Integration for greater impact

7.4 Factors affecting social inclusion

The portfolio analysis clearly indicates that inclusion of marginalized groups in GEF-supported projects is both more critical and more challenging in fragile and conflict-affected situations. While fragility tends to negatively affect project outcomes—weakening the link between inclusion and effectiveness—projects in fragile and conflict-affected situations were actually more inclusive than those in nonfragile contexts. They were significantly more likely to include women, IPLCs, and youth, with 65 percent of projects in fragile and conflict-affected situations including all three groups compared to 33 percent elsewhere. These 77 projects in fragile contexts also more frequently analyzed marginalized groups’ interests and needs in relation to the project and planned participation activities engaging them (figure 7.3). Risks related to fragility and conflict can lead to delays, additional costs, resignation of participants, and stolen equipment. Projects, such as those undertaken by the GEF-7 SGP, have demonstrated an ability to adapt their participation activities to the negative effects of violence and conflict. For example, the evaluation team interviewed project staff who allocated a small portion of the budget for protection measures, maintaining a database of violent incidents against environmental defenders, investing in communication with stakeholders, and—in some cases—moving activities to virtual modalities.

National policies play a dual role. Over half of projects cited supportive policies that aligned with inclusion goals, while others pointed to policy gaps—such as lack of recognition for Indigenous Peoples or absence of FPIC requirements—as significant barriers. Some projects worked to address these gaps by supporting policy reforms, like UNDP’s project in Cambodia (GEF ID 9741), which aimed to develop a gender-inclusive national access and benefit sharing framework for implementation of the Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity. In contrast, projects in Iraq and Afghanistan struggled with restrictive national policies, particularly around gender inclusion.

Additional barriers to inclusion include entrenched societal norms (cited in 18 percent of completed projects), limited or delayed resources (12 percent), and lack of staff expertise (5 percent). Other challenges, such as political instability and language barriers, further complicate inclusive implementation.