Integration for greater impact

Evidence from country cluster studies²

The GEF’s portfolio in drylands, river basins, and island ecosystems highlights the growing importance of integrated approaches, strong local engagement, and cross‑sectoral solutions in addressing complex environmental and socioeconomic challenges. These regions are highly vulnerable yet offer significant opportunities to demonstrate how sustainable resource management, climate resilience, and inclusive governance can deliver lasting global environmental benefits. This subsection examines the GEF’s contributions in these critical landscapes and the pathways being developed to secure long‑term resilience and sustainability.

The GEF’s interventions across drylands, the Lower Mekong River Basin, and some SIDS in the Caribbean and the Pacific demonstrate increasing relevance to regional ecological challenges and national development priorities. Over successive replenishment periods, programming has shifted from isolated, sectoral interventions to integrated, landscapewide approaches. This evolution is exemplified by initiatives such as the Dryland Sustainable Landscapes Impact Program, the Mekong Integrated Water Resources Management framework, and the Pacific R2R (ridge to reef) program. These interventions aligned well with existing institutional frameworks, including national adaptation strategies and regional platforms like the Mekong River Commission and the Pacific Community. Projects that built on or complemented national policies and planning processes—such as biodiversity action plans and land use frameworks—were particularly effective in securing stakeholder alignment and institutional traction. A growing focus on cross-sectoral integration also helped address complex linkages between land, water, climate, and livelihoods, enhancing strategic coherence and programmatic relevance.

The results achieved across these regions have been significant, particularly in environmental terms. In drylands, interventions contributed to improved vegetation cover, soil health, and water retention, with over 250,000 hectares restored in Niger alone. In the Lower Mekong, improved watershed and sediment management helped inform dam operations and hydropower planning, while participatory fisheries and floodplain management contributed to ecological resilience. Pacific SIDS projects recorded localized successes in watershed stabilization, marine protected area establishment, and coral reef recovery. However, these results were often limited in scale, and many interventions lacked mechanisms for broader replication or ecosystem-level impact. Biodiversity outcomes, although identified in planning documents, were underreported in several regions because of weak baseline data and inconsistent monitoring frameworks.

Sustainability of results varied significantly across the evaluated portfolio of projects. The most enduring outcomes were observed in projects that engaged deeply with local institutions, customary governance structures, and national policy frameworks. For example, land tenure commissions and village planning committees in drylands and forest co-management in Lao PDR contributed to lasting institutional arrangements. Projects that aligned closely with national priorities and secured government buy-in were more likely to be maintained postproject. Financial sustainability was a widespread weakness. Many initiatives continued to rely heavily on external donor funding and lacked embedded strategies for long-term domestic resource mobilization. Innovative mechanisms such as payments for ecosystem services, green finance, and conservation trust funds were introduced in isolated cases but remained the exception rather than the rule. Additionally, the lack of integration of project monitoring systems into national reporting frameworks often limited institutional learning and adaptive management beyond the project life cycle.

Despite progress, several persistent challenges constrained the impact and scalability of project results. A key issue was the failure to systematically address trade-offs between environmental protection and economic development. In drylands, for example, income-generating activities occasionally increased pressure on fragile ecosystems—such as higher livestock grazing in Uzbekistan. Across all regions, project designs were often overambitious given institutional capacities, leading to implementation delays and reduced scope. Interagency and intersectoral coordination was weak in many cases, particularly between environment, agriculture, and infrastructure ministries. Climate resilience, although a critical priority in all three regions, was often insufficiently embedded in project activities, especially in Pacific SIDS where exposure to extreme events is high. M&E frameworks tended to focus on area-based indicators (e.g., hectares restored), rather than ecological quality or social impact, reducing the ability to track long-term progress or adapt interventions accordingly.

Drylands

The GEF’s dryland strategy has shown increasing relevance over time, transitioning from isolated, sector-specific projects in GEF-5 to integrated, landscapewide approaches by GEF-6 and GEF-7. Programs such as the Dryland Sustainable Landscapes Impact Program and TerrAfrica reflected this shift by promoting transboundary collaboration, policy coherence, and cross-sectoral alignment. These efforts were generally well attuned to both ecological conditions and national development priorities, particularly where projects engaged local institutions and governance structures. This localized integration enhanced the strategic fit of GEF interventions within broader environmental and policy frameworks.

