Launched in 1990, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established to fund climate change, biodiversity, ozone layer protection and international waters projects in developing countries, based on the idea that local actions would deliver global environmental benefits. Now more than 35 years on, the GEF has evolved into a complex multilateral fund, with a sprawling secretariat and a broadened mandate.

As of 2024, the GEF has mobilized and invested more than $24.3 billion in grants and concessional finance for environmental programs globally, according to its 2024 financials.

Africa has received roughly $7.7 billion of that total over three decades. Yet, biodiversity loss across the continent continues at an alarming rate, raising pressing questions about the real-world impact and relevance of GEF funding and the effectiveness of multilateral environmental finance overall.

Fred Boltz, head of programming at the GEF, insists the fund remains fit for purpose, pointing to country ownership, integrated programming and efforts to fix global environmental market failures as foundations for long-term success. See All Key Ideas

As Africa’s environment ministers meet this week in Nairobi, Kenya, for the 20th African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN), the Global Environment Facility (GEF)is touting its decades of support to the continent: more than $7.7 billion in grants across more than 2,000 projects, supplemented by billions in co-financing. Yet despite this scale of investment, the biodiversity curve remains on a downward trajectory. Wetlands are disappearing, forests continue to shrink and wildlife populations are in decline. So, is the GEF still fit for purpose?

“Absolutely,” says Fred Boltz, GEF head of programming. “Based on independent evaluations, the GEF has been found to be the most effective multilateral environmental fund.”

In an exclusive interview with Mongabay, Boltz defended the GEF’s model, arguing that it is shifting toward integrated approaches that take into account both conservation needs and the human systems driving environmental degradation — such as agriculture, supply chains and urban expansion. But tensions persist.

The GEF’s own recent performance review acknowledges gaps. While gender considerations have been better integrated, broader inclusion remains patchy. “The GEF – Civil Society Organization (CSO) Network remains underutilized, and past recommendations for reform have not been fully acted on or implemented,” the evaluation notes.

Boltz emphasizes that “by GEF policy, all projects must rigorously engage Indigenous peoples, women and youth,” but concedes that sustainable impact also hinges on breaking cycles of poverty and enabling access to finance, technology and livelihoods.

Civil society groups, including Greenpeace, are using the AMCEN platform to call for more direct funding to communities, arguing that too much is lost in layers of bureaucracy. Boltz disagrees: “Direct funding without institutions to manage and sustain it is just a Band-Aid. What we really need — and what the GEF and national governments are working on — is building institutions and access to long-term financing that empower communities to move away from unsustainable practices.”

Debt has become a major obstacle to development and economic growth, especially for countries across Africa. At the recent Conference on Financing for Development in Seville, Spain, the issue took center stage, with the final outcome stressing the urgent need to address debt burdens and reform the global financial system. When asked about rising debt levels, Boltz acknowledges the dilemma of using loans to finance climate action in countries least responsible for emissions. “High debt creates a long-term dependency on overseas development assistance, which just isn’t a viable pathway to sustainable and effective development,” he says.

Boltz also addresses concerns over governance. While the GEF Council has equal representation from developed and developing countries, critics argue that donor nations still wield disproportionate influence. Boltz counters, “We’re inviting more recipient countries to join as donors and participate directly in governance.”

Despite the criticism, Boltz remains convinced. “Absolutely, the GEF is still fit for purpose.”

Below is the full Q&A with Fred Boltz. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Mongabay: I’ve reviewed your investments in Africa and the materials on your website — they’re definitely impressive. However, when you consider the overall trajectory of biodiversity, it raises some difficult questions. Despite the large investments, the trend remains downward. Given GEF’s key role in biodiversity and climate finance, how do you explain that disconnect?

Fred Boltz: That’s a great question. We address this in the theory of change for our GEF9 strategy. There are several key pillars we focus on to achieve and sustain biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. One is adequate and effective funding for the environment. This means that the global public shoulders the cost of providing the global public good, which includes biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services managed by countries that contribute to global species management and also tackle global concerns like climate change, water security, land degradation, desertification and pollution, which are all global public goods and services. Therefore, we need sufficient willingness to pay for these global public goods and services. That’s where the GEF plays a role — channeling global funding to recipient countries to help them reach their environmental goals.

But funding alone isn’t enough. It must be effectively integrated into national development agendas so policies are aligned with environmental investments, ensuring immediate impacts and long-term sustainability. This is crucial because, for example, subsidies in agriculture that undermine environmental investments will make those projects short-lived. The funds the GEF channels will only sustain protected area outcomes as long as the project lasts, unless they are incorporated into national development plans.

