Integration for greater impact

Main areas of intervention

The adaptation portfolio has advanced beyond conventional classification frameworks, evolving into more sophisticated and integrated programming. Interventions now span five main thematic areas and incorporate a combination of hard infrastructure, soft measures, capacity building, technology transfer, and ecosystem-based approaches to comprehensively address systemic climate vulnerabilities. These climate change adaptation efforts can be broadly categorized into five main groups:

• Agriculture. Agricultural interventions have evolved significantly, progressing beyond basic crop adaptation to integrate agroecological transformation approaches, climate-resilient varieties, aquaculture systems, digital agricultural tools, and social protection mechanisms such as crop insurance pilots.
• CIEWS. These investments emphasize meteorological infrastructure modernization and weather station networks.
• Water resource management. Water interventions consistently emphasize integrated approaches, incorporating rainwater harvesting, efficient irrigation technologies, and hydrological modeling systems.  
• Coastal and marine management. Key interventions include integrated coastal zone management, fisheries adaptation, marine protected area establishment, and blue economy initiatives.
• Climate-resilient infrastructure. Investments in public infrastructure aim to reduce climate-related risks in critical sectors.

Relevance

GEF adaptation interventions under the LDCF/SCCF remain aligned with guidance from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) and the objectives of the Paris Agreement. As financial mechanisms of these agreements, the LDCF and SCCF have responded to evolving COP priorities, particularly those highlighted at COP27, COP28, and COP29. COP decisions emphasized improving access to finance for least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS), supporting gender-responsive and locally led adaptation, advancing national adaptation plans, and enhancing coherence among climate funds. In response, GEF-8 programming has prioritized country ownership, institutional capacity building, and regional collaboration through multicountry initiatives and workshops. At COP29, parties requested the GEF to strengthen coherence across funds, streamline access for eligible countries, and deepen engagement with national and regional institutions in underserved regions. While approaches have evolved, the climate change adaptation portfolio continues to reflect the priorities and guidance set forth by the COP and the Paris Agreement, and the LDCF/SCCF also have aimed to prioritize the needs of individual countries and communities.

Over time, GEF adaptation projects have evolved to include both upstream investments in climate data and services and downstream actions that enhance preparedness and response. The IEO’s CIEWS evaluation (GEF IEO 2025f) found that most interventions have been implemented at the local level (39 percent), focusing on livelihood resilience, ecosystem-based adaptation, and early warning systems. National-level interventions (33 percent) have strengthened climate governance and policy integration. State and regional-level efforts (20 percent) have enabled transboundary cooperation, promoting coordinated climate risk management. Multicountry interventions (7 percent) have supported regional collaboration on shared climate challenges such as desertification and extreme weather events.

Performance and effectiveness

Data available for completed projects show different trends in outcome achievement and sustainability. The percentage of completed projects assessed as moderately satisfactory or higher for outcome achievement increased from 81 percent under GEF-1 to GEF-4 cumulatively to 82 percent under GEF-5 and 90 percent under GEF-6 (figure 5.2)—although in the latter period, the number of projects observed is smaller. The percentage of projects assessed at completion as moderately likely or above for sustainability dropped from 71 percent under GEF-1 to GEF-4 cumulatively to 53 percent under GEF-5 and increased only slightly to 56 percent under GEF-6—again, with a smaller number of observations. The quality of implementation and execution and M&E design and implementation show improving rating trends. Box 5.3 presents examples of more and less effective projects and selected explanatory factors.

The CIEWS evaluation found that LDCF/SCCF interventions have significantly contributed to improving climate information systems, enhancing institutional capacity, and integrating adaptation measures into national policies. Investments in modernized meteorological infrastructure and expanded automated weather stations have contributed to a 30 to 50 percent increase in forecasting accuracy in target regions, enabling earlier disaster response. Early warning coverage reached over 60 percent of vulnerable populations in LDCs, correlating with reduced fatalities during cyclones and floods. In a UNDP-implemented project on strengthening CIEWS in Cambodia (GEF ID 5318), 15 automated weather stations were installed, improving flood forecasting accuracy by 50 percent and reaching 1.2 million people. Regional projects, such as Climate Change Adaptation in the Eastern Caribbean Fisheries Sector (GEF ID 5667, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], improved storm surge alerts, contributing to a 60 percent reduction in disaster-related fatalities.