Environmental benefits were notable across many dryland projects, especially those with strong community participation. In Niger, over 250,000 hectares were restored through successive GEF-supported initiatives. Projects also led to improvements in vegetation cover, reductions in soil erosion, and better soil health. Hydrological improvements were evident in degraded catchments across regions such as the Lower Mekong and Sub-Saharan Africa. Despite these positive developments, the reliance on area-based indicators limited the depth of understanding around actual ecological change. Socioeconomic outcomes were most significant where interventions were closely tied to governance reform and livelihood strategies. However, many projects lacked systematic mechanisms to assess or plan for trade-offs between environmental and economic goals, which weakened the long-term coherence and impact of the results.

Dryland projects supported by the GEF generated a range of socioeconomic benefits, particularly in communities with strong participation and ownership. Interventions enabled income diversification through activities like agroforestry, ecotourism, and the harvesting of nontimber forest products. These efforts also contributed to improved food security and rural employment. Where restoration was closely linked to livelihood enhancement, communities were more likely to experience sustained and resilient outcomes. That said, these benefits were unevenly distributed and sometimes resulted in unintended consequences. For instance, in Uzbekistan, increased income from livestock led to higher grazing pressure on fragile ecosystems, highlighting the need to carefully balance socioeconomic goals with ecological sustainability.

The sustainability of dryland interventions was closely tied to their integration with national policies and the strength of local institutions. Projects that built on customary authorities and engaged community governance structures—such as those in Malawi and Niger—were more likely to deliver lasting outcomes. However, several critical factors undermined sustainability. Weak land tenure and conflict resolution frameworks meant that resource access and control were often insecure, reducing incentives for long-term stewardship. Postproject financing was also a major concern, with most initiatives heavily reliant on external funding. Efforts to adopt financial mechanisms such as green bonds or payments for ecosystem services were limited and largely confined to pilot activities. Furthermore, many monitoring systems focused narrowly on area-based metrics and failed to track broader ecological conditions, diminishing their utility for adaptive management or long-term planning.

Key implementation challenges were common across dryland interventions. One major gap was the limited attention to land tenure security—an issue addressed explicitly in fewer than one-third of projects in the evaluation portfolio, despite its central importance to sustainable land management. Projects often failed to anticipate or manage trade-offs between environmental protection and economic development, leading to outcomes that were sometimes at odds with long-term sustainability. Many interventions were overambitious, with project designs that did not align with the available institutional capacity, which led to implementation delays and reduced effectiveness. Adaptive management was also constrained by limited access to real-time data and weak learning systems, preventing timely course correction. Financial sustainability remained fragile, with few projects effectively embedding their activities within national development planning or securing long-term funding mechanisms.

Lower Mekong River Basin

GEF-supported projects in the Lower Mekong demonstrated strong relevance to regional ecological challenges and national development priorities. The interventions were well aligned with the goals of the Mekong River Commission, providing a platform for transboundary cooperation and shared management of river basin resources. Projects effectively addressed upstream-downstream linkages, sediment dynamics, and hydrological flows, reflecting a nuanced understanding of basinwide interdependencies. Their alignment with integrated water resource management principles and national climate adaptation strategies further enhanced their contextual appropriateness. By linking technical improvements with community engagement and regional governance structures, GEF interventions in the Lower Mekong responded meaningfully to both environmental and sociopolitical realities.

Environmental outcomes were largely positive in the Lower Mekong, particularly in watershed management, erosion control, and institutionalization of strategic environmental assessments. These tools helped integrate environmental considerations into broader infrastructure and hydropower planning. Interventions improved the understanding and monitoring of sediment flow and hydrological processes, contributing to more informed decision-making. However, ecosystem restoration results were mixed. Fisheries and wetlands rehabilitation showed promise in pilot areas but were constrained by commercial pressures and a lack of scale-up mechanisms. On the socioeconomic front, projects contributed to improved resilience in upland and flood-prone areas, and successfully engaged women and Indigenous communities in planning and implementation. Nevertheless, benefits were unevenly distributed across countries and not consistently monitored, making it difficult to assess their broader impact.

The sustainability of project outcomes in the Lower Mekong region was mixed. On the positive side, several interventions were institutionally embedded through partnerships with the Mekong River Commission and national ministries, which enhanced policy alignment and formal adoption of technical tools and practices. Local ownership was also a strong point in projects that worked through community governance structures or Indigenous councils, contributing to continuity and legitimacy beyond the project life cycle. However, sustainability was frequently undermined by weak postproject financing strategies and an overreliance on a small number of technical champions or units. In several cases, technical tools—such as sediment analysis models—were adopted during the project but not maintained after donor funding ended, largely because of insufficient national budget allocation and capacity.

