Integration for greater impact

Relevance

The GEF’s climate change mitigation strategy has evolved to align with UNFCCC guidance, national priorities, and the need for cost-effective delivery of global environmental benefits. Over the past two decades, the emergence of larger, better-resourced multilateral climate funds has enabled countries to access financing for large-scale mitigation projects through alternative channels. This shift has coincided with a steady decline in the GEF’s climate change mitigation funding since GEF-5.

In response, the GEF has recalibrated its strategy to prioritize capacity building and the creation of enabling environments—areas increasingly emphasized in guidance from the UNFCCC. Historically, the UNFCCC has called on the GEF to support convention obligations and capacity development. More recent COP decisions have specifically urged the GEF to assist countries in meeting the reporting requirements for Nationally Determined Contributions and the enhanced transparency framework under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. Reflecting this emphasis, the GEF has placed greater focus on its enabling activity pillar, shifting from large-scale investments to targeted support that strengthens institutional capacity and compliance with global climate commitments.

Country needs and GEF priorities for climate change mitigation finance are generally aligned, though not entirely. In recent years, the UNFCCC has improved its assessments of funding needs through the work of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Global Stocktake. Countries have identified their financial requirements in GEF-funded reports submitted to the convention, and the Standing Committee on Finance has compiled these into a summary of aggregate funding needs. These assessments reveal that the energy sector continues to represent the highest demand for climate change mitigation financing, followed by land use and forestry, transportation, and agriculture.

In comparison, GEF-8 climate change mitigation priorities place a slightly different emphasis. While land use and forestry receive the largest share of indicative funding—particularly through integrated programs and NbS—they are followed by the energy sector, transportation, and agriculture (GEF Secretariat 2022a). This allocation reflects a strong, though not exact, alignment between country-identified needs and GEF programming, highlighting both the responsiveness of the GEF to national priorities and areas where further calibration may enhance strategic coherence.

Of the 11 GEF-8 integrated programs, 10 receive funding from the climate change mitigation focal area, and six are expected to contribute significantly to mitigation. Two integrated programs—the Net-Zero Nature-Positive Accelerator and Sustainable Cities—are explicitly designed for climate change mitigation; several other integrated programs also have mitigation benefits and track these results. Under the Net-Zero Nature-Positive Accelerator, 13 child projects totaling $107.6 million in GEF funding have been approved, and 12 have received Chief Executive Officer (CEO) endorsement. The Sustainable Cities Program, with 21 approved child projects totaling $165.6 million, is still mostly under preparation. Its program framework document was approved in June 2024, and through June 2025, only two of its child projects had obtained CEO endorsement.

While GEF-8 integrated programs leverage agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) for significant mitigation benefits, they do not have a strong focus on fossil fuel reduction. Most climate change mitigation–funded programs prioritize AFOLU mitigation, while Sustainable Cities and the Net-Zero Nature-Positive Accelerator are primarily focused on non-AFOLU activities. Although integrated programs set ambitious AFOLU mitigation targets, they largely overlook fossil fuel reduction opportunities, such as the following:

• The Greening Transportation Infrastructure Development (GEF ID 11467; World Wildlife Fund–US [WWF-US], UNEP, and Asian Development Bank) program integrates biodiversity and landscape concerns but does not address transportation modes or embedded emissions from construction materials.
• SIDS-related programs fail to address high diesel dependency, despite its cost, pollution risks, and ocean transport hazards. Nonetheless, the GEF has supported SIDS in advancing renewable energy, even though this has occurred primarily through stand-alone projects.

Measures supporting exit from coal mining and coal-bed methane elimination, infrastructure planning, and e-waste management would provide important climate change mitigation opportunities with benefits in biodiversity, chemicals, and land degradation. But such ideas have not been adequately incorporated into GEF-8 programs. This gap may partly stem from the shrinking climate change mitigation funding envelope, limiting the scope for diverse mitigation activities.

