Integration for greater impact

GEF integrated programming shows clear additionality in systemic framing, ambition, innovation, and stakeholder inclusion, reflecting a strategic shift toward addressing complex environmental and societal challenges. However, achieving its transformational potential requires greater selectivity in program scope, deeper investment in national and local capacities, stronger appetite for innovation-related risk, and more robust systems for knowledge sharing and evidence generation.

• Systemic framing. Integrated programming has advanced a systemic approach to environmental and societal challenges. Child projects more consistently define system boundaries, analyze policy contexts, and incorporate scaling strategies than do stand-alone projects. However, some programs still focus narrowly on production or single sectors rather than fully integrated systems approaches.
• Implementation quality and results. Despite their greater complexity, integrated program child projects achieve implementation timelines at a rate comparable to stand-alone projects. Early evidence points to institutional and policy-level benefits, including cross-sectoral coordination and stakeholder platform development, but comprehensive evidence on environmental, socioeconomic, and institutional outcomes is lacking, as few integrated program projects have reached completion. Institutional transformation has been uneven, often weighed down by political and coordination challenges, weak subnational capacity, and gaps in documentation.
• Ambition, innovation, and adaptability. Integrated programs have introduced more ambitious objectives and institutional innovations than have comparable stand-alone projects. They have incorporated new tools and frameworks to address complex, cross-sectoral issues. Nevertheless, risk-taking has remained moderate, held back by tight preparation timelines and limited mechanisms for innovation incubation, adaptive learning, and higher-risk approaches. The rapid expansion of programs, themes, and participating countries under GEF-8 increased complexity and heightened the need for integration both within and across programs.
• Stakeholder and institutional inclusion. Integrated programs have engaged a broader range of actors—government agencies, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, the private sector, and value chain stakeholders—than have comparable stand-alone projects. This inclusivity occasionally led to more participatory governance and local empowerment. However, private sector engagement has often fallen short because of weak regulatory frameworks, insufficient incentives, and inadequate financing mechanisms.
• Sustainability and scaling. Many integrated program designs have incorporated sustainability objectives—particularly environmental ones—but these have not been consistently backed by financial, institutional, or policy frameworks. Postproject sustainability has often depended on external support. Scaling efforts have advanced through localized action and institutional coordination, yet regional linkages and horizontal collaboration have been less common, constraining broader systemic influence.
• Knowledge systems. Integrated programs have invested more in knowledge generation and coordination platforms than have comparable stand-alone projects, but these investments have not consistently translated into stronger learning or adaptive management. M&E systems have rarely captured transformational dynamics such as behavior change or policy alignment, and the absence of a centralized knowledge repository has curtailed knowledge sharing across programs.