Integration for greater impact

GEF-supported projects show strong and growing inclusion of women. In the 300 projects analyzed, inclusion of women increased from 83 percent of closed projects to 100 percent of ongoing ones, aligning with GEF-8 Scorecard data indicating that all GEF-8 projects considered gender issues at the design stage. The share of projects that both analyzed women as stakeholders and planned at least one participation activity rose significantly—from 44 percent to 95 percent.

Despite these improvements, concerns remain about the quality of gender inclusion. GEF Secretariat and Agency stakeholders reported that gender analysis and planning are sometimes treated as a box-ticking exercise, with some gender analyses being superficial. Several terminal evaluations observed that projects could have had greater impact with stronger gender analysis from the outset. Although the situation has improved in GEF-7 and GEF-8, some gender analyses (especially for enabling activities) are still only a couple of sentences long in their entirety.

Gender considerations primarily focus on women and girls, with limited attention to men and boys—though stakeholders emphasized their inclusion is essential to prevent backlash and undermine gains in gender equity. Inclusion of people marginalized based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while important to some GEF Agencies, was not found in the documentation of the sampled projects. This lack may be due to the sensitivities of project teams and executing partners to the political and cultural context during implementation and reporting.

Inclusion of IPLCs in GEF-supported projects has expanded significantly, rising from 28 percent of completed projects to 51 percent of ongoing ones. This trend parallels a growing overlap between GEF project areas and land held or used by IPLCs—from 17 percent in GEF-4 to 25 percent in GEF-8. These projects are most commonly located in Africa and tend to address multifocal issues, climate change, or biodiversity.

The GEF is working to improve programming for IPLCs, increasingly emphasizing direct financing and support for self-determined priorities. The Inclusive Conservation Initiative, launched in GEF-7 by Conservation International and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), allocated $14.5 million across 10 subprojects in 12 countries and directed roughly 80 percent of funds to IPLCs to lead implementation (CI and IUCN 2025). Its projects integrate cultural preservation alongside environmental goals and place strong emphasis on gender mainstreaming. Building on the GEF-7 Inclusive Conservation Initiative work, the Heart of Conservation Initiative launched in GEF-8 by the World Wildlife Fund–US also directs 80 percent of the project grant (GEF-8 Inclusive Conservation Initiative [GEF ID 11761]) to IPLCs and organizations, with the aim of increasing resources, organizational strength, and recognition for IPLCs to support their implementation of self-determined conservation priorities. In a recent report, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel highlighted successful examples of Indigenous involvement in GEF projects and identified recommendations, such as ways the GEF can scale up support for Indigenous Peoples and their conservation efforts in GEF-9 and the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (Andelman and Bierbaum 2025).

One of the challenges of including IPLCs in GEF-supported projects is their identification in different contexts. As inclusion of IPLCs has increased between completed and ongoing projects, project documentation has more clearly documented whether IPLCs might be in the project area, whether they might be affected, and how they will be included in the project. Among sampled closed projects, the evaluation team counted 13 (6.5 percent) that likely had Indigenous Peoples present without clear documentation; these projects included groups that self-identified as Indigenous but were not recognized as such by either the countries or the projects. By GEF-7 and GEF-8, the share of sampled projects that included communities that were likely Indigenous but did not identify them as IPLCs dropped to just 0.5 percent, while the overall share of projects including IPLCs rose (as noted above), highlighting a growing trend of GEF-supported projects to identify the need for additional procedures related to IPLC.

There has been a notable uptick in GEF-supported projects planning to conduct free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), rising from 7 percent of completed projects to 19 percent of ongoing projects. Additionally, some projects stated they would undertake FPIC if it became necessary during implementation. In some cases, projects chose to conduct processes similar to FPIC with communities not formally recognized as Indigenous.

However, concerns remain about the quality and consistency of FPIC implementation. Sixteen percent of civil society organization (CSO) survey respondents viewed FPIC efforts as inadequate. Some GEF Secretariat and Agency stakeholders also reported that FPIC is sometimes perceived as burdensome, and mentioned instances where projects were intentionally designed to avoid areas with IPLCs. The evaluation team found no evidence of this practice in project documents, which is unsurprising given that such decisions are unlikely to be explicitly documented.

Youth inclusion in GEF projects has increased from 56 percent in completed projects to 73 percent in ongoing ones. Projects show varied approaches to youth engagement, though there is inconsistency in how youth are defined by age. Unlike other marginalized groups, youth are typically framed not as vulnerable, but as agents of change and key stakeholders in long-term sustainability.

The GEF Secretariat has recently advanced youth engagement, including support for the Gustavo Fonseca Youth Conservation Leadership Program—approved in 2022—which trains young conservation professionals in GEF-recipient countries. The GEF also sponsored youth leaders and delegates to participate in a range of international meetings, including conferences of the parties.

In spite of recent gains, sustaining youth involvement remains problematic due to high mobility and limited economic opportunities.

Inclusion of persons with disabilities in GEF projects remains limited but has expanded from 8 percent in completed projects to 18 percent in ongoing ones. There is growing interest in improving their integration, as illustrated by a UNDP project Community Based Flood and Glacial Lake Outburst Risk Reduction in Nepal (GEF ID 4551), which outlined plans to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities in local workshops and mock drills. The project constructed and installed 35 elevated tube wells, two of which were “disabled friendly,” to increase access to safe drinking water supply during floods.

Key barriers continue to pose challenges for inclusion of persons with disabilities. These include the diverse needs within the disability community, which require varied accommodations, and gaps in knowledge and resources among project staff to address these different needs.

The involvement of CSOs—increasingly recognized as key agents of inclusion—has grown in GEF-supported projects. According to the GEF-7 and GEF-8 Corporate Scorecards, the majority of projects consulted CSOs during the design phase. In the sampled portfolio, the number of projects identifying CSOs representing marginalized groups as stakeholders increased across all groups, with the most significant rise seen in those representing IPLCs—from 5 percent in completed projects to 16 percent in ongoing ones. A large majority of CSO survey respondents (84 percent) affirmed the importance of CSO engagement for advancing inclusion. Interview and focus group participants emphasized the valuable role of CSOs as implementers and technical experts, noting their deep community knowledge.