GEF Food Systems Programs Deliver Gains but Miss Deeper Change

A new independent evaluation of the Global Environment Facility’s (GEF) food systems programs finds that they deliver strong environmental and livelihood benefits in many countries but warns that a narrow focus on farm production, weak political analysis, and shrinking coordination budgets are limiting deeper transformation.

The Evaluation of GEF Food Systems Programs, prepared by the GEF Independent Evaluation Office for the 70th GEF Council in December 2025, reviewed five major programs from GEF 6 to GEF 8. Together, these cover 84 projects in 32 countries, backed by roughly USD 822 million in GEF funding and over USD 6 billion in co-financing.

The report notes that the programs are highly relevant to global efforts to curb deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, fisheries, and commodity supply chains. They also address rising pressure on food systems as the world population grows and millions lack access to healthy diets.

“Food systems are major drivers of forest and biodiversity loss, land degradation, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions,” the report says. It adds that GEF funding has helped countries design more integrated approaches connecting environmental goals with farming, fisheries, and rural development.

Results Most Visible at Community Level

During a webinar launching the report, Fabrizio Mario Dante Felloni, Deputy Director of the Independent Evaluation Office, explained that the evaluation used a systemic approach, assessing the whole food system rather than isolated projects. The evaluation drew on document reviews, geospatial analyses, surveys, interviews, and case studies in Ghana, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania.

Felloni said the programs mark a shift from earlier, more fragmented efforts, aiming to connect ministries and sectors that often work in isolation. “Because it was a food system, looking at the different sectors involved was central to the design,” he said.

The evaluation confirms that GEF food systems projects address multiple environmental pressures simultaneously. Most initiatives target land and soil degradation, deforestation, and biodiversity loss, often through improved land-use planning, sustainable farming practices, and stronger governance of coastal fisheries. Many projects also aim to link environmental gains with higher incomes, skills for women and youth, and enhanced food security.

Results are most visible at the community level, including gains in biodiversity, improved land management, and reduced emissions where farmers adopt climate-smart or ecosystem-friendly practices. Socioeconomic benefits include higher yields, increased incomes, skills development for women, and youth engagement in agriculture.

At the meso level, some projects enhance value chains through better market access, traceability, and basic processing support. At the macro level, the evaluation notes progress in policies and governance, including multi-stakeholder platforms, land-use and marine planning, and early steps to align national and local policies.

Gaps in Postharvest and Political Analysis

However, the evaluation also identified gaps. While over 90 percent of projects focus on production, only about 40 percent examine postharvest issues such as storage, processing, transport, and markets. Few tackle food loss, waste, or dietary change, all critical for systemic transformation.

“Despite ambitions to cover the full food system and value chains, the approach remained largely production-focused,” Felloni said. Environmental and biophysical issues receive strong attention, but only 40 percent of projects assess political context, and around 30 percent examine socioeconomic drivers.

Limited attention to political economy and social dynamics restricts transformational potential. Many designs assume coordination and platforms naturally lead to policy alignment without fully analyzing power relations, trade-offs, or vested interests.

Shrinking Coordination Budgets

Jessica Kyle of ICF, who led parts of the evaluation, said private sector engagement has been a key feature of the programs. About two-thirds of country projects include business involvement, from public-private partnerships and capacity building to support for national commodity platforms. Global partners like the International Finance Corporation have mobilized significant private finance for sustainable commodities.

Scaling these efforts remains challenging due to fragmented supply chains, weak regulatory incentives, and unclear business cases. Programs have also struggled to connect global work on standards and finance with in-country activities.

The evaluation praised stronger program governance, shared design frameworks, and knowledge pathways that extend influence beyond individual projects. Programs have generated numerous knowledge products, trainings, and learning events, shifting from broad global exchanges to targeted regional and commodity-focused dialogues.

Still, evidence is limited that countries systematically apply this knowledge. In some cases, guidance arrived before projects were ready; in others, knowledge products were not adapted to local needs, or project teams were reluctant to adjust mid-course.

The evaluation recommends stronger “country docking” so global coordination projects provide support in forms countries can absorb. It also calls for more participatory processes to identify national demands for technical assistance and learning.

Coordination budgets are shrinking even as program scope grows, falling from roughly 10 percent of total costs in GEF 6 to about 7 percent in GEF 8, despite increased countries and commodities. The report warns this could undermine the program’s overall promise.

Catalytic Capital and Future Directions

Peter Mbanda Umunay, thematic lead for food systems and land use at the GEF Secretariat, welcomed the evaluation, noting that many findings are already shaping GEF 8 design and early planning for GEF 9. He traced the evolution from the 2015 Integrated Approach Pilots in sub-Saharan Africa to the FOLUR Impact Program in GEF 7 and the Food Systems Integrated Program in GEF 8.

Umunay emphasized efforts to strengthen links between global coordination platforms and country projects, using limited GEF funds strategically as catalytic capital. He highlighted private finance mobilization to de-risk investments and encourage both large companies and SMEs to invest in sustainable agriculture and land use.

He acknowledged criticisms of a production-focused approach and said GEF 8 and GEF 9 plans now address postharvest value chains, processing, storage, school meal schemes, and nutrition outcomes, involving more ministries and improving policy coherence.

The evaluation concludes with four key recommendations: sharpen the focus of programs, phase investments across replenishment periods, broaden focus beyond production, and enhance political economy and behavior-change analysis. It also calls for stronger country docking to convert knowledge into tangible change on the ground.

Umunay said the Secretariat has prepared a management response and will use the findings to strengthen current and future programs, emphasizing that GEF remains country-driven and must support national priorities from climate plans to rural development strategies.