As the Eighth Assembly of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) entered its final stages in Samarkand, discussions shifted from institutional reforms and financing mechanisms to a critical question at the heart of global environmental action: how to ensure that communities, Indigenous Peoples, civil society organizations, women, and youth are not merely beneficiaries of environmental investments but active leaders in shaping and implementing them.
The day highlighted the growing recognition within the international environmental community that achieving climate, biodiversity, and sustainable development goals will require a genuine whole-of-society approach. Across multiple sessions, speakers emphasized that the success of environmental policies and financing mechanisms ultimately depends on the meaningful participation of those living closest to environmental challenges and managing many of the world’s most important ecosystems.
The discussions coincided with the conclusion of the sixth meeting of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) Council and the convening of the Civil Society Forum, which brought together representatives from governments, Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, environmental networks, women’s groups, youth movements, development institutions, and international agencies.
GBFF Continues to Evolve as a Laboratory for Innovation
The morning began with the final deliberations of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund Council.
One of the key agenda items examined the role of international financial institutions (IFIs) in delivering biodiversity investments. Members reviewed findings showing that IFIs have already exceeded the Fund’s target of channeling 25 percent of resources through biodiversity-related investments, reaching more than 30 percent of total programmed resources.
Supporters of increased IFI engagement pointed to several advantages, including their ability to mobilize co-financing, provide technical expertise, manage complex financial operations, and support innovative financing mechanisms. At the same time, Council members acknowledged concerns raised by countries regarding lengthy procedures, insufficient flexibility, and the need for stronger biodiversity expertise within some institutions.
Delegates emphasized that future collaboration must balance efficiency with responsiveness to national priorities and local realities. Many called for stronger dialogue between financial institutions and recipient countries, greater regional presence, and improved coordination with national environmental authorities.
The discussion reflected broader debates occurring across the international environmental finance system about how to mobilize larger volumes of capital without creating additional barriers for countries and communities seeking access to resources.
Strong Demand for Biodiversity Finance
The Council also reviewed the second formative evaluation of the GBFF, which examined the Fund’s governance arrangements, project portfolio, and early performance since its establishment.
The evaluation found strong global demand for biodiversity financing and concluded that the Fund has successfully mobilized resources, improved project quality, and met its initial programming objectives. At the same time, evaluators identified several areas requiring continued attention, including project concentration around certain biodiversity targets, uneven participation among stakeholders, and continued dependence on a relatively small group of donors.
Among the recommendations were stronger coordination across the broader GEF family of funds, improved technical feedback mechanisms for project proponents, enhanced implementation of the results framework, and better reporting on participation and governance outcomes.
Council members broadly welcomed the findings and emphasized the importance of learning from the Fund’s early experience. Several delegates stressed that biodiversity financing must increasingly support areas that remain underserved, including sustainable consumption and production, biodiversity mainstreaming across sectors, resource mobilization, and the elimination of harmful incentives that contribute to environmental degradation.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of continuing to refine mechanisms that support Indigenous Peoples and local communities, whose stewardship often plays a decisive role in biodiversity conservation outcomes.
Investing in Learning and Accountability
The Council approved the Independent Evaluation Office’s 2027 Work Program and Budget for the GBFF, allocating resources to monitor implementation performance, strategic coherence, inclusion, and the effectiveness of governance structures.
Officials noted that the evaluation budget for 2027 represents a reduction compared to previous years, reflecting efficiencies gained as the Fund matures.
Members emphasized that early and continuous evaluation remains particularly important given the innovative nature of the GBFF, which has often been described as a testing ground for new approaches to biodiversity finance, community engagement, and resource mobilization.
The concept of learning by doing emerged repeatedly throughout the discussions, with several delegates highlighting the importance of capturing lessons quickly and adapting approaches as experience accumulates.
A Whole-of-Society Approach Comes into Focus
The afternoon Civil Society Forum brought a different dynamic to the Assembly, placing community voices and grassroots perspectives at the center of discussions.
Participants repeatedly argued that environmental action cannot succeed through government institutions and international organizations alone. Instead, they stressed that local communities, Indigenous Peoples, women, youth organizations, and civil society actors possess unique knowledge, capacities, and experiences that are indispensable for achieving environmental goals.
Opening the Forum, GEF Interim CEO Claude Gascon emphasized that civil society is essential to addressing environmental degradation and building sustainable futures.
