THE Global Environment Facility (GEF) is urging countries to move away from relying solely on their environment ministries to decide how climate and environmental funds are used, and instead adopt broader multi-ministerial steering committees to improve co-ordination and maximise impact.
For decades, the GEF has worked almost exclusively with environment ministries, which acted as the focal point for allocating GEF resources. But the facility now says this model limits how effectively funds can support national development priorities and cross-sector climate action.
GEF chief executive officer and chairman Carlos Manuel Rodríguez announced the shift explaining that involving ministries such as finance, planning, energy, agriculture, or women’s affairs, depending on country structures, could help countries manage climate funds more coherently and strengthen alignment with national goals.
The approach, he said, aims to address a persistent challenge: fragmented policymaking across government sectors.
Why the change?
The GEF, a multilateral fund that helps developing countries tackle climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and land degradation, believes broader decision-making will increase ambition and improve project results.
Mr Rodríguez said countries currently invest “44 times more resources in activities that contribute to climate change than what they invest in reverting climate change,” a disparity he attributes partly to weak political coherence within governments.
“When multiple ministries jointly decide how GEF resources are used, the resulting portfolios tend to be more integrated and transformative than projects designed solely within environment ministries,” Mr Rodriguez said.
Concerns from Small Islands and Developing States
However, the proposal has raised questions among small island developing states, which often operate with limited administrative resources.
Fiji’s permanent secretary for Environment and Climate Change, Dr Sivendra Michael, asked whether countries would still be allowed to maintain their current institutional arrangements.
“I won’t use my country as an example, but there are other processes in place,” Dr Michael said.
“And my question to you is whether we still have the flexibility to operate as usual or this steering unity model is something that’s been agreed upon through the council.”
He also raised two concerns:
-The steering-committee model was never discussed at the recent Pacific constituency meeting.
-The funding allocated to support GEF operational focal points, just $US42,000 ($F95,800) per year, is too small for countries expected to expand coordination across multiple ministries.
“If we are going to increase the steering-committee approach and maybe add more people who have complexities than we have right now.
“So I’m not sure if it’s more of a solution than a problem that we’re trying to create here.”
GEF: Participation is voluntary
Mr Rodríguez stressed that the approach is not mandatory and countries retain full sovereignty over how they manage GEF resources.
“We like to continue to have a single operational focal point and a single political focal point, that’s a sovereign decision and we will respect it,” Mr Rodriguez said.
“But we feel the need … to address the lack of political coherence in the central government.”
He said many environment ministers support the idea because they struggle to influence more powerful ministries, such as energy or agriculture, when implementing their national climate commitments.
Strengthening country capacity
Responding to concerns about funding, Mr Rodríguez acknowledged that $US42,000 per year is a limited amount, but noted it is the first time the GEF has provided any financial support to operational focal points.
Previous replenishment cycles offered no such funding.
He said the GEF intends to expand this support over time and sees national focal points as “the most strategic ally” in overseeing project design, implementation, and accountability.
Where GEF funding comes from
The GEF’s financial resources come from donor governments, primarily developed countries, that contribute to the GEF Trust Fund during replenishment cycles.
These pooled contributions are then distributed to developing nations through grants, blended finance, and partnership programs to address global environmental challenges.
So while GEF maintains that steering committees will remain optional, the institution is clearly signalling a desire for more integrated decision-making.