The key achievements in agricultural adaptation included increased adoption of drought-tolerant crops and expanded extension services, which improved food security in vulnerable regions. Reduced postharvest losses were also noted through storage innovations and enhanced market access, though scaling pest surveillance systems remained challenging. Several country examples illustrate these impacts. In Niger and Burkina Faso, projects led by FAO on farmer field schools trained over 15,000 farmers in drought-tolerant techniques, boosting yields by 25 to 40 percent. In Malawi’s Climate Proofing Local Development Gains in Rural and Urban Areas of Machinga and Mangochi Districts (GEF ID 4797, UNDP), postharvest innovations such as improved grain storage systems reduced losses by 30 percent.

Integrated water resource management dominated interventions, emphasizing rainwater harvesting, drip irrigation, and hydrological modeling. The 2023 and 2025 LDCF/SCCF annual evaluation reports underscore improved water access in drought-prone regions (GEF IEO 2024c, forthcoming-q), with projects in Sub-Saharan Africa and SIDS enhancing agricultural yields through efficient irrigation. Policy reforms enabled equitable water allocation, reducing conflicts in transboundary basins. However, maintenance of water infrastructure and long-term financing gaps were recurring challenges. In Strengthening Capacities of Rural Aqueduct Associations to Address Climate Change Risks in Water Stressed Communities of Northern Costa Rica (GEF ID 6945, UNDP), drip irrigation increased water efficiency by 40 percent. Uganda’s Building Resilience to Climate Change in the Water and Sanitation Sector (GEF ID 5204, African Development Bank) project introduced gender-inclusive sanitation infrastructure, boosting girls’ school enrollment by 20 percent, but faced procurement delays that slowed implementation.

The integration of climate change adaptation into broader development planning has shown mixed results. While some projects have successfully mainstreamed climate resilience, others have remained confined to their respective sectors. Despite this inconsistency, a key strength of GEF adaptation interventions has been their catalytic effect. Projects have effectively mobilized cofinancing and fostered multistakeholder partnerships, extending their impacts beyond initial funding cycles. The LDCF/SCCF annual evaluation reports for 2023 and 2025 highlight that adaptation projects have often laid the groundwork for scaling up investments from other climate funds, national governments, and the private sector, enhancing their overall effectiveness.

Successful innovations within the LDCF/SCCF portfolios have emerged mainly in information-sharing platforms and data usage. Risk and vulnerability platforms have improved links between beneficiaries and policymakers, with the SCCF portfolio for non-LDCs showing higher innovation rates. Notable examples include the Southeastern Europe and Caucasus Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (GEF ID 4515, World Bank) and Costa Rica’s rural aqueduct associations project (GEF ID 6945, UNDP), which successfully implemented low-maintenance sensor systems for water monitoring. Additionally, the integration of social networks and messaging platforms has enhanced communication with local communities.

A major gap remains between innovative planning and implementation. While 22 percent of evaluated CIEWS projects included innovative features at the design stage, only 5 percent successfully implemented them by project completion. Innovation also varies by sector. Remote sensing and mobile technologies show promise in climate-smart agriculture, early warning systems, and ecosystem-based adaptation, but challenges to scaling persist. These include weak private sector partnerships, limited technical capacity, and inadequate funding. The 2025 LDCF/SCCF annual evaluation report notes that pilots often lack scaling pathways, and coordination with research institutions remains underdeveloped.

Sustainability

The sustainability of GEF-funded adaptation interventions has remained a challenge. The LDCF/SCCF annual evaluation reports for 2023, 2024, and 2025 highlight that sustainability is particularly fragile in LDCs and SIDS because of financial constraints, institutional capacity gaps, and sociopolitical instability.

A persistent challenge has been the lack of long-term financial mechanisms to sustain project benefits beyond initial funding. Many climate change adaptation interventions rely heavily on donor support, and while some projects have successfully leveraged cofinancing, securing ongoing resources for maintenance, capacity building, and scaling remains difficult. Furthermore, institutional ownership and policy integration have been inconsistent across projects. Another key factor affecting sustainability is the implementation of exit strategies and follow-up commitments. Projects that incorporated clear transition plans, including capacity-building efforts, private sector engagement, and local community involvement, had better sustainability prospects.