Integration for greater impact
Eighth Comprehensive evaluation of the GEF
This section draws from the recent IEO Evaluation of the International Waters Focal Area (GEF IEO forthcoming-g).
From GEF-5 to GEF-8, international waters interventions addressed a range of topics, including pollution reduction and sustainable fisheries, while increasingly promoting integrated approaches like integrated water resource management, integrated coastal management, and ridge to reef. Terminal evaluations confirm that most GEF-5 and GEF-6 projects included at least one such approach. In GEF-8, active projects emphasize knowledge management, institutional capacity building, and policy and regulatory strengthening. An emerging area of engagement involves providing technical support for the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement)—the new international agreement under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted in 2023—positioning the GEF to play an important role as part of the BBNJ Agreement financial mechanism.
From GEF-7 to GEF-8, the international waters focal area increased its emphasis on integrated programming, with over $137 million allocated to child projects within integrated programs. This trend follows a broader movement toward increased financing of integrated programs across the entire GEF-8 portfolio of approved projects. The focal area now actively contributes to multifocal initiatives such as Clean and Healthy Ocean, Circular Solutions to Plastic Pollution, and Amazon, Congo, and Critical Forest Biomes, while also reducing concentration among implementing Agencies. While this shift presented opportunities to generate multiple environmental benefits, it also raised concerns that integrated programs might dilute the core focus on transboundary cooperation, because they do not always include all countries sharing transboundary water bodies.
The number of projects approved hovered around 70 between GEF-5 and GEF-7, with an increase under GEF-8 (table 5.4).1 The GEF financing per period remained stable, while the expected cofinancing at approval has increased since GEF-5. The lead Agencies with the highest share of financing are now UNDP and UNEP. Under GEF-8, the Latin America and the Caribbean region has the highest share of financing, followed by Africa.
Sources: GEF Portal as of June 30, 2025. See table D.28.
a. Includes multifocal area projects; excludes dropped and canceled projects without a first disbursement.
b. Includes Agency fees and project preparation grant funding and fees.
c. Excludes multitrust fund and multifocal area projects; GEF financing excludes Agency fees and project preparation grant funding and fees.
GEF international waters programming has demonstrated strong alignment with national, regional, and global priorities. Terminal evaluations from GEF-5 and GEF-6 show that 98 percent of projects were rated as relevant, underscoring their contributions to national priorities such as water security, irrigation, drinking water, and fisheries management. An example is the Buzi, Pungwe, and Save (BUPUSA) Basins project in Zimbabwe and Mozambique (GEF ID 9593), led by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which addressed water security and flooding challenges while supporting the establishment of the BUPUSA Commission to enhance transboundary water cooperation.
Despite these achievements, the Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (GEF ID 4489, UNEP) identifies waterbodies facing the most severe environmental risks that could benefit from international waters investments. Although GEF-8 programming has drawn on these findings to improve alignment, remaining gaps suggest a need for more strategic targeting of interventions. Strengthening the link between scientific assessments and project selection could further enhance the relevance and impact of the portfolio while still upholding the principles of country ownership and demand-driven design.
Evidence suggests that international waters focal area performance improved in GEF-5 and GEF-6. The proportion of international waters projects rated in the moderately satisfactory or above range for outcome achievement was higher in GEF-5 than for all projects approved through GEF-4 (figure 5.4); the proportion decreased in GEF-6, but that number is based on fewer project observations. The trends for sustainability, quality of implementation and execution, and M&E design and implementation are improving.
Sources: GEF IEO Annual Performance Report 2026 data set, which includes completed projects for which performance ratings were independently validated through June 2025. See table D.19, table D.20, table D. 21, table D.22, table D.23, and table D.24.
Note: M&E = monitoring and evaluation. The numbers of projects for which validated outcome ratings are available are in parentheses. The cumulative figure for all periods includes GEF-7, which is not shown separately due to the limited number of observations.
Several international waters projects have demonstrated strong catalytic effects, sustaining and scaling up results beyond the project period. A key example is the Transforming the Global Maritime Transport Industry Towards a Low Carbon Future Through Improved Energy Efficiency (GEF ID 5508) project, led by UNDP, which promoted energy-efficient shipping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One of its major outcomes was the creation of the Global Industry Alliance in 2017—a public-private partnership where 16 companies collectively committed $320,000 annually to support low-carbon shipping innovation. This alliance enabled ongoing research, capacity building, and technology demonstration, and helped attract further private sector participation. After project closure, the initiative was sustained through continued support from the International Maritime Organization and the Government of Norway via the GreenVoyage2050 project.
Another example is the Chu and Talas River Basins project (GEF ID 5310, UNDP), which facilitated transboundary water cooperation between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. By leveraging existing partnerships and support from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the Chu-Talas Water Commission continued to advance the strategic action program approval process even after the project ended, with no additional GEF funding. A transboundary example and its contribution to policy coherence is presented in box 5.4.
