Integration for greater impact
Eighth Comprehensive evaluation of the GEF
Building on the analysis of project design, evidence from country case studies, focal area evaluations, and portfolio reviews shows that GEF-funded projects have generated a wide variety of socioeconomic co-benefits, where environmental and development outcomes reinforce each other. These co-benefits are diverse, with the most frequently observed being gains in human capital and social capital, followed by economic and financial benefits (figure 4.1). The following discussion begins with human capital co-benefits, which often have the most immediate and visible impacts on local livelihoods and resilience.
Human capital development emerged as one of the most consistently observed co-benefits across the portfolio, as confirmed by the evaluation and recent IEO assessments. Several projects focused on strengthening local knowledge, skills and decision-making capacities, particularly in climate risk management and environmental stewardship. For example, the UNDP-implemented Community-Based Climate Risk Management project in Chad (GEF ID 8001) used local radio networks to disseminate weather information in local languages, offering guidance on optimal timing for sowing, fertilization, and other agricultural practices. As a result, farmers became more aware of climate-related risks, such as crop losses from flooding during the rainy season, and adjusted their cropping calendars and practices accordingly.
GEF-funded interventions have contributed to the development of specific technical skills among local communities, particularly in sustainable agriculture and environmentally friendly land management practices. These skills have supported both environmental objectives and improved livelihood outcomes. In Mexico, the World Bank’s Sustainable Productive Landscapes project enabled local farmers to adopt low-chemical crop management techniques through hands-on training in the production of organic inputs. With support from local universities and agricultural extension centers, farmers learned to prepare compost, bokashi, vermiculture systems, and organic fertilizers.
In Chad, the Enhancing the Resilience of the Agricultural Ecosystems (GEF ID 5376, International Fund for Agricultural Development) project used the farmer field school approach to test and disseminate integrated soil fertility management techniques. These included the use of animal manure and the application of a biological herbicide to reduce chemical inputs. A similar focus on technical skill development was seen in Nepal, where the WWF-led Integrated Landscape Management (GEF ID 9437) project promoted sustainable land management practices aligned with biodiversity conservation and community resilience.
GEF-supported initiatives have also highlighted the benefits of integrating traditional knowledge with modern technological tools to strengthen environmental monitoring and management. In the Sierra Norte region of Oaxaca, Mexico, the UNDP-led SGP facilitated a collaboration between Indigenous communities and local university institutes (box 4.1). Through this partnership, community-based students applied modern monitoring tools to track natural resources and wildlife, fostering intergenerational knowledge exchange and strengthening youth engagement in sustainable resource management at the local level.
Social capital enhancement emerged as a notable co-benefit of GEF-funded projects, with two key dimensions:
In Capulálpam de Méndez (Sierra Norte of the state of Oaxaca) the GEF’s Small Grants Programme (SGP) worked with a federation of Indigenous organizations, the Unión de Comunidades Productoras Forestales Zapotecas-Chinantecas de La Sierra Juárez. The union covers a very large area, 23,890 hectares, of which 5,097 hectares is dedicated to forest management.
The SGP supported a collaboration between the union and the Department of Computer Science of the Universidad de la Sierra Juárez on the use of information technology and camera traps to monitor soil health, water conditions, vegetation cover, and wildlife. This collaboration provided students—including young women—from the Indigenous communities with updated technological skills, while allowing traditional community maps to be matched with scientific data and indicators, tracking the results of natural resource management and the effects of climate change.
In an area characterized by substantial outmigration and where the youth are said to have little interest in traditional community activities, access to technical know-how provided the younger generations with distinct opportunities:
Community-based approaches played a pivotal role in strengthening social capital.1 Notably, they anchored project activities within existing grassroots structures such as resource management committees, conservation groups, and village councils. By working through these local institutions, projects fostered ownership, empowered community participation, and enhanced governance. For example, Chad’s RECONNECT project revitalized traditional grassroots organizations, empowering them to participate in decision-making processes related to natural resource management and advocate for local development priorities. In Mexico, Indigenous communities involved in the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in Priority Landscapes of Oaxaca and Chiapas (GEF ID 9445, Conservation International) project strengthened governance capacities that enabled them to achieve sustainable forest management certification, register areas voluntarily designated for conservation, and engage in participatory land use planning. Similarly, project documentation for Lao PDR’s Effective Governance for Small-Scale Rural Infrastructure and Disaster Preparedness in a Changing Climate (GEF ID 4554, UNDP) project indicates that efforts focused on raising community awareness about the importance of maintaining water infrastructure were achieved through active engagement with village committees.