Performance and effectiveness

Effectiveness and sustainability have shown steady improvement in projects approved during recent GEF cycles, particularly those with a substantial number of completed projects. The share of projects rated moderately satisfactory or higher for outcome achievement rose from 77 percent cumulatively in GEF-1 to GEF-4 to 83 percent in GEF-5 and 84 percent in GEF-6 (figure 5.3). Similarly, the proportion of projects rated moderately likely or higher for sustainability of outcomes at completion increased from 69 percent in GEF-1 to GEF-4 to 72 percent in GEF-5 and 80 percent in GEF-6. Similar upward trends are also evident in the quality of project implementation and execution and the design and implementation of monitoring and evaluation systems.

The Bhutan Sustainable Low-emission Urban Transport Systems (GEF ID 9367, UNDP) project exemplifies effective GEF-supported climate change mitigation. The project aimed to facilitate Bhutan’s urban transport transition to a low-carbon system by promoting the adoption of low-emission vehicles, with a particular emphasis on electric vehicles. It focused on the early stages of this transition, including strengthening the policy and regulatory environment, providing financial incentives to encourage investment in low-emission transport, and supporting capacity development and knowledge sharing. By project completion, the Bhutanese government had adopted the supported policy and regulatory changes. Most, but not all, of the expected results—such as the implementation and use of incentives, mobilization of investment, capacity development, and knowledge sharing—were achieved. Given these achievements and a moderate risk to sustainability, the project’s outcome was rated satisfactory, with sustainability assessed as moderately likely.

In contrast, the Public Lighting Replacement Project in Colombia (GEF ID 9354, Inter-American Development Bank) achieved only partial success. While it produced analytical studies in three municipalities and built stakeholder support, it failed to implement the planned transition to LED lighting due to the absence of a subsidized credit line. The GEF IEO rated it moderately unsatisfactory for outcomes and moderately unlikely for sustainability, citing limited municipal capacity and high institutional and financial risks.

According to the available terminal evaluations, climate change mitigation projects in GEF-6 have supported broader socioeconomic benefits. For example, in Morocco, the Renewable Energy for the City of Marrakesh’s Bus Rapid Transit System project (GEF ID 9567, UNDP) not only reduced greenhouse gas emissions but also enhanced sustainable urban mobility—benefiting women, who comprise half of the system’s users. In Uganda, the Strengthening the Capacity of Institutions in Uganda to Comply with the Transparency Requirements of the Paris Agreement (GEF ID 9814, Conservation International) project promoted gender inclusion by integrating gender focal points into key greenhouse gas intensity sector hubs and building their capacity, thereby strengthening institutional responsiveness and inclusivity.

The climate change mitigation focal area has long supported numerous innovative, technology-focused initiatives. In 2008, the GEF Council and the LDCF/SCCF Council approved the Poznan Strategic Program on Technology Transfer to assist countries with technology needs assessments, pilot low-carbon and climate-resilient technologies identified in these assessments, and facilitate knowledge sharing. The GEF has pioneered efforts in establishing energy service companies and has piloted innovative financial instruments. During GEF-6, financing for electric vehicles and mini-grids in Africa is an example of GEF support for innovation. In GEF-7, the Global Cleantech Innovation Programme was launched to enhance coordination and ecosystem connectivity, and accelerate the uptake and investment in innovative cleantech solutions. In GEF-8, the programs centered on electric vehicles and clean hydrogen—areas where the GEF has an established track record—underscore its continued commitment to fostering innovation.

The GEF Council’s adoption of a risk-friendly approach in 2024 (GEF 2024b) signals a commitment to encouraging greater institutional, policy, technological, and financial risk-taking. However, thus far, emerging innovative technologies are less prevalent in the GEF-8 portfolio. Other climate finance funds may provide good examples of actively advancing emerging innovations. For example, over the past four years, the Climate Investment Funds have launched three major programs targeting industrial decarbonization, renewable energy integration into existing power grids, and battery electric storage. Similarly, the UK’s Ayrton Fund has committed £1 billion to support 12 technology-focused challenges across comparable sectors.

Several promising innovation opportunities—such as integrated energy efficiency, circular economy solutions, smart grids, and vehicle-to-grid technologies—remain underused globally. This situation presents a strategic opportunity for the GEF to play a leading role in accelerating their deployment. Similarly, technologies with significant market potential, such as sustainable cooling, could benefit from a programmatic approach similar to that used for electric vehicles and mini-grids, which has proven effective for scaling impact and driving broader adoption.