One-third of GEF’s portfolio has been invested in conflict-affected countries since 2002, yet it has no dedicated policy for conflict-sensitive programming. Conflict and fragility shape whether environmental projects succeed, fail, or sustain results, but their influence on GEF interventions has not been systematically assessed until now.

The GEF Independent Evaluation Office collaborated with the Environmental Law Institute collaborated to examine whether and how GEF projects have incorporated conflict sensitivity, and the implications for outcomes and sustainability.

Projects in countries classified as very fragile show significantly lower outcomes, sustainability, and implementation quality.

Evaluation overview

• Security risks, political instability, land disputes, and economic volatility often disrupted delivery. Yet conflict and fragility were rarely identified as risks at design, leaving responses inconsistent and ad hoc.
• Projects that applied conflict-sensitive strategies—acknowledgment, avoidance, mitigation, peacebuilding, and learning—were more effective and, in some cases, built trust or cooperation across divided groups.
• The report recommends integrating conflict and fragility into design, safeguards, and results frameworks; issuing guidance for conflict-sensitive programming; expanding platforms for learning; and adapting GEF policies for flexible implementation in volatile settings.

Methodology

The evaluation covers GEF interventions since 2002 across seven case studies—Afghanistan, the Albertine Rift, the Balkans, Cambodia, Colombia, Lebanon, and Mali—using portfolio review, case studies, international good practice, and guidance from conventions and the Sustainable Development Goals.