Integration for greater impact
Eighth Comprehensive evaluation of the GEF
Building on this focus on technological innovation, the evaluation conducted a comprehensive analysis of technological innovations across the GEF portfolio. For the GEF-6, GEF-7, and GEF-8 portfolios, about 120 technologies were identified and organized into three categories: (1) emerging (or narrow) innovative technologies such as AI and green hydrogen; (2) broader innovative technologies such as digital platforms and remote sensing; and (3) other technologies, representing broad and long-standing technologies. This taxonomy was applied to a portfolio of 2,016 projects.
Only 10 percent of GEF projects incorporate emerging or advanced technologies. In this regard, it is acknowledged that not all projects require cutting-edge technology to achieve their intended global environmental benefits. While 63 percent of projects across GEF‑6 to GEF‑8 include some form of technology, only 31 percent involve broader technological innovations, and just 10 percent feature emerging or advanced tools. The most common technological innovations are digital platforms (172 projects), remote sensing and geospatial tools (161), and nature‑based solutions (97); more advanced applications such as data modeling (79 projects), mobile apps (21), and sensor‑based systems (20) are far less frequent.
Disruptive technologies with high environmental potential remain rare. AI and machine learning are present in just 12 projects (0.6 percent) and typically play a supportive role, such as in drone-based risk mapping in Colombia (GEF ID 10438, Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean). Blockchain is found in only six projects (0.3 percent), and technologies like cellular agriculture and nanotechnology are largely absent. (The role of disruptive technologies is further discussed later in this section.)
Stakeholder interviews indicate that the overall recent focus on innovation in GEF strategies and approaches has supported the growth of technological innovations in GEF projects. From GEF-6 to GEF-7, the number of projects with innovations grew by 55 percent, with notable growth in areas such as electric mobility (from 3 to 36 projects) and nature-based solutions (from 5 to 41; figure 9.4). This expansion is attributed to initiatives led by the GEF Secretariat, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP), and Agencies that have promoted innovation through programs like the Challenge Program for Adaptation Innovation under the Least Developed Countries Fund/Special Climate Change Fund and the Innovation Window. While innovation is intended to be mainstreamed across the portfolio, these targeted funding windows have explicitly encouraged innovative approaches and helped attract nontraditional partners, including startups, investment and microfinance institutions, and technology-oriented academic institutions. For example, several Challenge Program projects incorporate AI/machine learning, blockchain, drones, and light detection and ranging. Similarly, three out of seven projects selected through the GEF-8 Innovation Window explicitly focus on technological innovation, including blockchain-satellite integration, AI/machine learning for wildlife monitoring, and machine learning for conservation planning.
Technological innovation is unevenly distributed across GEF focal areas, Agencies, and programming modalities. Among the GEF focal areas, international waters stands out with the highest share of both broad (42 percent) and emerging/cutting-edge (21 percent) technologies—well above the portfolio average of 31 percent and 10 percent, respectively. This achievement is attributed to the focal area’s flexibility in piloting tools and its long-standing International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource Network (IW:LEARN) platform. Other focal areas—such as biodiversity, climate change, and land degradation—also show moderate engagement with technology, while chemicals and waste lags behind.
Some GEF Agencies—particularly UNDP, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and multilateral development banks like the Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean, and African Development Bank—stand out for their higher adoption of emerging and cutting-edge technologies, with between 11 percent and 30 percent of their projects incorporating such innovations. Their relative success is attributed to a supportive institutional culture, greater experience with innovation, and access to technical and financial resources.
Geographically, technological innovations appear widely distributed, although they are more common in regional and global projects than in national ones. This distribution reflects the flexibility and broader partnership networks at the regional and global levels, which facilitate the inclusion of advanced technologies and collaboration with specialized global partners.
Integrated programming has supported the adoption of technological innovation, but its full potential remains untapped. As programming evolved from pilots to a more structured modality between GEF‑6 and GEF‑8, some programs made specific efforts to scale up transformational technologies. For example, the Food Systems Integrated Program (GEF ID 11214) provides guidance to child projects on adopting and disseminating agri‑tech solutions. In the Sustainable Cities Program, 30 percent of projects incorporated broader technological innovations—such as digital platforms, remote sensing, data modeling, nature‑based solutions, and smart grids—indicating progress but not yet at a level exceeding that of the broader GEF portfolio.