A number of recurring challenges limited the effectiveness and scalability of GEF interventions in the Lower Mekong. Delayed disbursements and bureaucratic bottlenecks, particularly in Viet Nam, slowed project rollout and reduced momentum. National institutions often operated in silos, hindering integrated planning across key sectors such as environment, agriculture, and infrastructure. Project designs were frequently overambitious relative to the institutional and technical capacity available at the country level, which led to implementation strain and diluted impact. Intersectoral coordination remained weak, limiting synergies across ministries and sectors. These challenges, combined with gaps in monitoring and scale-up strategies, constrained the full realization of project goals and long-term landscape resilience.

SIDS

The GEF’s engagement with SIDS reflects a context-sensitive, systems-based approach tailored to the unique environmental and institutional challenges of these nations. Emphasizing integrated, multifocal programming—such as the ridge to reef approach and the Implementing Sustainable Low and Non-Chemical Development in SIDS (ISLANDS) program (GEF ID 10185, UNEP)—the GEF has aligned global environmental goals with national and regional priorities, notably in biodiversity conservation, climate resilience, and chemicals management. Regional partnerships with organizations such as the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, and the Basel Convention Regional Centre for Training and Technology Transfer for the Caribbean have been instrumental in providing technical support and fostering knowledge exchange. Increasingly, GEF projects in SIDS have aimed to mainstream environmental considerations into national planning and budgetary frameworks, particularly in sectors such as tourism, fisheries, and disaster risk management. However, persistent structural constraints—including high transaction costs, weak coordination, and limited national capacity—hamper effective delivery and sustainability, raising questions about the long-term viability of the current delivery model.

GEF programming in both Pacific and Caribbean SIDS has demonstrated strong contextual relevance, reflecting the environmental vulnerabilities and socioeconomic realities of these regions. In the Pacific, integrated approaches like the ridge to reef model were tailored to the ecological interdependence of terrestrial and marine systems and aligned with traditional governance structures. Caribbean projects emphasized marine governance, pollution control, and disaster resilience, addressing priorities such as coastal degradation and the growing importance of circular economy models. Both regions benefited from regional institutional partnerships and alignment with national development strategies, although execution was often hindered by limited capacity and fragmented governance.

In both regions, GEF projects have supported policy reform, institutional development, and localized environmental outcomes. The Pacific R2R (GEF ID 5395, UNDP, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], and UNEP) program led to protected area designations and integration of environmental planning into budget systems (as in Tonga). In the Caribbean, marine spatial planning was advanced in five countries under the Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project (GEF ID 9451, World Bank), and the Integrated Transboundary Ridges-to-Reef Management of the Mesoamerican Reef (GEF ID 5765, World Wildlife Fund–US) initiative enhanced watershed and coastal zone management. While pilot successes were evident, many projects in both regions struggled to scale impacts or translate frameworks into systemic change in the face of weak coordination and underutilized resources.

Sustainability remains a shared challenge. In the Pacific, initiatives with strong policy integration—such as the Niue Ocean Wide Trust—show promise, but many projects lacked exit strategies and continued funding. In the Caribbean, several projects embedded environmental priorities into legal frameworks and piloted innovative finance mechanisms, although staff turnover and limited postproject investment threatened continuity. Across both regions, weak institutional capacity and limited domestic financing were persistent barriers to sustaining project gains.

Common operational challenges included high transaction costs, limited technical expertise, and fragmented institutional coordination. In the Pacific SIDS, geographic isolation and vulnerability to natural disasters added significant logistical complexity. Caribbean projects, while generally benefiting from stronger institutions and infrastructure, still encountered coordination issues and delays in procurement and policy implementation. Regional organizations played important supporting roles, but their engagement varied across project cycles and contexts.

While both regions face similar structural constraints, key differences influence implementation and sustainability. Caribbean SIDS generally benefit from stronger institutional frameworks, better connectivity, and more robust infrastructure, all of which support higher implementation efficiency. For their part, Pacific SIDS face greater geographic and logistical barriers that increase costs and complicate coordination. Also, Caribbean countries have made greater strides in embedding reforms within national legal and planning systems, while Pacific projects often rely more heavily on regional platforms and external support. These contextual distinctions shape the enabling environment for project execution and highlight the need for tailored delivery models that reflect regional realities.