The third pillar is that the environment remains an externality in markets and investment sectors. Our economic and financial performance metrics, like GDP, mainly measure throughput — production levels — without accounting for the net costs or the social and environmental externalities associated with that production. As long as the environment is considered an externality, we will always face trade-offs where environmental degradation occurs for financial gain. Traditionally, the GEF has invested in focal area projects such as funding biodiversity conservation in protected areas. Over the past decade, we’ve also developed integrated programs that address human systems driving environmental degradation. For example, in rural landscapes, managing protected areas alone isn’t enough if agricultural practices in the surrounding areas are degrading the environment. It’s only a matter of time before those practices encroach on protected lands. That’s why, about 10 years ago, we started investing in incorporating sustainability and environmental value into food systems, sustainable cities and supply chains to ensure the durability of conservation efforts.

Mongabay: You know, just yesterday, another report was released, this time from the Ramsar Convention, discussing the decline of wetlands. We’ve observed more than 22% of wetland loss since the 1970s, and it’s projected that we might lose another 20% by 2050. This overall trend doesn’t look very promising. But let’s just talk about some positives: Specifically, if you can provide clear examples, has the GEF investment actually led to significant outcomes, whether in the climate or biodiversity space in Africa?

Fred Boltz: Over the course of GEF investments in Africa, we have supported the creation of 180 new protected areas and strengthened the management of more than 400 protected areas, covering 280 million hectares [690 million acres] of land effectively conserved through better management practices. This has been done in alignment with national development agendas and now ensures sustainability through the establishment of trust funds. The 280 million hectares of improved protected area management is an area five times the size of Kenya and represents over 10% of Africa that has been conserved through GEF investments in these countries.

I should also note that the GEF is not a traditional donor. We do not decide what gets done; the countries themselves determine how GEF funding is used. This approach fosters ownership and commitment to maintaining these outcomes, such as protected area management. Additionally, in sectors like chemicals and waste, the GEF has invested over a billion dollars in the last five years to address escalating plastic pollution, leveraging over $7 billion to benefit African nations and the global environment. Since these efforts are rooted in country ownership, they have a greater likelihood of long-term sustainability and integration into sustainable development initiatives that these countries are adopting.

Mongabay: Those numbers are impressive — 180 protected areas and 400 others where you’ve contributed. They all look good, but once you start examining the specifics and what local communities, Indigenous groups and civil society organizations working in these different regions are saying, concerns begin to emerge in significant ways. I also read the latest OPS, which I believe is the overall performance evaluation of the GEF. Regarding your relationship with civil society organizations, it indicates there’s still much work to do. I just returned from a park in Lobéké in eastern Cameroon, where the relationship between conservation and local communities remains very challenging. So, my question for you is, what is the GEF doing to ensure that beyond just these numbers, your conservation efforts and interventions in these areas are truly inclusive and take local communities into serious account?

Fred Boltz: According to GEF policy, all GEF-funded projects must include a thorough stakeholder consultation and community engagement process. This process should address the involvement of Indigenous peoples, local communities, youth, women and focus on gender equity, Indigenous rights and empowering youth to become stewards of the environment. While this is essential for our design, it alone is not enough. Conservation investments at the local level must also ensure communities benefit from their involvement. They should gain access to natural resources and receive economic benefits through investments in livelihoods that enable them to diversify production and adopt more sustainable practices. Additionally, it is crucial to improve access to credit and savings opportunities for local communities — resources often limited — so they can access funding to break the cycle of poverty. Currently, many depend on loan sharks who offer financing at the start of the planting season only to recover funds with high interest rates later. To truly break this cycle, we must provide access to suitable financing and technology, allowing communities to lift themselves out of poverty and reduce reliance on external aid or environmental degradation to meet their needs.

Mongabay: Sorry to interrupt you briefly, Fred, since you’re discussing finance. I think it’s important for us to spend some time talking about it. Many now believe that direct funding to communities is the right model moving forward because it allows them to decide on the type of agenda they want to pursue. Actually, some civil society organizations at the AMCEN meeting are advocating for that, including Greenpeace. The question here is, given that the GEF is part of a large multilateral development finance instrument, acting as an intermediary, much of the money goes through administrative costs and other layers before reaching the final beneficiaries. What’s the GEF’s position on direct funding, for example?

Fred Boltz: The GEF provides funding through accredited agencies to governments, which then partner with national financial institutions to offer small and medium-sized financing to communities. Simply giving direct financing without establishing mechanisms for capturing and saving that funding, or ensuring lasting access to credit and investment, is not a real solution. It’s merely a temporary fix, like a Band-Aid that lasts only as long as the project.

