Integration for greater impact

Coordination and knowledge management have been central priorities of GEF integrated programming, supported by dedicated funding to promote system-level learning and the replication of effective practices across countries and regions. Compared to stand-alone projects, integrated programming has pursued more ambitious goals for coordination and knowledge exchange, with the share of funding allocated to global coordination platforms increasing from 8 percent in GEF-6 to 11 percent in GEF-8.

Within the Food Systems programs, however, the proportion of budgets devoted to coordination and knowledge management declined—from 10 percent in GEF-6 (RFS) to 9 percent in GEF-7 (FOLUR) and 7 percent in GEF-8 (Food Systems)—even as the number of child projects grew.⁶ To address emerging funding constraints, coordination responsibilities have increasingly shifted to child projects. Thus, under Food Systems, child projects are encouraged to allocate up to 10 percent of their budgets to programmatic functions such as capacity building, lesson sharing, and participation in knowledge platforms. However, many countries have been reluctant to commit these resources, raising concerns about the effectiveness and sustainability of shared learning and collaboration efforts.

M&E is a critical source of knowledge for integrated programming, and its design has gradually evolved from GEF-6 to GEF-8 toward more coherent arrangements. While progress has been made, M&E has largely remained focused on traditional operational indicators, with limited attention to capturing systemic changes such as shifts in value chain governance, policy coherence, or behavioral transformation. Gaps also persist in aligning M&E systems across child projects and at the program level, limiting the ability to track collective progress toward transformational change.

At the overall program level, global coordination projects in GEF-6 programs established common indicators, knowledge platforms, and learning systems. The GGP developed guidance and technical products to support M&E consistency across child projects, particularly in deforestation-free supply chains. The RFS IAP established a program-level results framework and coordinated use of geospatial monitoring tools to aggregate biophysical outcomes across landscapes. These efforts enabled some alignment of metrics, such as land productivity and restoration, especially in countries with robust institutional support.

Child project-level M&E systems focused on traditional indicators such as environmental benefits, but dedicated limited attention to salient characteristics of integrated programs, such as effects on policy coherence and systemic changes such as behavioral changes or changes in the governance of a value chain. This complicates capturing pathways and progress to transformational change.

Integrated programming has made advances in knowledge management but continues to face significant challenges. Notably, there is weak synchronization between global coordination projects and child project timelines. This misalignment has hindered the effective “docking” of knowledge—tailoring and delivering knowledge products to meet specific audience needs.

In the SFM portfolio, knowledge-sharing efforts successfully disseminated technical tools, community-based practices, and forest monitoring systems. For instance, the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program (GEF ID 9272) used data-sharing platforms and peer learning exchanges to build the capacity of protected area managers and community organizations. However, in the absence of a unified knowledge strategy across the portfolio, learning remained fragmented, and cross-regional insights were limited.

In Food Systems programs, knowledge generation has been evident, but its application to influence policy or practice has been only sparsely documented. The RFS coordination project—Cross Cutting Capacity Building, Knowledge Services and Coordination Project for the Food Security Integrated Approach Pilot Program (GEF ID 9140, IFAD)—developed dashboards, bulletins, and technical reports across 12 African countries, supported by workshops to strengthen regional coherence. The Trase platform, supported by the Generating Responsible Demand for Reduced-Deforestation Commodities (GEF ID 9182, WWF-US and UNDP) project, advanced supply chain transparency; the FOLUR global platform (GEF ID 10306, World Bank) focused on technical guidance and country dialogue. Yet only 24 percent of child project terminal evaluations for GEF-6 referenced engagement with hub projects, and less than 10 percent explicitly linked adaptive management or policy changes to learning from the global program.

Timing mismatches, one-way outreach, and limited resourcing have further constrained the customization and uptake of knowledge offerings. In the RFS, pre-agreed work plans limited flexibility to address emerging country learning needs; in FOLUR, knowledge services were predetermined despite intentions to adopt a demand-driven approach. Additionally, many FOLUR partner agreements ended while child projects were still in early implementation. Although the Food Systems program plans to align coordination project timelines with child projects, resource constraints raise the risk of early closure unless bridged by GEF-9 funding.

Currently, there is no centralized repository for knowledge generated across the integrated and impact programs. Knowledge products remain under the custody of the Agencies leading each program, and no single portal exists to provide consolidated access to information and experiences. Some integrated programs have developed their own knowledge platforms, often hosted by a global child project focused on knowledge management and communications. These combine institutional content (e.g., program structures and partner information) with knowledge resources such as publications, thematic briefs, event information, and news; examples include the Global Platform for Sustainable Cities and UrbanShift, FOLUR, and Plastic Reboot. However, knowledge about integrated program approaches, structures, strategies, and benefits remains dispersed across multiple websites, making it difficult to locate and synthesize information.

As earlier cycles of integrated programs (GEF-6 and GEF-7) conclude, the need to preserve and transfer knowledge between cycles has become increasingly pressing. A standardized, programwide system for collecting, curating, and disseminating lessons across all replenishment periods could strengthen institutional memory, support program continuity, and maximize the value of collective learning.

Within the GEF Strategy for Knowledge Management and Learning (GEF Secretariat 2024b), there are two planned actions relevant to creating a centralized information repository on integrated programs:

• Action Area 1.2 foresees facilitation of the interoperability of the integrated program platforms to ensure they are interlinked and developed based on common principles.
• Action Area 1.3 anticipates the creation of a knowledge and collaboration platform, which could centralize knowledge on integrated programs.

As of June 2025, the GEF Secretariat was developing an inventory of platforms and platform interoperability principles and organizing expert workshops to strengthen knowledge synthesis and sharing on substantive aspects of integrated programming.