Integration for greater impact
Eighth Comprehensive evaluation of the GEF
These findings are primarily informed by IEO evaluations on sustainable forest management (SFM), the Global Wildlife Program, community-based approaches, and the GEF’s response to COVID-19 (GEF IEO 2022e, forthcoming-k, 2024a, 2022a).
In the biodiversity focal area, the GEF has progressively shifted from traditional conservation efforts toward a more integrated, area-based approach to address the growing complexity of biodiversity loss. The evolution of its biodiversity strategy demonstrates a shift from isolated interventions to more holistic, cross-sectoral efforts. During GEF-5, the focus was on strengthening protected area systems, mainstreaming biodiversity into productive landscapes, and supporting biosafety and access to genetic resources. GEF-6 expanded on this approach by emphasizing the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services into broader development and financial planning. Building on these foundations, GEF-7 further advanced the strategy through integrated and impact programs that aimed to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss through support for policy reforms and mainstreaming across sectors to achieve broad, systemic change.
GEF-8 builds on past strategies by expanding its focus beyond biodiversity conservation and sustainable use to include the restoration of globally important ecosystems. Key shifts in GEF-8 include a greater emphasis on integrated landscape and seascape management through area-based approaches, coupled with efforts to mobilize domestic resources for biodiversity conservation. The strategy emphasizes cross-sectoral, nature-positive economic development by integrating biodiversity actions into key sectors while deepening engagement with Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), civil society, and the private sector. The introduction of 11 integrated programs (discussed in chapter 6) aims to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss with more coordinated and comprehensive action. GEF-9 will offer an opportunity to align with the implementation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), enhancing synergies between the two funds through biodiversity focal area investments and programming designed to contribute to the framework’s implementation.
The biodiversity portfolio represents the largest focal area within the GEF, both in terms of the number of projects and volume of GEF financing. Since the pilot phase, the focal area has financed 2,309 biodiversity-related projects and allocated $7.9 billion of financing from the GEF Trust Fund (table 5.1). Biodiversity projects accounted for 37 percent of total GEF projects in GEF-5, increasing to 48 percent in GEF-8; the share of biodiversity financing also increased—from 29 to 37 percent—over the same period. Regionally, while allocations have fluctuated over time, the Latin America and the Caribbean region has received the largest share of biodiversity funding, closely followed by Africa. Among the GEF Agencies, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) accounts for the largest share of financing in the biodiversity portfolio, although its share has almost halved from 50 percent before GEF-5 to 27 percent in GEF-8.
Sources: GEF Portal as of June 30, 2025. See table D.25.
a. Includes multifocal area projects; excludes dropped and canceled projects without a first disbursement. Integrated programming set-asides for GEF-6 and GEF-7 were prorated according to the programming directions of each replenishment period.
b. Includes Agency fees and project preparation grant funding and fees. Integrated programming set-asides for GEF-6 and GEF-7 were prorated according to the programming directions of each replenishment period.
c. Excludes multitrust fund and multifocal area projects; GEF financing excludes Agency fees and project preparation grant funding and fees.
Cofinancing remains a persistent challenge. Focusing on the GEF Trust Fund, the biodiversity focal area has recorded the lowest cofinancing ratios across all focal areas since GEF-6. The recent IEO Evaluation of Cofinancing in the GEF highlights that many biodiversity projects do not generate revenue streams that can attract more cofinanciers, contributing to the consistently lower cofinancing levels (GEF IEO 2025b).
GEF-funded biodiversity interventions focus on three main priority areas:
Cross-cutting interventions enhance impact by promoting ecosystem-based approaches, SFM, and NbS for biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation, and disaster risk reduction. The GEF also supports biodiversity-based livelihoods, particularly for IPLCs, the development of green enterprises, and policy and institutional reforms. Additional efforts include strengthening biodiversity monitoring systems, supporting knowledge management, and aligning national biodiversity strategies and finance plans with the Global Biodiversity Framework.
GEF biodiversity interventions show strong alignment with the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and national biodiversity strategies and targets, supporting the integration of conservation priorities into national policy frameworks and helping countries meet their global biodiversity commitments.
The GEF’s biodiversity interventions are aligned with integrated approaches. These interventions are grounded in integrated landscape and seascape approaches that address the interconnected ecological, social, and economic drivers of biodiversity loss. Through its integrated programming, the GEF supports cross-sectoral action in areas such as food systems, urban development, and infrastructure, targeting the root causes of environmental degradation. Policy integration is further advanced through enabling activities such as national biodiversity strategies and action plans, helping countries embed biodiversity priorities into national planning frameworks. Additionally, the GEF promotes inclusive, multistakeholder engagement—emphasizing the leadership of IPLCs—as essential to achieving equitable and lasting conservation outcomes.
.jpg)
GEF biodiversity projects have strong performance ratings for outcomes, less so for sustainability. Biodiversity project outcome ratings are consistently strong (83 percent across all periods) and have steadily improved across GEF replenishment periods since GEF-4 (figure 5.1). However, these projects continue to underperform in key areas such as sustainability and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) design and implementation. While the overall proportion of projects rated as likely to be sustainable remains relatively low at 59 percent, this proportion rose significantly to 74 percent in GEF-6. Similarly, ratings for M&E design and implementation have shown progress over time, though both remain below 70 percent across the GEF replenishment periods.
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.
