Integration for greater impact

7.3 Modalities for inclusion

GEF-supported projects include marginalized groups through two main approaches: participation activities and systemic inclusion measures, reinforced by CBAs and the SGP. Participation activities involve direct engagement at three levels: Inform (one-way communication to raise awareness), Consult (two-way dialogue to gather input, including interviews, workshops, and FPIC for IPLCs), and Collaborate (active partnership in decision-making through co-design, co-management, or governance roles). In the sampled projects, 52 percent informed, 82 percent consulted, and 41 percent collaborated with at least one marginalized group, most often women (figure 7.2).

CBAs and the SGP (discussed in detail in subsequent sections of this chapter) contribute to deeper inclusion by placing communities—particularly marginalized and vulnerable groups—at the center of project planning and implementation. These approaches enable communities to lead or co-implement initiatives based on their own knowledge, needs, and priorities, shifting the dynamic from passive participation to active involvement in decision-making. This more active role can influence governance processes, promote local ownership, and support the sustainability of GEF-supported interventions.

However, discrepancies exist between planned and reported participation. Projects were more likely to plan activities for women and IPLCs that were not later reported as implemented, while youth-related activities were sometimes implemented without being initially planned. The most commonly implemented unplanned activity was interviews, while surveys were the most frequently planned and completed. These gaps may reflect either implementation challenges or reporting inconsistencies. Some changes resulted from practical constraints, such as limited budgets or unrealistic plans, while others reflected adaptive responses to local needs and evolving stakeholder landscapes.

Impact was strongest when participation activities were both well-planned and effectively implemented. At the portfolio level, there is a statistically significant correlation between the use of structured participation approaches and higher project outcome ratings. Projects that combined multiple forms of participation and engaged diverse marginalized groups were more likely to achieve stronger results. However, planning alone was insufficient; meaningful implementation was essential to realizing these benefits.

Importantly, projects that engaged marginalized groups more actively through participation activities were more likely to deliver socioeconomic co-benefits. Analysis of documentation from completed GEF projects reveals statistically significant correlations between co-design and co-benefit delivery, between broader Collaborate activities and co-benefits, and between overall participation and co-benefits. While the academic literature has primarily emphasized co-design as a driver of such outcomes, GEF experience suggests that a wide range of participation activities—beyond co-design alone—are linked to enhanced socioeconomic benefits for marginalized groups.

Capacity building, civic empowerment, and economic empowerment are the most commonly planned or reported socioeconomic co-benefits in GEF-supported projects. Among these, capacity building for women is the most frequently included, reported in 70 percent of completed projects and 79 percent of ongoing ones. In contrast, relatively few projects reported socioeconomic co-benefits for IPLCs or youth, with the exception of youth-focused capacity building (38 percent in completed projects, 32 percent in ongoing) and youth economic empowerment (14 percent and 26 percent, respectively). Across marginalized groups, the proportion of projects that planned and later reported each co-benefit remained largely consistent. Other co-benefits—such as improved access to basic services, public health, safety, resilience, and governance—were included in fewer than one-quarter of projects.

Systemic inclusion measures are essential tools that help design and implement more inclusive GEF projects. Unlike participation activities, which involve direct engagement with marginalized groups, systemic inclusion measures—such as stakeholder analysis, inclusive theories of change, and indicators—create the structural foundation for inclusion without necessarily involving direct interaction.

Use of systemic measures has grown across GEF projects, though with wide variation in their frequency, quality, and application across different groups. Stakeholder identification and analysis is the most commonly applied measure, with women identified as stakeholders in 100 percent of sampled ongoing projects. Recognizing that the specific context shapes whether a project affects or otherwise involves IPLCs (e.g., chemicals and waste projects rarely include IPLCs), approximately half of sampled ongoing projects (49 percent) identified and analyzed IPLCs. However, the quality of these analyses varies significantly—from detailed gender analyses to minimal, one-paragraph references.

Inclusion of marginalized groups in theories of change has also grown, largely driven by greater focus on women; representation of IPLCs and youth remains limited. Similarly, while budgeting for gender experts has become more common, staffing for IPLCs and youth is still rare. The vast majority of projects include indicators for women, and fewer than one-fifth of projects do so for IPLCs and youth. Interviews confirm the importance of such indicators—what gets measured tends to drive implementation.

Inclusion of marginalized groups strengthens project design, implementation, outcomes, and long-term sustainability. Their participation contributes valuable local knowledge, experiences, and skills, often leading to more responsive and effective implementation. For example, several projects reported that including women led to better engagement and more efficient execution of activities compared to male-only participation.

Project designs have also evolved due to the participation of marginalized groups. In Nepal, the project Integrating Traditional Crop Genetic Diversity into Technology Using a BD [Biodiversity] Portfolio Approach to Buffer Against Unpredictable Environmental Change in the Nepal Himalayas (GEF ID 4464, United Nations Environment Programme) modified its activities based on input from local communities, including Dalits, to better support farmer livelihoods—demonstrating how inclusion can lead to direct improvements in project relevance. Inclusion also improves sustainability. A case study undertaken in Zimbabwe as part of the IEO’s inclusion evaluation (GEF IEO forthcoming-a) found that when marginalized groups were integrated in a project and empowered in decision-making from the outset, communities were better able to sustain project activities after external support ended. Stakeholders consistently linked the long-term success of conservation efforts to the degree of engagement across all segments of the community, underscoring that inclusive design directly contributes to lasting impact.