Integration for greater impact

The process for selecting lead Agencies at the program level has improved since GEF-6. Agency selection has been guided by institutional capacity, thematic expertise, prior performance, and alignment with program objectives. Effective leadership has relied on having a well‑defined coordination mandate supported by sufficient resources. In the food systems thematic area, programmatic support roles became more clearly defined in GEF-7 and GEF-8. For example, the World Bank’s leadership in FOLUR provided consistent guidance across partners, while IFAD’s role in the RFS program supported knowledge exchange among executing partners. In contrast, the SFM initiative—despite its strong thematic focus across three distinct biomes—faced challenges due to a lack of centralized coordination. With separate program frameworks, theories of change, and lead Agencies, the SFM effort has lacked coherence, limiting integration, visibility, and opportunities for cross-program learning.

A 2025 IEO stakeholder survey conducted as part of the competitive advantage study of the GEF (GEF IEO 2025a) found that about 75 percent of respondents agreed that the selection of lead Agencies was broadly transparent. However, among respondents from GEF Agencies, agreement dropped to 55 percent, reflecting perceptions shaped in part by underlying competition among Agencies.

Changes in lead Agency can be justified, but could introduce transitional challenges. In the Sustainable Cities Program, leadership shifted from the World Bank in GEF-6 to UNEP in GEF-7, and back to the World Bank in GEF-8. The first transition was intended to strengthen civil society engagement, and the subsequent reversal to enhance private sector participation and scaling. Since the rationale for these shifts was not clearly communicated, they resulted in overlapping efforts and inefficiencies, including the simultaneous operation of two global platforms. These experiences underscore the need for clearer decision-making and continuity in Agency leadership.

At the child project level, Agency selection has been largely influenced by country preferences, existing partnerships, and in-country Agency presence. Strong upstream program coordination is essential to reduce the risk of fragmentation. In the GWP, a wide range of Agencies—including the Asian Development Bank, Conservation International, FAO, UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, and the World Wildlife Fund—were commonly selected. This diversity allowed countries to leverage Agency-specific strengths but also led to significant variation in implementation modalities and monitoring systems. Some projects focused on law enforcement and protected area expansion; others emphasized community-based conservation or infrastructure development.

Ensuring close alignment between country preferences and Agency expertise is vital in strengthening project effectiveness. For example, IFAD’s leadership of the RFS child project in Kenya—Establishment of the Upper Tana Nairobi Water Fund (GEF ID 9139)—was well matched to its expertise in smallholder agriculture. Similarly, the designation of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) to lead Malaysia’s Sustainable Cities project (GEF ID 9147) drew on its established experience in sustainable urban development, including integrated approaches to energy, transport, and resource efficiency.

Country-level stakeholders have consistently expressed appreciation for integrated approaches. This was a finding highlighted in the 2018 formative review of the IAPs (GEF IEO 2018c). The 2025 IEO stakeholder survey reinforced this view, with a strong majority of respondents indicating that the GEF’s integrated programming approach is effective in addressing major environmental challenges. Among country-level stakeholders, more than 95 percent agreed with this assessment (figure 6.1).

An implicit indicator of country support for integrated programs is their willingness to allocate STAR resources beyond the minimum required contribution. Countries have tended to provide additional STAR funding when the contribution ratio was more favorable. Under the GEF-6 IAPs, where the required contribution was one STAR dollar for every dollar of IAP matching incentive, 23 countries participated in 24 country child projects. Of these, 12 countries (52 percent—including Brazil, China, Ghana, India, and Mexico) allocated more STAR resources than required, contributing an additional $44.4 million. In GEF-7, the required contribution increased to two STAR dollars per one integrated matching incentive, and 17 countries (33 percent—notably Brazil, China, Colombia, and Mozambique) still exceeded the minimum, adding $10 million in STAR funding. However, in GEF-8, with a less favorable ratio of three STAR dollars for every integrated program incentive, no country contributed beyond the required amount.

Country support is critical to effective child project implementation, requiring institutional alignment, sustained cross-sectoral leadership, and continuity across political transitions. Countries with existing interministerial coordination platforms and decentralized governance systems are thus better positioned. For example, under the GWP, national governments formed wildlife crime units and updated protected area strategies. Bhutan integrated conservation into national development planning, while others used regional platforms to harmonize laws and enforcement efforts.

In GEF SFM interventions, 75 percent of projects were well aligned with national priorities, while 11 percent showed only partial alignment. Stronger alignment was evident in Brazil, where projects supported national deforestation prevention plans and the National Plan for Environmental and Territorial Management in Indigenous Lands. In Benin, projects aligned with the Forest Strategy, National Biodiversity Protection Strategy, and National Action Plan against Desertification. In contrast, in countries such as those in the Congo Basin, as well as in Colombia and Peru, weak coordination among key ministries resulted in fragmented implementation and weaker political support.

In the Sustainable Cities Impact Program, a key challenge has been translating national-level commitment into effective local action, since municipal authorities often lack the mandates or resources required for integrated urban planning.

In the case of Food Systems programs, Colombia, Ghana, and Indonesia developed jurisdictional models linking commodity value chains with land use governance, supported by close collaboration among agriculture, planning, and environment ministries. Engagement strategies increasingly included multistakeholder participation, as in Tanzania in FOLUR (GEF ID 10262, World Wildlife Fund–US [WWF-US]) as well as in RFS (GEF ID 9132, IFAD), incorporating gender and social inclusion in the design. However, in GEF-8, the short time frame provided to prepare concept notes limited the opportunity for thorough consultations with key ministries, reducing the depth of ownership and alignment during design. In Peru, for example, some government agencies with key responsibilities for food systems were only consulted once the project was nearly fully designed. Cross-case study observations and interviews in Ghana, Indonesia, and Tanzania raised concerns about the time needed to start country projects involving multiple commodities and agencies, each with different food systems priorities. This includes the time needed to meaningfully engage a range of relevant stakeholders, establish platforms, and refine objectives and activities within the broader food systems agenda.