Integration for greater impact

5.8 Summary

An analysis of GEF interventions across focal areas reveals several recurring themes that highlight both areas of strength and ongoing challenges.

Across focal areas, there is good alignment with conventions and agreements. GEF programming has demonstrated strong alignment with global environmental frameworks and national development priorities. Projects have consistently supported the objectives of multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UNFCCC, and the Stockholm and Minamata Conventions. This strategic alignment ensures that GEF-funded initiatives contribute directly to countries’ international commitments while advancing national policy goals.

The shift to integrated programming replaces sector-specific interventions with holistic, cross-sectoral strategies that address multiple environmental challenges simultaneously. Integrated landscape and seascape initiatives now routinely embed biodiversity restoration, climate resilience, and land degradation neutrality, leading to broader systemic impacts. Biodiversity strategies increasingly support nature-positive development models that engage Indigenous Peoples and the private sector, while climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts emphasize upstream planning and programmatic solutions.

Overall, GEF projects showed strong outcome ratings. Projects in biodiversity, land degradation, and climate change mitigation have consistently received strong ratings for effectiveness. Community-led conservation, sustainable land management, and early warning systems for disaster preparedness are among the interventions that have delivered robust results.

Focal area interventions have generated socioeconomic co-benefits, including support for the governance of local organizations and institutions, know-how and technical skills, and opportunities to generate incomes and jobs. In general, there are gaps in tracking the co-benefits, which is further discussed in chapter 4. The specific case of projects promoting pollution prevention and control suggests that beneficial effects on health and employment opportunities are real, but little evidence is available to substantiate these claims.

Despite these strengths, several persistent challenges constrain the long-term impact and scalability of GEF interventions.

• Sustaining outcomes beyond project life spans remains challenging. Many projects struggle to maintain momentum beyond their implementation phase due to weak governance structures, insufficient financial follow-up, and limited integration into national budgets or institutional frameworks. This issue is particularly pronounced in climate change adaptation and chemicals and waste projects, though it also affects other focal areas to varying degrees.
• Land degradation and biodiversity projects were most sustainable where embedded in policy frameworks and community governance structures. Climate change adaptation and chemicals and waste projects struggled with financial and institutional sustainability, despite success in embedding upstream prevention and private sector partnerships in chemicals and waste management.
• Private sector engagement has not yet been fully realized through GEF programming. This shortcoming is particularly noted in international waters and chemicals and waste projects, where small enterprises face barriers to adopting sustainable practices and broader industry transitions require targeted support.
• Monitoring and learning systems, while improved, often lack standardized outcome-oriented indicators, limiting the ability to track long-term environmental and socioeconomic effects. Outcome-oriented indicators are often lacking, especially in chemicals and waste projects, where difficulties in applying consistent M&E frameworks reduce accountability and learning. M&E weaknesses limit the availability of evidence on long-term environmental and socioeconomic effects, such as health improvements or employment outcomes.

These cross-cutting findings underscore the rationale for the GEF’s pivot toward integrated programming, which is explored in greater depth in the following chapter.