Despite the GEF’s stated appetite for high‑risk innovation, technological innovation risk ratings remain low to moderate, including within integrated programs. This conservative risk profile points to structural limitations: interviewees noted the absence of frameworks to guide technology selection, such as technology readiness indices, and the underuse of integrated programming knowledge platforms due to limited funding and staffing.
Several disruptive technologies with the potential to generate positive environmental and socioeconomic benefits at a large scale remain largely absent from the GEF portfolio. For example, blockchain is present in only six projects, while nanotechnology and cellular agriculture were not identified in any project. These technologies offer considerable opportunities for environmental impact: blockchain can improve supply chain transparency and enhance the integrity of carbon credit verification, nanotechnology holds promise for water purification and pollution remediation, and cellular agriculture could substantially reduce the environmental footprint of food production. The limited uptake of such technologies is not aligned with the pace of global technological development or the expertise already available within several GEF Agencies and multilateral organizations. For instance, UNDP has established a Blockchain Academy to support UN personnel across more than 170 countries (UNDP 2024), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has developed specialized knowledge in cell-based protein and other emerging technologies. The global market for nanotechnology alone is projected to grow from $68.0 billion in 2023 to $183.7 billion by 2028, with applications already being commercialized in sectors relevant to GEF focal areas, including in African countries. Limited support for disruptive technologies with potentially high payoffs constitutes a strategic risk, particularly considering the urgency and scale of environmental challenges that require transformational change.
Technological innovations are associated with transformational change (Donaldson and Ratner 2023; GEF IEO 2018b). In Uruguay, for example, the GEF supported wind energy development at an early stage through technical assistance and policy support (GEF ID 2826, UNDP). This project helped reduce perceived investment risks and paved the way for Uruguay’s large-scale transition to renewable energy. By 2016, wind power accounted for more than 30 percent of the country’s electricity generation, demonstrating how GEF interventions with a strong technological component can lead to sectorwide transformation. Similarly, in China, a persistent organic pollutants (POPs) management and disposal project (GEF ID 2926, United Nations Industrial Development Organization [UNIDO]) contributed to transformational change by introducing technologies such as cement kiln co-processing to safely destroy POPs at scale. Supported by enabling policies and private sector engagement, the project significantly exceeded its original targets, eliminating 5 times more pesticides, 3 times more fly ash dioxins, and 80 times more fly ash than initially planned. As a result, the project reduced health risks for over 15 million people (Zazueta and Liu 2018). These examples demonstrate that technological innovation—when aligned with systemic levers such as policy, finance, and behavior—has played a significant role in achieving the conditions necessary for transformational change.
Technological innovations have contributed to improved environmental monitoring and decision-making and environmental benefits across the GEF portfolio. Improved monitoring has been achieved through the use of remote sensing, drones, and AI and machine learning technologies. For example, the Trends.Earth platform, supported through a series of Conservation International projects (GEF IDs 9163, 10230, 11834), provides free global data sets for tracking changes in land degradation, supporting countries in their reporting commitments under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.
Furthermore, technological innovations have contributed to multiple environmental benefits. These benefits include protection of endangered species and ecosystems and efforts to combat illegal wildlife trade through tools such as Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking, forensic technologies, and digital platforms that enable traceability and rapid decision-making (GEF IEO forthcoming-k). Other examples include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through electric vehicle deployment, renewable energy integration, and grid modernization (e.g., GEF ID 9147, UNIDO; GEF ID 9223, World Bank); reduced water pollution via the use of constructed wetlands (e.g., GEF ID 6962, UNDP); and improved chemicals management through the adoption of noncombustion hazardous waste disposal technologies (e.g., GEF ID 1692, UNDP and UNIDO; GEF ID 2329, UNIDO; GEF ID 4386, UNIDO).
