Integration for greater impact

Main areas of intervention

Land degradation focal area projects and programs have primarily focused on sustainable land and/or forest management. These initiatives incorporate community-led approaches such as afforestation, agroforestry, fire management, and conservation agriculture. Integrated watershed and river basin management interventions have addressed the interconnected nature of land and water systems, focusing on the restoration of hydrological cycles, improved land use practices in catchment areas, and enhanced local participation in water governance—particularly in vulnerable regions such as the Lower Mekong River Basin. The GEF has increasingly embraced the concept of land degradation neutrality,² combining the restoration of agricultural lands with the promotion of regenerative farming practices and carbon sequestration strategies such as conservation tillage and cover cropping. These climate change adaptation measures are designed to foster resilient landscapes capable of withstanding environmental shocks while supporting local livelihoods.

Relevance

GEF interventions historically demonstrated strong alignment with national and regional land management priorities and international environmental commitments. This includes commitments under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) framework. Many GEF-funded projects are strategically designed to complement national action plans, embedding land degradation control efforts with broader sustainable development agendas. In drylands, improvements in data and information systems and advancements in management planning have helped strengthen the foundation for more effective governance of sustainable land and forest use. Land and resource use rights are especially weak in communally managed drylands, and strengthening them is a critical component of ensuring both environmental and socioeconomic benefits, including for the most vulnerable. Yet less than a third of GEF dryland projects have addressed conflict or land tenure. Land tenure plays an important role in the framework of the UNCCD, with Decision 26/COP.14 on land tenure, adopted at the 14th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNCCD, providing a basis for deeper consideration in future GEF-funded projects.

GEF land degradation interventions have promoted cross-sectoral integration. By linking land restoration efforts with climate change adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable agriculture, these projects have created synergies that enable maximizing both environmental and socioeconomic benefits. Strategic partnerships with international donors, regional organizations, and multilateral development banks have facilitated a more coherent and coordinated approach to land degradation control. However, challenges remain in achieving policy coherence across different sectors, especially at the subnational level, and in effectively integrating private sector engagement into national land restoration efforts.

Performance and effectiveness

Outcome achievement in land degradation projects has improved over time. Among the projects approved through GEF-4, 72 percent received outcome ratings in the satisfactory range at completion (figure 5.5). This figure increased to 95 percent for GEF-5. A further increase is visible under GEF-6, but the number of observations is small. The likelihood of sustainability of outcomes rose from 55 percent for GEF-4 to 67 percent for GEF-5. Similar trends are observed in project implementation and execution quality and M&E design and implementation.

The effectiveness of GEF land degradation projects has varied based on context, scale, and intervention design. A consistent finding is that projects with strong community engagement tend to achieve the most significant and lasting impacts. Community-led restoration initiatives—in which local stakeholders are actively involved in decision-making and implementation—have demonstrated higher success rates in sustaining positive environmental and economic outcomes, as illustrated in the Niger case (box 5.5).

By addressing land degradation within a landscapewide framework, integrated approaches in drylands have tackled multiple drivers of degradation. This approach has led to more substantial ecosystem restoration and improved livelihoods. Examples of integrated programming support relevant to drylands in the GEF portfolio over time include TerrAfrica, the Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management, the Sahel and West Africa Program in Support of the Great Green Wall Initiative, the Resilient Food Systems Integrated Approach Pilot, and—most recently—the Dryland Sustainable Landscapes Impact Program. Programmatic approaches are seen by GEF stakeholders as important to help break down ministerial silos, identify region-specific challenges and support learning, provide clustered support (e.g., on value chains), address transboundary issues, and incentivize governments to direct funding to marginalized drylands.

Innovation has enhanced the effectiveness of land degradation interventions. Advances in remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) technologies have improved monitoring and assessment capabilities, allowing for more precise tracking of land use changes and degradation patterns. The implementation of green bonds and payments for ecosystem services schemes has shown promise in incentivizing sustainable land use, though these mechanisms have yet to be fully scaled up. The Green Finance and Sustainable Agriculture in the Dry Forest Ecoregion of Ecuador and Peru (GEF ID 10852) project, implemented by the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (CAF), is innovative in seeking to mobilize private sector resources. It is issuing two green bonds for sustainable land use and conservation in Ecuador’s and Peru’s capital markets, with the GEF and CAF providing guarantees.

Achieving synergies can be challenging when interventions aim to address multiple objectives with limited resources and institutional capacity. A case in point is a project in Azerbaijan (box 5.6), where efforts to tackle two loosely related water management issues, without fully accounting for capacity limitations, resulted in fragmented implementation and limited impact.

Challenges also persist in monitoring long-term impacts. In certain cases, projects have lacked robust adaptive management systems, making it difficult to track progress, refine strategies, and ensure continuous improvements. The absence of consistent impact assessment frameworks has also constrained the ability to draw conclusive evidence on intervention effectiveness across different ecological and socioeconomic settings.

The GEF’s reliance on area-based indicators limits its ability to fully track changes in environmental status. Environmental outcomes in GEF dryland projects are mostly reported in hectare terms, with fewer cases of robustly measured improvements in biophysical indicators, such as analysis of vegetation cover or soil organic carbon. The gap is partly due to the dynamic nature of landscapes and the time scale for registering improvements. It is also related to how global environmental benefit indicators are defined and interpreted. The reported number of hectares under improved management does not specify the type or quality of change. The integration of land degradation neutrality indicators into national land use monitoring is a promising development that could better measure the environmental changes to which GEF-funded projects are contributing.

Sustainability

The long-term sustainability of land degradation control efforts has shown mixed results. Sustainability has been strongest where interventions have been embedded within national policy frameworks and where local institutions have been empowered to manage land resources effectively. Projects that have successfully established community governance structures and secured long-term financing have demonstrated better prospects for sustaining their outcomes.

Financial sustainability remains a challenge. Many interventions continue to rely heavily on external donor funding, making them vulnerable to disruptions once project financing ends. While market-based incentives, such as payments for ecosystem services and green investment mechanisms, have been explored as potential solutions, their integration into national land management strategies remains limited.