Integration for greater impact

Transformational change requires collaboration among diverse stakeholders across multiple sectors and segments of society. Integrated programming has pursued inclusive, multiconstituency engagement, showing both progress and gaps.

• Food Systems programs used multisectoral platforms to align national and local government actors, civil society, and occasionally private sector entities, helping to foster changes in agricultural and environmental practices.
• The Sustainable Cities Program featured multilevel stakeholder engagement, with national and municipal participation and contributions from global networks like ICLEI­­—Local Governments for Sustainability and C40 Cities, a network of mayors from larger cities around the world. Community involvement was substantial in Latin America, where projects supported inclusive urban infrastructure. It was more limited or late-stage elsewhere.
• The GWP demonstrated a broad approach to stakeholder inclusion, engaging government agencies, civil society, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, the private sector, and academia. It promoted coordination across ministries and government levels, with notable structures like Thailand’s Wildlife Enforcement Network and Mozambique’s anti-poaching center. Civil society played a key role, but results varied by country; while partnerships in Kenya and Viet Nam supported national and subregional legal frameworks, such engagement was not uniformly deep. Academic contributions, such as Gabon’s ivory lab and research partnerships in South Africa, added technical depth. Consistency in stakeholder influence and sustained engagement across contexts remains a challenge.

Across the GEF’s integrated programming, private sector engagement has advanced gradually but is still below its potential to drive sustainability and transformational change.

The Sustainable Cities IAP revealed both the opportunities and the limitations of engaging with the private sector at the municipal level. The program sought to engage private actors through targeted public-private partnerships. In some cities, this approach led to successful initiatives in waste management, renewable energy, and transportation. For example, cities in India and Mexico partnered with private firms to deploy biodigesters and electric vehicles. However, many cities lacked institutional frameworks, technical capacity, or procurement mechanisms to organize viable public-private partnerships. For example, Johannesburg, South Africa, and Vijayawada, India, encountered delays and diminished uptake due to bureaucratic complexity, inadequate outreach, and unclear incentive systems.

In Dakar, Senegal, the focus was on institutional strengthening rather than infrastructure investment. The project supported integrated urban planning and solid waste management by improving coordination at the metropolitan level, developing a strategic plan, and enhancing planning and budgeting processes. While no new waste facility was built, the project engaged the private sector through consultations and capacity building, particularly around service delivery models, preparing critical groundwork for more effective private sector collaboration in the future.

As part of Food Systems programming, the GGP attempted to promote systemic change in the beef, soy, and palm oil supply chains through coordinated interventions on supply and demand. Engagement spanned global multinationals (e.g., COFCO, Unilever, McDonald’s, Nestlé), national firms (e.g., Wilmar, Musim Mas), and financial institutions. The GGP piloted blended finance models—particularly via the International Finance Corporation—which mobilized significant private capital, including a $288 million prefinancing facility for COFCO and a $200 million green loan to Louis Dreyfus Company. Tools such as the Soy Toolkit (to support soy traders and retailers in responsible sourcing practices) were adopted, but there is no clear evidence of permanent changes in sourcing behavior or systemic regulatory shifts.

RFS adopted a more localized and inclusive model, engaging the private sector through support to producer organizations; micro, small, and medium enterprises; and women’s cooperatives. In Nigeria and Uganda, contract farming and value chain agreements were brokered. In Eswatini and Niger, market-oriented partnerships with processors and financial actors were forged. Nonetheless, much of the private sector contribution remained in-kind and narrowly earmarked. Without stronger incentives and financial innovation, scaling and systemic influence were constrained.

The FOLUR program broadened the GGP’s private sector engagement by supporting diverse initiatives, such as partnerships with cocoa processors in Papua New Guinea and green finance in Thailand. However, outcomes remain uneven and at an early stage. Structural barriers—including weak demand-side reforms, limited business incentives, and underdeveloped financial systems—hamper progress. The GEF-8 Food Systems Integrated Program aims to promote blended finance and support small and medium enterprises and producer groups, which requires addressing regulatory and financing gaps and aligning sustainability with market competitiveness.

In other integrated programs, private sector engagement was more limited in scale and strategic focus. In the SFM portfolio, support often centered on small and medium enterprises, including community-based ventures in sustainable timber and nontimber products. Although such efforts generated local benefits, they struggled to achieve scale because of market access constraints, weak investment links, and unresolved land tenure issues. Larger private actors, including agribusiness and forestry companies, were engaged only sporadically, reined in by unclear regulatory frameworks and insufficient incentives.

Social inclusion

The approach to inclusion in GEF integrated programming has evolved from GEF-6 to GEF-8, with increasing attention to gender and Indigenous Peoples and a growing recognition of youth. GEF-7 introduced stronger requirements for gender mainstreaming and engagement with Indigenous communities, while GEF-8 linked inclusion more explicitly to transformational change goals. However, evidence of efforts to include persons with disabilities continues to be scanty.

Gender inclusion has advanced significantly. GEF-6 programs, notably the RFS and the GGP, incorporated gender mainly through participatory approaches. GEF-7’s FOLUR program went further by embedding gender in landscape planning and policy processes, and GEF-8’s Food Systems integrated gender into its theory of change. Progress included women’s increased access to technical training, income-generating activities, and influence in decision-making. Nigeria’s RFS project (GEF ID 9143) partnered with the Women Farmers’ Advancement Network to strengthen women’s roles in rice and groundnut value chains. FOLUR’s Inclusive Sustainable Rice Landscapes in Thailand (GEF ID 10268, UNEP) project applied gender-sensitive policies and included gender indicators in its monitoring systems. Both projects reported improvements in women’s participation in rural organizations and access to services.

Nonetheless, limitations remain. Many projects focused on participation quotas or awareness raising without addressing control over resources. Gender expertise within project teams was often weak, and monitoring systems prioritized activity counts over transformational outcomes, such as access to land or credit. In Ghana, the RFS Sustainable Land and Water Management Project (GEF ID 9340, World Bank) increased women’s incomes but failed to address intra-household power dynamics, generating tensions over income management. Intersectional dimensions, such as those affecting young or Indigenous women—while not a policy requirement—were rarely considered.

The inclusion of Indigenous Peoples has improved over time, especially in GEF-7 and GEF-8, although institutional and cultural barriers persist. Early efforts under SFM programs prior to GEF-7 were inconsistent, particularly in areas with land tenure disputes. Where clear equity frameworks were applied, projects enhanced Indigenous participation in governance and management. In Latin America, Food Systems projects in Ecuador and Peru promoted intercultural dialogue and stewardship. The FOLUR child project in Peru (GEF ID 10307) worked with Shawi and Awajun communities to align sustainable land management with Indigenous Peoples’ development priorities. However, support for Indigenous organizations and enterprises often lacked continuity.

Youth inclusion remains limited across the GEF portfolio, though promising examples are emerging. Food Systems projects offered training to young farmers on sustainable practices and value chains. Nigeria’s RFS project (GEF ID 9143) targeted youth through information and communications technologies-based community monitoring and nutrition awareness. In Burkina Faso and Kenya, projects have supported large numbers of young people through training, entrepreneurship, and nature-based enterprises, while GEF-8 has engaged YPARD to promote co-creation and youth-friendly policies. However, more frequently, youth have been grouped generically under “vulnerable groups” without targeted strategies, funding, or decision-making roles. Dedicated youth components and monitoring systems have largely been absent across programs.