What we truly need to do, and what the GEF and national governments are working on, is investing in building institutions and creating access to long-term financing. This enables communities to eventually become self-reliant and break free from dependence on unsustainable practices. I have personal experience with this in Madagascar. I worked in a protected area where farmers lacked access even to modest capital needed to buy seeds for planting, diversify crops or develop micro-scale industries. We established credit and savings mutuals linked with a national banking system that provided immediate short-term access, while also forming a lasting connection between these communities and financial institutions beyond the project’s duration. We must focus on long-term solutions, not just short-term measures that produce successful projects but do not ensure enduring, meaningful results.

Mongabay: Is the GEF doing anything about the debt for nature? It’s an instrument that has been suggested by some as a way to get money directly into communities. Is the GIF working on that, and do you think in the long term it could empower communities to take on finance, whether for biodiversity, climate or other initiatives they care about?

Fred Boltz: We have invested in debt for nature. Initially, debt-for-nature swaps were primarily debt buyouts, which had limited scalability and impact. Currently, we focus on investing in debt restructuring that allows countries to address their debt issues without simply buying out the debt. Instead, it creates an investment mechanism that provides financing in exchange for debt relief, enabling investments that generate returns. These returns benefit both the country and communities at a significant scale over the long term.

Our portfolio of blended finance activities has greatly expanded, leveraging the GEF’s privileged capital. We provide grant funding to countries, which helps de-risk investments from concessional and private finance. This approach makes it possible to use the GEF’s relatively modest investments more effectively. Over the past 30 years, we’ve invested over $7.7 billion in Africa. While that seems like a lot, across 54 countries, it’s not a huge sum.

By strategically deploying that $7.7 billion in grants to mitigate risks, we can attract concessional investments from development banks and private sector funding. This approach enables us to reach the scale of investment needed to address problems at a national level and creates lasting impact by integrating nature into private sector investments and development agendas.

Mongabay: Governments have huge debts, and if you’ve just come from the last development finance conference in Seville, it’s a major challenge for the African continent. What might justify either you or overall climate finance instruments, including the Green Climate Fund and others, continuing to give loans to countries that are already heavily indebted? What explains and justifies the continuation of models that allow countries to be in debt and, in some cases, to take on responsibilities they did not originally contribute to, such as emissions of greenhouse gases? This raises questions of climate justice and the overall dimension of the argument.

Fred Boltz: That’s an excellent question and indeed in Seville, I think development finance institutions confronted directly the debt burden of nations in which they’re investing, which, again, it creates a long-term dependency and a long-term path really to poverty.

And in Seville, some of the recommendations included actions to improve fiscal space, allowing governments to participate more effectively and access concessional loans to increase domestic fiscal capacity for investment, address debt issues and reduce the debt burden because countries with high debt levels cannot simply grow their way out of that debt. It results in a long-term reliance on overseas development assistance, which is not a sustainable or effective path to development. This is a challenge we must face, or else we are not being realistic about the macroeconomic issues these countries encounter in balancing their conservation needs with providing a viable development path for their people.

Mongabay: I have a few more things to discuss, Fred, if you don’t mind. I’ll briefly talk about governance and power dynamics overall. Clearly, the GEF, like many other DFIs, has faced criticism because it is part of a global environmental governance system largely influenced by donor country agendas and similar factors. What’s your response to that, and how are you ensuring, given that you’ve mentioned country ownership, that countries from the Global South are genuinely taking ownership in shaping the agenda and actively participating in the governance of these critical environmental issues we’re discussing?

Fred Boltz: Great question, and it’s central to both how the GEF governing council is structured and our goals for the next cycle of GEF funding, which I’ll discuss shortly. The GEF governing body has equal representation from both developed and developing countries. On the council that oversees the approval of our strategy, policy standards and reforms, as well as the strategy for each GEF cycle, developing countries — recipient countries — are represented in two ways: through constituencies, which give them a voice on the council in a constituent role, and also as recipient countries of the GEF that are also donors, giving them a decision-making role alongside other donors. These donors include African nations such as Côte d’Ivoire and South Africa.

Côte d’Ivoire, for example, has been a long-term recipient and donor because they see value in participating in decision-making and governance at the GEF. Currently, we are inviting additional recipient countries to join the GEF as donors because we want the GEF governing council to be truly representative of the member states we finance — not just donor countries, but the nearly 150 recipient countries as well. We want these countries to have a seat at the table to help guide future GEF directions and to confront the issue of funding face-to-face with other donors. Ultimately, the GEF is a financial mechanism serving recipient countries and enabling developed donor countries to meet their commitments to the global environment. Negotiations and decisions should happen directly between countries, which is why we’re encouraging greater representation by recipient countries to facilitate meaningful dialogue and ensure they are decision-makers in this process.