Socioeconomic benefits linked to technological innovations have also been reported. These benefits include job creation through nature-based solutions (GEF ID 10768, World Bank); increases in local revenue through improved property tax systems using remote sensing (GEF ID 10768, World Bank); and market expansion driven by electric vehicle supply chains (GEF ID 9147, UNIDO; GEF ID 9223, World Bank). In agricultural systems, the application of advanced watershed treatment technologies has contributed to higher farm incomes (GEF IEO 2018b). The Global Cleantech Innovation Programme, a GEF-UNIDO initiative, has helped strengthen innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems, supporting small and medium enterprises in transforming cleantech innovations into viable, investment-ready businesses. Project activities such as national investor forums proved effective in securing capital. Following a GEF IEO (2020) evaluation, the program sharpened its objective to more explicitly foster private sector engagement and investment at scale, prioritizing innovations in areas such as electric mobility, decentralized renewable energy and energy storage, energy efficiency, and cleantech related to sustainable cities and sustainable food systems. Additionally, the AgTech Agventures II Fund, a nongrant instrument (GEF ID 10336, Inter-American Development Bank), is working to establish a venture capital model for novel agricultural technologies in Latin America. To date, the fund has secured $58 million in investment for 17 technology startups offering digital, biotech, and automation solutions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, preventing land degradation, improving chemical management, and enhancing the livelihoods of small and medium-size farms.
Based on the analysis of technological innovation across the GEF portfolio, several key factors emerge that either facilitate or hinder the effective support of technological innovation. Understanding these enablers and barriers is crucial for strengthening the GEF’s capacity to support technological innovation in future programming.
Several key enablers support technological innovation within the GEF partnership. These include institutional capacity and culture, financial and organizational mechanisms, strategic partnerships, supportive national policy frameworks, and technological readiness. Institutional capacity and culture that promote innovation are reflected in the willingness of the GEF Secretariat and Agencies to encourage risk-taking, strengthen knowledge management, and leverage integrated programming and advisory support from the STAP, alongside drawing on technical expertise within Agencies and countries. Financial and organizational mechanisms that facilitate innovation include flexible funding windows (such as the Innovation Window and Challenge Programs), nongrant instruments, and blended finance approaches designed to share and manage risk.
Effective partnerships—particularly with private sector actors, global institutions, research organizations, and knowledge-sharing initiatives—further enhance innovation by enabling access to technical resources, infrastructure, and financing. National policies and strategic frameworks, including those related to electric mobility, green hydrogen, and enabling regulatory environments, create favorable conditions for technology adoption. Lastly, the presence of technological readiness and infrastructure—such as advances in AI/machine learning, blockchain, digital integration, and access to enabling platforms—forms the foundation for deploying and scaling technological solutions.
However, some barriers continue to limit the GEF’s ability to effectively support technological innovation. Key barriers include the absence of a systemwide strategy or approach for technological innovation and horizon scanning—that is, systematic monitoring and analysis of emerging technological trends and their potential applications—a project cycle that is misaligned with the rapid pace of technological change, limited strategic partnerships with the private sector, and weak country-level capacity and infrastructure to adopt and sustain new technologies.
The most significant barrier is strategic. The GEF currently lacks comprehensive, systemwide approaches and tools to support countries and Agencies in identifying, testing, deploying, and scaling technological innovations across its portfolio. Operating under a demand-driven model, the GEF Secretariat primarily responds to proposals developed by countries and Agencies. While this model ensures country ownership, it limits the Secretariat’s ability to proactively guide innovation or systematically identify opportunities for high-impact technologies. As a result, some promising opportunities with significant environmental potential may have been missed, partly due to limited horizon scanning and trend monitoring on emerging technologies. Although the STAP provides guidance on technological innovation, its recommendations have seen limited uptake in project design and implementation.
In addition, the GEF project cycle is not well aligned with the fast pace of technological advancement. Integrating innovative technologies often requires flexibility in project design, the ability to fund research and piloting components, and mechanisms to adapt partnerships or technologies during implementation—needs that are not fully accommodated by current GEF processes. The IEO has previously highlighted the need for greater encouragement of adaptive management, especially for projects involving innovative interventions (GEF IEO 2021).
Country-level capacity constraints also pose a significant barrier. Many countries face shortages of qualified professionals in environmental technology fields, limited access to technology infrastructure, low technological literacy, and institutional resource gaps. Gender disparities, outdated data systems, fragmented stakeholder coordination, and overreliance on external technical services further complicate efforts to scale innovation. These factors make it difficult to replicate successful innovations and limit the potential for transformational outcomes across regions and sectors.
These include the demand-driven nature of the GEF business model, the absence of a strategic approach to emerging technologies, and ongoing funding and capacity constraints among both implementing and recipient partners.
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.