In Botswana, the Using SLM [Sustainable Land Management] to Improve the Integrity of the Makgadikgadi Ecosystem and to Secure the Livelihoods of Rangeland Dependent Communities (GEF ID 5789, UNDP) project worked directly with livestock associations and community trusts, helping to build their capacity and supporting them in accessing external funds from the National Environment Fund and local mining companies. Similarly in Tanzania, the Enhancing the Forest Nature Reserves Network for Biodiversity Conservation in Tanzania (GEF ID 5034, UNDP) project facilitated commercial joint ventures between the private sector, the Tanzania Forest Services Agency, and local communities in large-scale tourism enterprises.
Economic co-benefits from GEF-funded projects were observed primarily through two pathways: (1) increases in agricultural productivity and income, and (2) diversification into new income streams and employment opportunities.
Several GEF projects reported measurable improvements in agricultural output and cost efficiency. In Mexico, the adoption of biofertilizers led to a rise in maize yields from 0.8 to 1.2 tons per hectare, a 48 percent reduction in tomato production costs, and a doubling of carrot yields. In Chad, improved beekeeping practices enhanced both the quantity and quality of honey production, enabling producers to command prices approximately 40 percent higher. In Côte d’Ivoire’s Obsolete Pesticides Management Project (GEF ID 5362, World Bank), training in pesticide management contributed to reduced crop production costs. In Cambodia’s Promoting Climate-Resilient Water Management and Agricultural Practices (GEF ID 3404, UNDP) project, local communities saw their income double, from around $25 per month to $50–$100 per month after the project. This gain was achieved through diversified farming activities (multiple crops, double cropping, cash crops, animal husbandry) and access to clean water through water ponds, irrigation, and solar water pumping technologies. Further indirect financial benefits of the project included reduced time spent collecting water, improved hygiene, and the enabling of more home gardening.
GEF interventions also supported income diversification by promoting new livelihood options. In Mexico, initiatives included artisanal handicraft production using forest wood waste (under the SGP) and ecotourism development in areas such as the Chacahua lagoons, as part of the sustainable landscapes project led by Conservation International (GEF ID 9445). In Viet Nam, the Sustainable Management of Peatland Ecosystems in Mekong Countries (GEF ID 9232, IUCN) project facilitated tourism-related income opportunities—many led by women—by highlighting the global ecological significance of the site. The associated national park now sustains its operations through a combination of government support and self-generated revenue from entrance fees and tour packages. In the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Protect Human Health and the Environment from Unintentional Releases of POPs [persistent organic pollutants] Originating from Incineration and Open Burning of Health Care and Electronic Waste (GEF ID 4392, UNDP) project is generating new business opportunities and employment, including the formalization of previously informal waste collectors.
Many projects have achieved notable improvements in agricultural production and diversification, particularly in recent GEF cycles, creating opportunities to further strengthen support for market access and integration into value chains. This is especially true in conservation-focused projects where these were not primary objectives. In Chad, for example, the evaluation of an agricultural ecosystems project found that farm productivity had increased, but weak market linkages constrained the sustainability of income gains. Similarly, in Mexico, Conservation International’s sustainable landscapes project provided technical assistance to ecotourism enterprises but did not extend comparable support to coffee cooperatives to strengthen their marketing strategies, limiting opportunities for broader economic impact.
