Integration for greater impact
Eighth Comprehensive evaluation of the GEF
Over time, the GEF has expanded its use of both grant and nongrant instruments to catalyze private investment. The percentage of private sector projects increased from 34 percent in GEF-5 to about 40 percent in GEF-7 and GEF-8.2 As of GEF-8, a total of 1,197 private sector projects had been approved since GEF-5, representing $8.1 billion in GEF funding and mobilizing approximately $60.2 billion in cofinancing, including $14.5 billion from the private sector (figure 8.1). Early private sector initiatives often focused on technology pilots and demonstration projects in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and energy efficiency. From GEF-6 on, more sophisticated, systemic models have emerged, emphasizing financial intermediaries and multistakeholder platforms to scale impact.
The cofinancing ratio for private sector projects has averaged approximately 8.3:1 between GEF-5 and GEF-8. This average is slightly higher than the overall GEF portfolio average of 7.5:1; projects without a private sector component had a cofinancing ratio of 6.8:1. As noted in chapter 6, the proportion of financing directed to projects with private sector engagement within integrated programs has also grown—from 32 percent in GEF-6 to nearly 50 percent in GEF-8.
The extent of private sector engagement varies across focal areas, country groups, regions, and Agencies. The highest levels of private sector engagement are seen in the chemicals and waste and multifocal area portfolios (figure 8.2a), accounting for 41 percent of the number of projects in both areas and 74 percent and 49 percent, respectively, of their GEF financing. In contrast, private sector engagement is notably lower in least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS), where fewer than 30 percent of projects include private sector partners, compared to 41 percent in other countries (figure 8.2b). Regionally, Africa shows slightly reduced participation, with private sector collaboration in 33 percent of projects, accounting for 38 percent of financing (figure 8.2c). Among GEF Agencies, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) stands out, with 56 percent of its projects—and 82 percent of its GEF financing—featuring private sector engagement, the highest share across the partnership (figure 8.2d).
GEF projects engage a wide range of private sector actors, reflecting the broad definition outlined in the PSES. An analysis of 445 projects shows that most involve small and medium enterprises and individual entrepreneurs. For instance, the project Strengthening Adaptive Capacities to Climate Change through Capacity Building for Small Scale Enterprises and Communities Dependent on Coastal Fisheries in The Gambia (GEF ID 9194, UNIDO) supports small-scale fishery and aquaculture businesses by promoting climate-resilient business models.
Approximately half of the 445 reviewed projects report engagement with large corporations, financial intermediaries, or market facilitators. A notable example of a project that engages market facilitators is the Food Securities Fund (GEF ID 10322, Conservation International), which finances enterprises that aggregate produce and deliver services to farmers, helping strengthen supply chains and market access.
Direct engagement with capital providers such as investors or venture capital firms is less common, occurring in only 43 percent of projects. One such initiative is Establishing the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (GEF ID 10755, World Wildlife Fund–US). This project is launching a coalition to help shape nature finance for the private sector and engage investor networks to develop frameworks for disclosing nature-related financial risks, thus enabling better-informed capital allocation.
Many projects engage with multiple types of private sector actors, highlighting the diversity of private sector participation across the GEF portfolio. A review of 224 ongoing and completed projects—excluding NGI projects, which are discussed at the end of this section—from GEF-6 and GEF-7 shows a shift in the depth and type of private sector engagement. Using modalities identified in the PSES, projects were classified into one of five groups based on their primary engagement modality: knowledge and information sharing, capacity development, policy development, finance, and industry leadership.3 During GEF-6, nearly half of the projects collaborated with private entities primarily through knowledge sharing and information exchange (figure 8.3). For example, a project financed by the Least Developed Countries Fund—the Senegal National Adaptation Plan (GEF ID 6991, United Nations Development Programme [UNDP])—engaged the private sector by informing businesses on progress in preparing the country’s national adaptation plan for climate change.
In GEF-7, which also saw the adoption of the PSES, there was a shift toward deeper forms of engagement. Increasingly, projects involved the private sector in cofinancing arrangements and public-private partnerships (PPPs), signaling a move from peripheral participation to more integrated roles in project design and implementation. For example, the Global Sustainable Supply Chains for Marine Commodities (GEF ID 5271, UNDP) project addressed funding gaps in sustainable fisheries through PPPs in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Indonesia, and the Philippines, contributing to the reduction of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
Focusing on the portion of the private sector portfolio that uses NGIs reveals the following:
Sources: GEF Portal and GEF IEO Annual Performance Report (APR) 2026 data set, which includes completed projects for which terminal evaluations were independently validated through June 2025.
Note: Data exclude parent projects, projects with less than $0.5 million of GEF financing, enabling activities with less than $2 million of GEF financing, and projects from the Small Grants Programme. Closed projects refer to all projects closed as of June 30, 2025. The GEF IEO accepts validated ratings from some Agencies; however, their validation cycles may not align with the GEF IEO’s reporting cycle, which can lead to some projects with available terminal evaluations lacking validated ratings within the same reporting period; thus, validated ratings here are from the APR data set only.