Building on the above conclusions, the following recommendations outline actions to strengthen the GEF’s programming approach and enhance its processes and institutional framework to deliver greater impact and transformational change in GEF‑9 and beyond.
Recommendation 1
Strengthen the transformational impact of integrated programming, focusing on strategic selectivity and consolidation.
Integrated programs should be streamlined to fewer but deeper rather than broader, all-encompassing initiatives. They should be built around robust theories of change, explicit scaling pathways, and strong knowledge and learning platforms, with a centralized repository for knowledge and lessons. This focus will provide the clarity and depth needed to address systemic drivers of environmental degradation and deliver impact at scale, including in complex areas such as food systems and sustainable urban development. Implementation must also address challenges observed in current programs, including compressed design timelines, uneven coordination between global platforms and country-level child projects, and limited opportunities for inclusive stakeholder engagement during preparation. Clear roles and responsibilities across Agencies and countries, realistic timelines that prioritize depth over breadth, and mechanisms that link global knowledge support directly to in-country implementation are essential. Programs should be structured from the outset to attract cofinancing and private sector investment, aligning financial innovation and policy reforms with programmatic goals to deliver scalable solutions that endure well beyond GEF funding. There is a distinct need for a clear exit strategy in the individual integrated programs, including well-defined criteria and guidance for determining whether and when integrated programs should continue or be phased out.
Recommendation 2
Embed sustainability and financing arrangements at design to secure long-term outcomes.
The GEF should require relevant projects to include sustainability and financing arrangements at the design stage. Early engagement with relevant ministries and technical agencies is essential to integrate environmental priorities into national budgets and financial systems, ensuring results are anchored in long-term country commitments. Greater attention should be given to institutional sustainability, including strong linkages with in-country institutions and stakeholders—notably local governments, the private sector, and civil society organizations—that can uphold and scale outcomes over time. Stronger linkages to complementary financing sources—such as the Green Climate Fund, the Adaptation Fund, and domestic revenue streams—could enable continuity and scaling beyond GEF funding. Tracking outcomes in select projects beyond closure will generate useful feedback to strengthen future programming and reinforce lasting impact.
Recommendation 3
Pursue higher‑risk, high‑reward innovation with appropriate safeguards and incentives, aligned with the GEF’s risk appetite framework.
To achieve transformational change, the GEF should, where possible, actively prioritize innovations that carry higher risk, but have the potential to deliver breakthrough environmental solutions. This requires giving Agencies clear guidance to manage risk appropriately, deploying risk-sharing mechanisms, and enabling engagement in frontier markets and disruptive approaches such as advanced digital tools, artificial intelligence applications, and nature-based solutions. Innovation must be explicit and deliberate, with clear pathways for scaling, stronger integration of theories of change into adaptive management, and robust systems for monitoring and real-time learning. Embedding risk and innovation metrics into results frameworks and institutionalizing knowledge exchange will ensure lessons are captured, successful models are replicated, and innovative solutions achieve systemwide impact.
Recommendation 4
Unlock private sector potential and expand the use of NGIs to deliver scalable change.
Private sector engagement should be strengthened by embedding it more systematically across GEF programming. This includes expanding partnerships with agribusiness, financial institutions, and small and medium enterprises; aligning project design with private sector incentives; and fostering enabling conditions—such as policy reform, standards, and institutional frameworks—that encourage investment and behavioral change.
Expand the use of NGIs to mobilize private capital and share risk, particularly in sectors requiring larger-scale and more innovative financing. Countries and Agencies need enhanced capacity to design blended finance solutions, with incentives to integrate private sector approaches across all focal areas. The GEF should capitalize on Agency strengths, leveraging multilateral development banks’ investment and risk‑sharing capacity alongside the technical expertise and policy support of United Nations Agencies and others. Despite growing demand, the share of NGIs in the GEF portfolio remains small due to limited resources allocated to the window, and countries are hesitant to use the STAR allocations. The GEF should seek to improve countries’ understanding of NGIs and can enhance conditions for their use. Removing constraints such as the cap on NGIs can enable larger, transformative investments that can attract institutional and commercial finance in collaboration with multilateral development banks, and must be carefully balanced to avoid crowding out smaller, innovative NGI initiatives.
Recommendation 5
Streamline processes and improve efficiency across the GEF family of funds, where possible, to reduce application complexity and support countries, particularly those with limited capacity.
Aligning operational processes across all GEF-managed trust funds and funding windows, to the extent feasible, could simplify access and ease the administrative burden on countries and Agencies. Project approval timelines should be accelerated through simplified review layers; a clear division of roles between the Secretariat, the GEF Agencies, and the STAP; and time‑bound steps for each stage of the cycle. Simplified procedures for integrated programs can avoid delays from complex coordination arrangements. Strengthening readiness requirements at Chief Executive Officer endorsement, expanding the use of digital tools for project development and monitoring, and systematically tracking cycle performance will further improve responsiveness. Regular benchmarking against peer funds will help maintain the GEF’s comparative advantage while ensuring countries can efficiently access and implement resources across all GEF funds.