He highlighted the inclusion of an aspirational target under GEF-9 that seeks to direct at least 20 percent of resources across the GEF family of funds toward actions supporting Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The target represents one of the most significant institutional commitments to community participation in the history of the GEF.
For many participants, however, the discussion extended beyond percentages and funding allocations. Speakers emphasized that meaningful participation requires shifting power, authority, and decision-making capacity toward communities themselves.
Indigenous Peoples Call for Direct Access and Decision-Making Power
Throughout the Forum, Indigenous representatives stressed that environmental investments must move beyond consultation and toward genuine partnership.
Giovanni Reyes, Chair of the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group, argued that Indigenous Peoples possess invaluable knowledge and proven solutions for biodiversity conservation but must be given greater authority in determining how resources are allocated and how projects are designed.
Participants emphasized that conservation efforts are most successful when Indigenous rights to territories, natural resources, and self-determination are respected.
Representatives from Indigenous organizations called for greater direct access to financing, stronger support for community capacity-building, and mechanisms that enable Indigenous institutions to manage resources independently rather than through intermediary organizations.
These discussions reflected broader international debates about environmental governance and the growing recognition that Indigenous-managed territories often achieve conservation outcomes comparable to, or better than, conventional protected area models.
Civil Society Seeks Structural Change
Leaders from the GEF Civil Society Organization Network welcomed progress achieved during the GEF-9 negotiations but argued that more ambitious reforms remain necessary.
Participants stressed that civil society should no longer be viewed simply as a group of beneficiaries receiving support from environmental projects. Instead, they argued that civil society organizations should be recognized as rights-holders, partners, innovators, and agents of transformation.
Several speakers pointed to persistent barriers preventing local organizations from accessing larger environmental funding opportunities. These include complex administrative requirements, lengthy approval processes, limited institutional capacity, and insufficient information about funding opportunities.
Calls for simplified procedures, increased transparency, and more direct financing channels were among the most consistent messages emerging from the Forum.
The discussion also highlighted concerns about a decline in civil society-led projects across parts of the GEF portfolio and stressed the need to reverse this trend through targeted reforms and increased investment in local organizations.
Women and Youth Demand Greater Recognition
Women’s organizations and youth representatives also played a prominent role throughout the Forum.
Representatives of the CBD Women’s Caucus argued that environmental financing mechanisms must place greater emphasis on gender equality and ensure that women are fully integrated into decision-making processes at every stage of project development and implementation.
Speakers called for updates to the GEF’s Gender Equality Policy and stronger alignment with global commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and international climate agreements.
Youth representatives emphasized that young people are not merely future beneficiaries of environmental action but current stakeholders who are already experiencing the consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss.
They advocated for a dedicated youth engagement strategy across the GEF system, stronger financial and technical support for youth-led initiatives, and more meaningful participation in governance processes.
Community Solutions Demonstrate Real Impact
A series of presentations showcased practical examples of community-led environmental action from around the world.
Representatives from Bolivia described efforts to restore the Uru Uru Lake using traditional ecological knowledge and women-led conservation initiatives. Organizations from Kenya highlighted advocacy for women’s land rights, while groups from Ecuador, Mongolia, Zimbabwe, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, and Tuvalu presented innovative approaches ranging from circular economy initiatives and dryland restoration to sustainable aquaculture and digital resilience tools.
Although diverse in focus and geography, these examples shared a common message: environmental solutions are often most effective when designed and implemented by the communities directly affected.
Participants argued that scaling such initiatives requires not only increased financing but also trust, flexibility, and long-term support capable of sustaining impacts beyond individual project cycles.
Toward a More Inclusive Environmental Finance System
As discussions concluded, participants reflected on the broader significance of the Civil Society Forum within the context of the GEF Assembly.
The Forum demonstrated that debates surrounding environmental finance are increasingly expanding beyond questions of resource allocation and project design. They now encompass broader issues of governance, representation, equity, participation, and accountability.
Many participants viewed the adoption of the 20 percent target for Indigenous Peoples and local communities as a significant achievement. Yet speakers repeatedly emphasized that the real test will be implementation: whether institutions can translate commitments into meaningful changes in how decisions are made and who holds power within environmental governance systems.
Closing the Forum, representatives from the GEF Secretariat and the Civil Society Organization Network reiterated that collaboration remains essential for addressing the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and ecosystem degradation.
Their message echoed one of the central themes of the Samarkand meetings: environmental challenges have become too complex for governments or institutions to solve alone. Success will increasingly depend on partnerships that place communities, Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, and civil society organizations at the heart of global environmental action.
