Integration for greater impact

4.3 Sustainability of co-benefits

While there is evidence that GEF-funded projects generated socioeconomic co-benefits, these were often at an early stage and limited at the time of completion. Continued support and consolidation were required for these benefits to scale and be sustained over the long term. Sustaining socioeconomic co-benefits is particularly important, as doing so can enhance the durability of environmental outcomes. Case studies and country cluster evaluations highlight that the sustainability of co-benefits was influenced by a combination of factors, including local ownership, market viability, supportive policy and institutional frameworks, effective project cycle management, and the integration of community-based approaches. Evidence shows substantial postproject community engagement, but underscores the persistent challenge of maintaining these benefits without external support.

Projects that adopted community-based approaches demonstrated stronger potential for sustaining both socioeconomic and environmental benefits beyond project closure. In Chad, grassroots organizations supported by the RECONNECT and agricultural ecosystems projects maintained a strong commitment to continuing conservation and livelihood activities, building on preexisting local initiatives that were revitalized through project support. In Mexico’s Sierra Norte, Indigenous communities sustained and expanded eco-friendly enterprises rooted in long-standing traditions of sustainable forest management. Similarly, in Indonesia, the Citarum Watershed Management and Biodiversity Conservation Project (GEF ID 3279, Asian Development Bank) achieved lasting outcomes as project-initiated activities became embedded in community practices. Community members reported continued—sometimes voluntary—support for the protection of nearby areas, driven by increased awareness fostered during project implementation.

By contrast, sustainability was weakened where projects established organizations lacking local legitimacy or where interventions remained heavily reliant on external funding. In Nepal, several community-based initiatives faced an uncertain future after project completion due to the absence of clear legal mandates and long-term financial mechanisms.

The sustainability of socioeconomic co-benefits from GEF-funded projects is strongly influenced by their alignment with policy and institutional frameworks. Several GEF-funded projects facilitated integration with existing policies. Examples include the application of established legal norms to register community-based protected areas in Mexico and the integration of natural resource management into cantonal development plans in Chad. In Nepal, collaboration with national parks, forestry authorities, and local governments produced mixed results in terms of sustainability. While national parks and forestry agencies often operated through top-down bureaucratic structures, the continuation of support for project interventions largely depended on the willingness of higher-level authorities to internalize and sustain them. In contrast, local governments, with their own budgetary authority, demonstrated greater potential to fund and maintain selected interventions beyond the project cycle.

Economic sustainability remained a persistent challenge across GEF-funded projects. While many initiatives achieved initial success in diversifying livelihoods, sustaining enterprise profitability and securing integration into formal markets often proved difficult. In Mexico, ecotourism cooperatives expanded their range of services but lacked adequate financial monitoring systems and struggled with the volatility of niche markets. In Chad, honey producers achieved improvements in yield and product quality, but remained disconnected from formal market channels, hindered by limited capacity for branding and packaging. In Indonesia, the Strategic Planning and Action to Strengthen Climate Resilience of Rural Communities in Nusa Tenggara Timur Province (GEF ID 4340, UNDP) project failed to establish adequate market access, limiting the long-term viability of its economic activities.

Sustainability of outcomes—both environmental and socioeconomic—was often undermined by the limited duration of project support and lack of clearly defined responsibilities for country portfolio management. Most projects did not include a consolidation or exit strategy to ensure continuity of results postcompletion. Improved sustainability could have been achieved through better coordination and sequencing—both between successive GEF-funded projects and between GEF initiatives and with those supported by other international agencies or national programs—to facilitate scaling up. However, field assessments revealed no clear responsibility for leading such coordination at the country level. The division of roles between GEF Agencies and national partners remained ambiguous. Moreover, operational focal points did not receive consistent guidance, and their office capacity was uneven.

The factors affecting the sustainability of socioeconomic co-benefits—such as short project duration, limited follow-up mechanisms, weak institutional ownership, and inadequate coordination—mirror those observed in the sustainability of environmental outcomes. Just as environmental gains often depend on long-term engagement, local capacity, and integration with national systems, socioeconomic benefits require similar conditions to endure and scale. This finding underscores the interconnectedness of environmental and development objectives, and the importance of addressing systemic constraints that affect both.