To further discern and assess the economic co-benefits engendered by GEF projects, the IEO employed an innovative analytic framework that combined geospatial analysis with quantitative data from demographic, economic, and health surveys in areas where GEF projects were implemented. The geospatial analysis covered 111 projects across 11 countries—Bangladesh, Botswana, Cambodia, Chad, Costa Rica, Ecuador, India, Lao PDR, Mexico, Nepal, and Viet Nam—spanning GEF-4 to GEF-8. Projects and countries were selected based on the availability of Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates and compatible socioeconomic survey data from international sources; together, the projects accounted for total GEF financing of $533 million.
Geographic information system (GIS) data were matched with household and health surveys in Chad, India, Mexico, and Nepal to examine the relationship between GEF-funded activities and household wealth (figure 4.2). To assess this relationship, multiple econometric models were applied to account for potential location inaccuracies and data aggregation errors. Across all models, the analysis revealed a statistically significant positive association between the presence of GEF activities and increased household wealth. This result is illustrated by all bars falling to the right of zero on the x-axis, indicating consistent positive percentage changes in wealth across project areas. The findings are robust and suggest that GEF interventions are associated with tangible socioeconomic improvements.
While many GEF-funded projects generated positive co-benefits, some also led to unintended adverse impacts. In Chad, the establishment of ecological corridors restricted farming activities for some households, and unresolved land use conflicts between farmers and pastoralists occasionally gave rise to social tensions. In Nepal, growing wildlife populations within protected areas resulted in increased crop depredation and human-wildlife conflicts, posing risks to both local livelihoods and community safety.
Findings from country cluster evaluations confirm and further illustrate the advantages and challenges of GEF‑supported projects in delivering socioeconomic co‑benefits. These co-benefits included alternative livelihoods, gender equity, Indigenous participation, traditional resource stewardship, and youth engagement, which strengthened community resilience, promoted social inclusion, and created new income opportunities. At the same time, the evaluations highlight challenges and limitations: many benefits remained localized, pathways for scaling were weak due to limited market linkages and enabling conditions, and monitoring gaps—such as missing baseline data and standardized indicators—constrained the ability to track and compare long‑term outcomes (box 4.2).
In the Lower Mekong region, GEF-supported projects delivered notable socioeconomic co‑benefits by supporting alternative livelihoods, advancing gender equity, and fostering Indigenous participation. In the upland areas of Lao PDR and northeastern Cambodia, smallholder farmers adopted agroecological practices such as agroforestry and contour planting, improving productivity while reducing land degradation. Women’s cooperatives and participatory land use mapping led by Indigenous groups strengthened equity and local empowerment, while community‑based coastal protection initiatives, including mangrove planting, created jobs and delivered vital ecosystem services. Projects supporting ecotourism and handicraft development generated additional income streams for rural households. However, these benefits tended to remain localized and lacked clear pathways for scaling up, constrained by weak market linkages and growing commercial pressures on land and water resources. Furthermore, socioeconomic evidence was often anecdotal, with limited baseline data and monitoring frameworks reducing the ability to quantify or track long‑term impacts.
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.
In Pacific and Caribbean small island developing states, GEF-supported projects generated community-level co‑benefits including improved food security, job creation, and strengthened resilience. Pacific initiatives emphasized traditional practices and community stewardship through activities such as mangrove restoration and agroforestry; Caribbean projects promoted sustainable fisheries and youth engagement programs such as Tide Turners. However, the absence of standardized indicators and baseline data limited the ability to systematically measure or compare long‑term socioeconomic outcomes across the two regions.
Sources: GEF Portal and GEF IEO Annual Performance Report (APR) 2026 data set, which includes completed projects for which terminal evaluations were independently validated through June 2025.
Note: Data exclude parent projects, projects with less than $0.5 million of GEF financing, enabling activities with less than $2 million of GEF financing, and projects from the Small Grants Programme. Closed projects refer to all projects closed as of June 30, 2025. The GEF IEO accepts validated ratings from some Agencies; however, their validation cycles may not align with the GEF IEO’s reporting cycle, which can lead to some projects with available terminal evaluations lacking validated ratings within the same reporting period; thus, validated ratings here are from the APR data set only.