The TDA-SAP projects in the international waters focal area have continued to facilitate coherent policies and actions in more than 90 countries. Transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) is a tool adopted by the international waters focal area to foster transboundary cooperation and identify shared threats. This process informs the development of a strategic action program (SAP), outlining strategic actions to address these threats in the region. Forty-eight percent of completed projects and 60 percent of ongoing projects include TDA-SAP development or implementation. This finding suggests that the focal area has promoted coherence on transboundary water management at regional levels, with associated national-level benefits. A case study of the Kura River provides a specific example of GEF contributions to policy coherence through TDA-SAP implementation. As a result, Georgia and Azerbaijan agreed on monitoring standards for water quality and quantity for the first time, thereby strengthening cooperation. GEF investments also contributed to the enactment of a new water law in Georgia and the establishment of the State Water Resources Agency in Azerbaijan, both advancing integrated water resources management.
Several projects applied innovative technologies that contributed to reducing environmental stress in international waters. The Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem project (GEF ID 4343, UNDP) applied integrated multitrophic aquaculture, which improves aquaculture productivity while reducing water pollution through natural food chain processes. Knowledge from this project was shared with three Caribbean countries via the International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource Network (IW:LEARN), a platform for exchanging good practices and solutions across the international waters portfolio. IW:LEARN has served as a successful knowledge management hub for the international waters focal area by facilitating training and learning exchanges and providing a repository for knowledge products. In addition, projects in the Yellow Sea, Kura River Basin, and Drina River Basin used constructed wetlands to treat polluted water through natural filtration and biological processes, with evidence of an 85 percent reduction in nitrogen levels at a pilot site in the Kura River Basin.
Over the years, the GEF’s international waters focal area has laid a strong foundation for tackling plastic pollution, culminating in the GEF-8 Circular Solutions to Plastic Pollution program. This initiative emphasizes upstream and midstream interventions, including risk assessments in large marine ecosystems, and builds on lessons from past projects that underscore the value of community-driven solutions alongside policy and regulatory action. Effective engagement of women and youth, as seen in Indonesia, has supported behavior change and improved waste management, although sustaining these gains remains a challenge—as demonstrated by recurring pollution in Tonga’s Fanga’uta Lagoon.
Recent strategic shifts toward integrated programming highlight the need for national policy coherence to address transboundary pollution. Projects like Blueing the Black Sea (GEF ID 10563, World Bank) promote regional policy harmonization, while the global platform of the Circular Solutions to Plastic Pollution program (GEF ID 11197; UNEP and WWF-US) identified the lack of enabling policy frameworks as a major barrier. In response, it supports the development of integrated policy tools that align environmental, economic, and social objectives—critical for achieving long-term, systemic reductions in plastic pollution.
Socioeconomic co-benefits have been generated. For example, a terminal evaluation on Implementation of Global and Regional Oceanic Fisheries Conventions and Related Instruments in the Pacific SIDS (GEF ID 4746, UNDP and FAO) reported that it contributed toward a 6.25 percent increase in fisheries sector employment from 2010 to 2019. Other terminal evaluations also noted increased employment and learning opportunities for women, improved economic conditions for fishers, and better food security. As with the other focal areas, measurement of socioeconomic co-benefits lacked a systematic approach, challenging the comparison and aggregation of findings.
Sustainability planning in GEF-5 and GEF-6 projects—including international waters projects—has been a challenge. A review of 42 terminal evaluations from GEF-5 and GEF-6 found that fewer than 30 percent of projects developed sustainability or exit plans. Among 52 ongoing projects assessed, 56 percent lacked explicit sustainability strategies, and 34 percent planned to develop them late in the project cycle—limiting time for institutional strengthening and follow-through. However, recent projects have shown improvement by initiating sustainability planning earlier. For instance, the Sargasso Sea project (GEF ID 10620, UNDP) plans to develop an exit strategy before the midterm review, and the Ecuador–Peru SAP project (GEF ID 10700, UNDP) initiated its postproject sustainability planning during the second year of implementation.
Similarly, there are opportunities to improve long-term financing strategies in sustainability planning. Some ongoing projects have committed to preparing detailed financial strategies. Examples include the North Brazil Shelf fisheries project (GEF ID 10919, FAO), which will develop a financial plan in its final year, and the Limpopo River Basin project (GEF ID 10182, UNDP), which aims to prepare a financial sustainability plan for the basin’s commission secretariat by project end.
It remains a challenge to engage the private sector in the international waters focal area. Evaluation surveys, interviews, and stakeholder feedback consistently identified this as a major weakness. Contributing factors common across the GEF include limited private sector expertise, lengthy approval processes for private participation, and the long-term nature of international waters projects, which often lack immediate financial returns.
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.