Mongabay: We’ll be finishing in a few minutes, but I want to discuss the overall current climate — whether you’re referring to the increasing climate skepticism seen worldwide. 2024 saw several elections, and most of them didn’t lead to outcomes favorable to the issues we talk about daily on the sustainability front. How is the GEF handling its work in this particularly challenging context now?

Fred Boltz: The context of the ODA is particularly challenging, and you know, the GEF is addressing that through various means. First, with our current donors, we need to understand, how to say, the impact aspirations of countries investing in development and conservation. We’re noticing a shift away from traditional environmental investments like climate change mitigation toward issues focused on food security, migration, job security, economic growth and related challenges. If we only highlight the environmental benefits of GEF investments, such as species and ecosystem conservation and do not mention or incorporate in project design the creation of jobs, economic benefits, actions to combat trafficking and trafficking funding that supports organized crime, food security or pollution in global supply chains, we risk losing donor support. Therefore, one key is to showcase the multiple benefits of GEF investments, both environmental and social or economic. Another point, as I mentioned earlier, is that when we embed GEF investments into national development agendas, we can foster greater policy coherence at the national level and unlock domestic financing for economic development. This approach not only reassures donors that their investments support sustainable, long-term development agendas but also creates pathways for countries to become less dependent on ODA. Ultimately, we want countries to be able to make these investments themselves. By aligning our financing strategically with domestic policies and development goals, we can unlock local finance and attract private sector capital — which paves the way for environmental success and sustainable independence for countries — creating a win-win situation for everyone.

Mongabay: So, Fred, you’re maintaining that the GEF is still fit for purpose?

Fred Boltz: Absolutely.

Mongabay: In an increasingly crowded funding landscape — with mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund, the Adaptation Fund and growing interest in private capital — what are the two or three main points you can use to highlight the value of the GEF in 2025 and beyond?

Fred Boltz: The GEF has recently undergone, and continues to undergo periodically, external evaluations from our independent evaluation office, from the Multilateral Organization Performance Assessment Network, from the G20, and it has been recognized as the most effective multilateral environmental fund. Over the years, we have gained the knowledge and experience to understand what works and how to design investments that can deliver lasting impact. We have also improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the GEF over time. Currently, we are not in a global situation where all overseas development assistance should be dissolved, nor can we assume countries will continue to generate environmental benefits of global value on their own.

Ultimately, humanity depends on the actions of all countries to maintain a suitable climate, ensure access to water, sustain effective and sustainable food production systems and reduce pollutants. These are public goods produced by countries for the global community. There must be a transfer of willingness to pay, which translates into compensation for countries generating these globally valuable benefits. The GEF, created specifically as a financial mechanism to serve this purpose, channels funding from the global public to countries that cannot do so freely. It plays a crucial role in preventing a “tragedy of the commons,” where there is no incentive to preserve these global environmental benefits, by effectively correcting market failure through a funding mechanism. In this context, the GEF plays a vital role. External evaluations have clearly shown that we are performing effectively. While we always have room for improvement, we are dedicated to enhancing our efficiency, effectiveness and representation, as I mentioned earlier. Addressing the potential tragedy of the global commons is an essential need, and providing this compensation is critical.

Mongabay: Fred, I want you to speak from your gut. I know you’re representing an institution in this interview, but you have been working in this field for several years before joining the GEF. What worries you the most, and what also gives you hope regarding the global direction on environmental governance?

Fred Boltz: What concerns me most is that we are not responding to the increasing environmental and especially climate crises at the speed needed to solve them. The rate of change is largely outpacing human acceptance and action on the problem. Once we realize the urgency of global action, my fear is that we will have already committed to climate change to such an extent that it exceeds our ability to adapt. That is my greatest concern.

Mongabay: What excites you the most?

Fred Boltz: What excites me the most is something I saw in Botswana last week: the realization that nature is fundamental to effective and long-term economic development and social well-being. It’s not just being discussed in ivory towers. It’s not just being discussed by academics and policymakers in the environmental space. It’s happening at the community level, where people recognize the value of nature to their well-being, and we’re providing them with technology, access to resources and partnerships that enable them to turn that value into lasting outcomes for the environment and their livelihoods. Ultimately, the fate of nature depends on the communities living within the boundaries of the protected areas we hope to conserve; they will decide the future of natural ecosystems.

Banner image: The latest news on biodiversity loss comes from the Global Wetland Outlook, released this week in Nairobi. The report warns that over 22% of the world’s wetlands have disappeared since 1970, with an additional 20% projected to vanish by 2050 if action is not taken. One bright spot in the report is in Zambia’s Kafue Flats, where a $300,000 restoration project has scaled into a $1 million annual investment, helping to preserve biodiversity and vital ecosystem services that support nearly 1.3 million people. Image courtesy of WWF Zambia.

FEEDBACK : Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.