Integration for greater impact

As part of its accreditation process, the GEF ensures that its Agencies comply with minimum standards across four key areas: fiduciary responsibilities, environmental and social safeguards, gender equality, and stakeholder engagement. Compliance is monitored through annual progress reports.

In line with the GEF Policy on Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS), ongoing projects consistently consider risks to vulnerable groups, particularly women and IPLCs. Notably, increases in inclusion rates align with the adoption of key GEF policies. Nearly all reviewed projects (93 percent) included the required ESS documentation. All projects considered potential risks to women and identified specific risks. Similarly, 98 percent considered risks to IPLCs, though only 34 percent identified specific risks—indicating that projects are conducting due diligence, even though most did not present risks to IPLCs. Consideration of youth was less common: 23 percent of projects assessed potential risks, and 20 percent identified specific risks. While most risk assessments appeared in ESS documentation, around one-quarter of projects that addressed risks to women did so in other project documents. All projects that did not consider or identify risks to marginalized groups in their ESS documentation were enabling activities. Many of these justified the omission by claiming they do not involve direct, on-the-ground action. However, this narrow interpretation overlooks the fact that high-level activities—such as laws, policies, and strategies—can still lead to social and environmental impacts by shaping future on-the-ground actions.

As required by the GEF Policy on Stakeholder Engagement, recently designed projects consistently provide information on stakeholders in proposed project activities, though quality may vary. Specifically, the evaluation team assessed project compliance with the requirement that projects include stakeholder engagement plans or equivalent documentation. This assessment focused on whether there was information on stakeholders and means of stakeholder engagement; it did not consider the extent to which projects complied with the requirement that the stakeholder engagement plan or equivalent also include “dissemination of information, roles and responsibilities in ensuring effective Stakeholder Engagement, resource requirements, and timing of engagement throughout the project/program cycle.” An initial review of the project documentation indicates that many projects did not provide such information on many of these elements, so the compliance rate would be considerably lower if those elements were considered.

Recently designed projects largely comply with the requirements of the 2017 GEF Policy on Gender Equality. Among sampled ongoing projects, 89 percent met most policy requirements, including conducting a gender analysis or equivalent; developing a gender action plan (GAP) or equivalent; and incorporating gender-responsive actions, indicators, and sex-disaggregated targets. Gender-sensitive indicators were predominantly limited to sex-disaggregated measures, with only 16 percent of projects including gender-sensitive indicators that went beyond demographic counts, such as the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP’s) Community-based Climate-responsive Livelihoods and Forestry (GEF ID 10312) project, which includes gender-responsive climate hazard and vulnerability metrics. Compliance with specific GAP-related requirements was somewhat lower: 78 percent of projects included a GAP or equivalent at CEO endorsement/approval; 78 percent addressed gender-related differences, impacts, and risks; and 69 percent addressed opportunities to empower women. From GEF-7 to GEF-8, the review sheet template for enabling activities was revised so it no longer consistently included standard questions on gender analysis. Nevertheless, the majority of sampled enabling activities (84 percent) had a review sheet documenting the GEF Secretariat’s consideration of gender issues, underscoring the value of its review in ensuring compliance with the GEF Policy on Gender Equality.

The GEF Secretariat plays a critical role in strengthening the inclusion of marginalized groups—particularly women, IPLCs, youth, and persons with disabilities—through its project review process. A review of documentation from 100 ongoing projects showed that in 30 percent of sampled cases, there were no substantive comments on inclusion—in most instances, because the projects complied with policy requirements. In 70 percent of sampled cases, the Secretariat provided substantive comments to strengthen inclusion; these were mostly focused on integrating gender into outputs, indicators, and sex-disaggregated data. In 95 percent of these projects, gender was addressed in the Secretariat’s feedback, with about three-quarters of comments deemed substantive, while others were either clerical or confirmed adequate gender planning. Among the remaining projects, most had review sheets without a gender prompt; in one case—First and Second Biennial Transparency Report and Fifth Communication National (GEF ID 11302, UNDP)—the Secretariat did not provide comments. These reviews frequently (90 percent of the time) led Agencies to revise project documentation to improve inclusion. From GEF-7 to GEF-8, the proportion of projects receiving substantive feedback on marginalized groups rose from 62 percent to 78 percent, showing an increasing emphasis on inclusive design. Despite the growth in providing feedback on marginalized groups, some Agency staff expressed concern over the length of time it took the GEF Secretariat to conduct reviews related to gender compliance.

To improve data quality and strengthen implementation of inclusion-related policies, GEF-7 introduced enhanced project reporting systems. However, the reliability of self-reported inclusion data varies across different marginalized groups. The IPLC self-tag, which asks whether IPLCs were consulted during the project identification phase, appears to be accurate in capturing that specific action. Nevertheless, it is a poor proxy for overall IPLC inclusion, as it does not reflect involvement beyond the identification stage or account for other forms of engagement. As a result, the tag both overestimates and underrepresents true IPLC inclusion, making it an unreliable indicator.

In contrast, gender-related tags offer somewhat more useful—though still imperfect—insights. The GEF Portal includes five gender tags: gender sensitive, gender responsive, economic benefits, participation in decision-making, and resource access. Over half of the projects that self-tagged as gender sensitive or responsive also included corresponding measures in project plans, indicating moderate alignment between tagging and actual design. The “economic benefits” tag was used less frequently (45 percent) but proved relatively accurate, with 37 percent of tagged projects showing clear documentation of economic co-benefits, while 45 percent of projects that omitted the tag also lacked such measures in project documentation—highlighting alignment between tagging and documentation in 82 percent of sampled projects. However, inconsistencies remain; for example, 24 percent of projects self-tagged for improving women’s participation in decision-making did not report plans related to that specific goal in their GAP or other design-stage documentation. These findings suggest that while the tagging system can offer useful signals, it is not a fully reliable tool for tracking inclusion and should be interpreted with caution.