GEF Agencies to support partnershipwide learning and exchange.
Challenges remain in fully leveraging the GEF Portal and strengthening knowledge systems across the portfolio. While 59 percent of surveyed GEF Agency coordination units found the portal useful for accessing knowledge, 33 percent disagreed, citing difficulties with data entry and limited user friendliness. Survey feedback and prior evaluations also point to ongoing fragmentation in knowledge capture; inconsistent collection at the program level; and gaps in documenting innovations, risks, and lessons learned. These findings underscore the need for continued improvements in the curation, consistency, and synthesis of knowledge across the GEF partnership.
The GEF has made progress in developing knowledge platforms across integrated programs, with opportunities for improving the curation and broader use of knowledge across the partnership. Progress in knowledge development and curation has included the establishment of global child projects serving as knowledge platforms within integrated programming—such as the Net-Zero Nature-Positive Accelerator, Sustainable Cities, Global Wildlife Program, Food Systems, and the long-running International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource Network (IW:LEARN) in the international waters focal area. These platforms support knowledge exchange, adaptive learning, and coordination. Under the KM&L Strategy, the GEF Secretariat has taken steps to enhance this work, including developing an inventory of platforms and interoperability principles, and hosting expert workshops.
Evaluations and stakeholder feedback continue to highlight several challenges in knowledge management. The Global Wildlife Program evaluation called for broader participation, multilingual access, and better dissemination (GEF IEO forthcoming-k). There have been persistent weaknesses in integrating child projects into program-level platforms and a need for more dedicated knowledge management resources. Surveyed Agencies emphasized the lack of standardized indicators, limited data, and resource constraints as barriers to effective cross-country learning. They also noted the need for a more systematic approach to synthesizing and curating knowledge, including the potential use of artificial intelligence. Concerns were raised that valuable insights from project reports and evaluations remain underutilized. Survey results reflect these issues, with 58 percent rating knowledge development and curation positively, and 31 percent negatively.
Evaluations also highlight missed opportunities in the application of knowledge. Key gaps include limited integration of local and traditional knowledge (GEF IEO 2024a), inadequate delivery of early warning systems to vulnerable communities (GEF IEO 2025f), and insufficient follow-up on technical knowledge, particularly in water security programming (GEF IEO 2024c). These shortcomings are reflected in survey results: only 53 percent of GEF Agency coordination units rated knowledge application positively, while 48 percent disagreed that existing knowledge management systems meaningfully support project design and implementation.
Efforts to enhance knowledge sharing and dissemination across the GEF partnership have expanded under the KM&L Strategy, but important gaps remain. The GEF has introduced internal learning series, microlearning videos, courses, and new knowledge products to complement existing initiatives such as the GEF Brown Bag Lunch series, South-South exchanges, and expanded constituency workshops. These efforts were rated positively by GEF Agency coordination units, with 73 percent expressing satisfaction. However, limited cross-Agency exchange continues to be a challenge; only 47 percent agreed that substantial sharing of lessons occurs between Agencies, with 48 percent disagreeing. Respondents noted that inter-Agency competition can inhibit open learning around both successes and failures.
GEF IEO evaluations highlight weak knowledge exchange within focal areas and country programs, and among projects. For example, the most recent international waters evaluation (GEF IEO forthcoming-g) found insufficient communication between child projects, resulting in missed opportunities for synergy and stakeholder engagement. Similar issues were identified in the biodiversity (GEF IEO 2022e, forthcoming-k), climate change adaptation (GEF IEO 2025f, 2025g), land degradation (GEF IEO 2024f), and chemicals and waste focal areas (GEF IEO forthcoming-h), as well as in the Lower Mekong River Basin (GEF IEO 2023c).
While the KM&L Strategy includes plans to foster communities of practice, it places greater emphasis on knowledge generation and sharing than on applying that knowledge to inform project design, implementation, and future programming. IEO evaluations have documented cases where knowledge application contributed to tangible results. In Pacific small island developing states, South-South knowledge transfer helped scale Indigenous farming practices and farmer field schools across projects. These approaches, introduced in ridge to reef projects in Fiji (GEF IDs 5398, 5404), influenced the World Bank’s Jobs for Nature 2.0 initiative, which attracted substantial additional funding (GEF IEO forthcoming-p). In the international waters focal area, IW:LEARN (version 4) led to the adoption of at least one new management approach in 47 projects, while community-based approaches improved climate-smart agriculture and ecosystem protection (GEF IEO 2024a, forthcoming-g). Communities of practice, as seen with IW:LEARN, have proven to be catalytic in supporting change and impact beyond individual projects (Ijjasz-Vasquez, Karp, and Weber-Fahr 2024).