GEF biodiversity projects have delivered effective conservation results despite a range of implementation challenges. These projects have achieved such outcomes as habitat protection, species conservation, and reduced deforestation. However, progress has often been hindered by bureaucratic delays and capacity constraints, further compounded by disruptions caused by COVID-19. Further, the absence of standardized indicators and data gaps limit adaptive management. In addition, weak law enforcement, shifting government priorities, and difficulties in securing cofinancing have affected overall implementation efficiency.
For example, the Hwange-Sanyati Biological Corridor Project (GEF ID 4645, World Bank) significantly improved land use and natural resource management among corridor managers and local communities, directly benefiting approximately 20,000 people. Notable interventions—including the installation of creosote-treated gum pole barriers and the use of chili guns—effectively reduced human-elephant conflict, with incidents dropping from 100 to just nine per year. Despite these achievements, the project faced implementation challenges. Delays in government disbursements disrupted time-sensitive activities such as fire management, while the sustainability of alternative livelihoods remained uncertain due to weak market linkages and vulnerability to theft or vandalism of community assets.
GEF biodiversity interventions have delivered socioeconomic co-benefits through various initiatives that support local livelihoods and increased income through ecotourism, sustainable harvesting, and the development of value-added products. Evaluations indicate that many projects have supported capacity building and the formalization of community roles in biodiversity management (box 5.1). However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerability of overreliance on nature-based tourism and a protected area-based economy, underscoring the need for more diversified and resilient income sources (box 5.2).
Despite intentions for inclusive design, implementation often falls short in ensuring equitable benefit sharing and meaningful IPLCs’ participation. Findings from IEO evaluations reveal persistent challenges: insufficient financial inclusion, weak support for securing land and resource rights, and a lack of Indigenous Peoples’ plans in several biodiversity projects. Large-scale SFM projects, while designed to be inclusive, often provide limited oversight and direct engagement with marginalized groups during execution. These gaps reduce the effectiveness and equity of interventions, highlighting the importance of strengthening safeguards, accountability, and inclusive governance mechanisms.
Sustainability is hindered by gaps in governance, funding, and institutional capacity. The sustainability of biodiversity interventions has been low across the portfolio. Evidence from biodiversity-related evaluations indicates that weak governance, administrative and procedural delays, inadequate institutional and technical capacity, and political instability undermine sustainability. In some cases, the absence of secure tenure and rights, fragile contexts, or the shift of government priorities away from biodiversity have further eroded the long-term viability. Even where scientific expertise or favorable policies exist, the lack of integration into national budgets and insufficient financial continuity pose risks to maintaining results beyond project life spans.
The GEF-supported Innovative Use of a Voluntary Payment for Environmental Services project (GEF ID 5668, Conservation International) in Paraguay was restructured in October 2020 to strategically engage and empower Indigenous communities. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development revised the environmental services regime requirements and waived registration fees, enabling largely forested lands of the Guarani Ñandeva, Ayoreo, and Yshir peoples to participate in conservation incentives. From the outset, project leaders developed a free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) protocol in partnership with the Federation for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples and reactivated an interinstitutional working group with the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute to guide land use certification. Indigenous representatives were consulted on every aspect of the work plan, with their culture, governance structures, and land rights respected throughout. As a result of this inclusive approach, the project certified 116,993 hectares of land, exceeding the initial target of 20,940 hectares, and traded 58,140 hectares under the Environmental Services Regime. By integrating payment for ecosystem services schemes, households earned income from reforestation and conservation activities that funded wells, water pumps, and skills training, with special attention to women and other vulnerable groups. While the project faced challenges such as aligning public-bidding criteria for certificate purchases and safeguarding traditional uses of nontimber forest products, the project’s continuous learning process and close collaboration with Indigenous partners created a durable model of forest stewardship that delivers both biodiversity and livelihood benefits.
Nature-based tourism and related economic activities are common features of many GEF-supported protected areas, often concentrated around park sites. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated travel restrictions brought these activities to a standstill, significantly affecting local economies. To assess the economic disruption, the IEO used pre- and postpandemic nighttime light data as a proxy indicator for changes in economic activity (GEF IEO 2022a). The analysis revealed that 75 percent of 8,427 protected areas across Africa experienced a decline in light intensity—suggesting reduced economic activity—regardless of country or International Union for Conservation of Nature protected area category. This trend was evident even in well-known destinations, highlighting the widespread impact of the pandemic on tourism-dependent regions.
A focused analysis of 40 protected areas under the Global Partnership on Wildlife Conservation and Crime Prevention for Sustainable Development program (GEF ID 9071) further confirmed these findings, showing reduced light intensity in the Serengeti and Kruger National Parks. These declines illustrated the far-reaching consequences of the pandemic on income generation, park operations, and conservation programs. A key recommendation from this analysis was to manage risks and develop contingency plans that anticipate and address disruptions from pandemics, natural disasters, and other large-scale crises.
Technological and institutional innovations have played a key role in enhancing the sustainability of biodiversity conservation in GEF-supported projects. Tools such as Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking, drones, artificial intelligence, forensic DNA analysis, and satellite systems have been used to address illegal wildlife trade, human-wildlife conflict, and deforestation. Platforms like eCITES and SMART have strengthened data collection and enforcement in countries including South Africa, Thailand, Mozambique, and Ethiopia. GEF-supported projects have also contributed to forest monitoring systems through the use of satellite data. To promote sustainability, many of these technologies have been embedded in national planning and monitoring frameworks. In parallel, institutional innovations—such as the creation of national wildlife enforcement units and improved coordination among enforcement agencies—have improved biodiversity governance. The Thailand and Viet Nam cases show how aligning institutional reforms with technology can enhance conservation outcomes in the long term.