Recommendation 6
Take decisive steps to address structural challenges within the GEF partnership and create an inclusive, transparent, and impactful country engagement process.
This requires clarifying the dual role of Agencies as both implementing and executing entities when present, supported by transparent mechanisms to manage potential conflicts of interest and strengthen trust. Greater collaboration should be incentivized by leveraging Agencies’ comparative strengths, reducing duplication of effort, and enhancing the overall efficiency of resource use. The GEF Council should review and update the STAP’s terms of reference to align its structure, expertise, and work program with evolving strategic directiond—thereby enhancing transparency, advisory clarity, and governance to ensure timely, high-quality scientific and technical input.
Institutionalize country engagement through early and inclusive dialogues that involve both environmental and nonenvironmental ministries as well as civil society and the private sector. Strengthening the capacity of operational focal points will be critical to coordinating effectively across ministries and with other environmental funds, ensuring alignment with national priorities. At the same time, the GEF should adopt a unified external partnership strategy that brings together other global environmental funds, philanthropy, civil society, the private sector, and financial institutions, while creating knowledge platforms to facilitate peer learning, replication of successful approaches, and the diffusion of innovative solutions.
Recommendation 7
Encourage the GEF Agencies to share country-specific priorities and competencies to improve transparency and inclusivity in national planning processes.
This should be done early in the replenishment cycle to inform upstream technical planning with operational focal points and shared as part of the Country Engagement Strategy, as appropriate, to ensure that these processes and approaches are openly shared with all stakeholders. Countries and Agencies should be asked to collaboratively produce a concise outcome document summarizing priorities and agreed-upon actions following the completion of the national GEF portfolio planning process. Together, these measures will strengthen partnerships, reduce fragmentation and concentration, enhance country ownership, and improve the environmental and development impact of GEF programming.
Recommendation 8
Strengthen financial sustainability and reduce reliance on a limited group of donors by improving cofinancing practices and building on current efforts to diversify the funding base.
Cofinancing targets should be recalibrated with differentiated, realistic expectations based on country income levels, project types, and financing conditions. These targets must be supported by standardized definitions of financial, in‑kind, and parallel contributions, as well as independent verification mechanisms by Agencies at midterm and completion. Transparency is essential, with disaggregated data on cofinancing commitments and realization published regularly. Performance assessments should be focused on realized, high‑quality leverage rather than pledged amounts.
To secure long‑term funding stability, the GEF should adopt a strategic resource mobilization plan that incorporates efforts to broaden the sovereign donor base, engages former contributors, and extends outreach to underrepresented regions. The plan should also establish a structured framework to engage philanthropic foundations, corporations, and other nonsovereign contributors, drawing on proven approaches from leading global funds. In parallel, the GEF should explore engagement with regional and global groups with a strong environmental focus, such as the G20, which has already issued recommendations directed to the GEF and whose members are all GEF partners. Together, these actions would reduce concentration risk, broaden the GEF’s financial base, and enhance its ability to respond to escalating global environmental challenges.
Recommendation 9
Integrate knowledge, results, and learning systems into a coherent platform that drives adaptive management and innovation across the GEF partnership.
This requires establishing a unified knowledge platform accessible to Agencies, countries, civil society, and partners and focused on capturing and sharing lessons from integrated programs, innovative approaches, and private sector engagement. Indicators and evaluation tools must be strengthened to measure systemic change, behavior shifts, and resilience outcomes, moving beyond output-based reporting. Expanding training and peer learning will ensure that evidence and best practices directly inform project and program design, while institutionalized mechanisms for learning from both successful and failed projects will embed continuous improvement and innovation into all aspects of GEF programming.
The coming decade will determine whether the world can reverse accelerating climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, chemical pollution, and ocean decline, and the GEF is uniquely positioned to catalyze the integrated, systemic, and transformational change this moment demands. The evidence from OPS8 shows that the GEF’s mandate, experience, and partnership model provide an unparalleled foundation for scaling impact, aligning global commitments with country-led solutions, and leveraging diverse sources of finance and knowledge. To realize its full potential, GEF‑9 must be selective and strategic in choosing what, where, and how it invests; focus on designing solutions that are sustainable from the outset; and embed pathways for scaling into every program. This requires sharpening the focus of integrated programming, embedding innovation and risk-taking in line with the GEF’s risk appetite, expanding and diversifying its financing base, strengthening partnerships and country engagement, and aligning results and learning systems to drive adaptive management.
By pursuing greater selectivity and strengthening integration for impact, the GEF can optimize resource allocation, enhance effectiveness, and deliver sustained global environmental benefits while supporting resilient and sustainable development pathways.
