Integration for greater impact

Sustainability and scalability are critical for achieving transformational change, ensuring that environmental and socioeconomic gains endure and expand beyond project timelines. Integrated programs have sought to embed these dimensions through institutional anchoring and multilevel planning. Limited investment in postproduction value chains, underdeveloped financial and exit strategies, and weak regional linkages have constrained their potential to deliver broader and lasting results.

Sustainability outcomes of 22 GEF-6 IAP child projects are broadly comparable to those of stand-alone projects, with 73 percent rated as likely sustainable. Although this is slightly lower than the 80 percent seen in stand-alone child projects, the difference is not statistically significant. However, the analysis is based on a limited number of terminal evaluations, and findings may change as more projects are completed.

Program and project designs increasingly reflect sustainability goals, particularly environmental ones, but place less emphasis on economic and financial sustainability. From GEF-7 onward, program theories of change included sustainability considerations. For example, the RFS IAP promoted agro-ecosystem resilience, integrated landscape management, and community ownership. The Sustainable Cities IAP applied tools such as land use planning and transit-oriented development to embed sustainability in urban systems. Yet, many Food Systems child projects underemphasized exit strategies and postproject financing. In FOLUR, few projects operationalized sustainability through institutional pathways or budgetary commitments—particularly in relation to public-private platforms. An exception in this regard is the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program, which has supported innovative sustainable finance mechanisms for forest conservation—representing a significant achievement in mobilizing resources and ensuring long-term impact.

Achieving sustainability remains a significant challenge, particularly in institutionalizing gains, ensuring financial viability, and sustaining stakeholder engagement beyond project closure. Strong institutional anchoring has proven the most consistent enabler. For example, in the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program (GEF ID 9272, World Bank, UNDP, and WWF-US), community-based conservation was integrated with national protected area systems, linking local stewardship to national policy. Under the GWP, Gabon’s project on Wildlife and Human-Elephant Conflicts Management (GEF ID 9212, World Bank) established regional genetic analysis facilities for enforcement continuity. The project Strengthening Institutions, Information Management and Monitoring to Reduce the Rate of Illegal Wildlife Trade in South Africa (GEF ID 9525, UNEP) used long-range radio frequency technology for cost-effective poaching surveillance. Still, sustainability was often constrained by weak integration between conservation governance and community livelihood options. GEF-8’s Wildlife Conservation for Development integrated program recognizes this challenge and emphasizes livelihood diversification and governance strengthening.

Food Systems programs have promoted environmental sustainability gains through efforts to curb deforestation and conserve biodiversity. For instance, Ethiopia’s FOLUR project (GEF ID 10243, UNDP) integrates coffee supply chain sustainability with forest protection through cooperative and state-led efforts. The family farming project in Niger (GEF ID 9136) trained over 13,000 farmers in natural resource management via farmer field schools, while a project in Burkina Faso—Participatory Natural Resource Management and Rural Development Project in the North, Centre-North and East Regions (GEF ID 9141, IFAD)—combined land tenure security with technical and financial support, enabling sustained land use practices by clarifying rights and reducing risk for smallholders. However, many projects continued to focus on primary production, with weaker attention to value chain integration, food waste, or dietary shifts, key components of sustainable food systems transformation.

Scalability

Scalability in integrated programs has progressed through localized and institutional pathways, but the challenge lies in strengthening cross-project integration and regional linkages. For example, the GEF’s Food Systems programs have promoted scalability by embedding interventions across multiple levels, notably landscape and national levels. Child projects under FOLUR, Food Systems, and the RFS engaged a wide base of actors (83 percent with civil society organizations, 79 percent with communities). Food Systems also increasingly bridges local action with national policy and financial systems. For instance, IAP projects in Burundi and Côte d’Ivoire—Support for Sustainable Food Production and Enhancement of Food Security and Climate Resilience in Burundi’s Highlands (GEF ID 9178, FAO) and Scaling up Cocoa-based Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration/Transformative Innovations in Côte d’Ivoire (GEF ID 10247, FAO, UNIDO, and UNDP)—illustrate efforts to address horizontal and vertical policy coherence. Coordination projects have improved internal alignment, helping translate program intentions into child-level design. Cross-border linkages, such as Indonesia’s outreach to buyer networks, is far less frequent.

Under Sustainable Cities, measures to support the scaling of results feature national knowledge platforms to share knowledge on key sectors and implementation efficiency. These include the Swachh Bharat Mission Digital Platform to manage data regarding waste management in Indian states and cities, and the transit-oriented development strategy prepared in China—both efforts undertaken under respective Sustainable Cities IAP projects. The platforms can be used by local and national-level governments for planning and replication.

The GWP presents a useful model for scaling by combining regional cooperation, innovation, and policy reform. The program spans most of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, while expanding thematically to address One Health concerns. Other successes in scaling include Indonesia’s women-led ranger groups, inspired by earlier implementation in Zimbabwe; and Gabon’s ivory traceability lab, now serving regional needs. In Mozambique, drawing on project experience, national authorities implemented a traceable timber regulation system as well as georeferencing of elephant corridors and drafted national wildlife crime strategies involving the judiciary, police, and customs. In Ethiopia, legislation amendments were introduced to address penalties for wildlife crime and establishment of the Ethiopian Wildlife Development and Conservation Authority—thus scaling from project to policy. Constraining factors in scaling efforts included country-focused project management and fragmented funding, which challenged regional efforts and exchanges. Inconsistent reporting also undermined learning.