Dynamics of GEF programming cycles: Ukraine’s allocations from GEF-4 to GEF-9

Authors: Valerii Dmytrenko, Taisiia Kryvenko, Ania Ostapenko

Every four years the GEF decides how much grant money each country can receive for projects in biodiversity, climate change and land degradation. For Ukraine this allocation has fallen over two decades from $27.75 million to $9.06 million. We look at how much of its allocation Ukraine used in each cycle, why $5.4 million remained unused in GEF-6 and what the allocation for the new GEF-9 cycle means.

What is a STAR allocation?

The allocation is not transferred to the country. It is a ceiling within which GEF Agencies prepare national projects with a Letter of Endorsement from the Operational Focal Point. When the GEF approves a project, its amount is deducted from the country’s allocation.

What to know about the figures:

• RAF and STAR. The GEF introduced the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) in 2005, and in GEF-4 it covered only biodiversity and climate change. From 2010 it was replaced by STAR (System for Transparent Allocation of Resources), which added land degradation.
• The amount used includes project grants together with Agency fees and project preparation funds. For example, in GEF-4 a UNDP biodiversity project received a $1.8 million grant, while $2.01 million was deducted from the allocation, including the Agency fee.
• Flexibility between areas. Countries with allocations above $7 million, such as Ukraine, could move only a limited share of funds between areas up to and including GEF-7. In GEF-8 Ukraine already had full flexibility, and in GEF-9 it applies to all recipient countries.

How much did Ukraine receive and use in each cycle?

Cycles run from July to June: GEF-4 covers 2006 to 2010, GEF-5 2010 to 2014, GEF-6 2014 to 2018, GEF-7 2018 to 2022, GEF-8 2022 to 2026 and GEF-9 2026 to 2030. Amounts in the table are in US$ million, according to Ukraine’s profile on the GEF website:

The allocation decreased from cycle to cycle, and in the last transition alone, from GEF-8 to GEF-9, it shrank by 32%. Ukraine’s GEF profile does not explain why the allocation changed for Ukraine specifically.

Exact amounts according to the GEF:

• GEF-4: allocation $27,750,000, used 25,980,653, remaining 1,769,347;
• GEF-5: allocation 26,950,000, used 26,799,100, remaining 150,900;
• GEF-6: allocation 19,316,568, used 13,880,047, remaining 5,436,521;
• GEF-7: allocation 15,390,638, used 15,337,665, remaining 52,973;
• GEF-8: allocation 13,391,283, used 13,391,282, remaining 1;
• GEF-9: allocation 9,060,258, used 0.

Why did $5.4 million remain unused in GEF-6?

GEF-6 covered 2014 to 2018. After the Revolution of Dignity and the signing of the EU Association Agreement, Ukraine set a course for accelerated reforms. But in those years three factors weighed on the practical use of environmental grants:

1. War and the occupation of territories since 2014. Some planned research and projects on biodiversity and land degradation in the occupied and front-line territories became impossible. The attention of the state and civil society shifted largely to humanitarian and security needs.
2. Institutional turbulence. The relevant ministries were reorganised, staff changed, and new agencies were set up with delays. This slowed project approvals, and the GEF procedure depends on exactly that: every step is agreed by several parties.
3. The transition phase of decentralisation. At its start, the local self-government reform had not yet given hromadas the capacity to take part in complex international grant programmes and to show co-financing.

In the following cycles, GEF-7 and GEF-8, Ukraine was already using its allocations almost in full.

How did Ukraine use its GEF-7 and GEF-8 allocations?

• GEF-7 (2018 to 2022). Climate change received $10.84 million, $0.83 million more than the allocation for this area. The excess was covered by the unused biodiversity allocation ($0.5 million remained) and land degradation allocation ($0.39 million remained).
• GEF-8 (2022 to 2026). The biodiversity allocation was $3 million, while biodiversity projects received $6.3 million. The rest came from the climate change and land degradation allocations: full flexibility applied between areas, and all three allocations were used down to the dollar.

In other words, Ukraine did not receive additional money for biodiversity in GEF-8. These projects were financed from its own climate change and land degradation allocations, redistributed under the rules of the cycle. The GEF profile shows separately which area the funds were drawn from, and this information is endorsed by the Operational Focal Point.

What does the GEF-9 allocation mean for hromadas and organisations?

For scale: the grant for a single FAO forest landscape restoration project from the GEF-8 cycle is $5.4 million, more than half of the entire GEF-9 allocation.

To receive funds from the allocation, a project follows the same path as any national GEF project: an Agency prepares the concept, the Operational Focal Point at the Ministry of Economy and Environment issues a Letter of Endorsement, and the GEF approves it. More about this path in the first article in this series.

We see the GEF-9 allocation as an opportunity for an initiative we are preparing with partners: introducing green public procurement (GPP) and ESG standards in hromadas. What GEF evaluations teach and how we take that into account in the initiative is covered in the third article in the series.

Allocation data are given according to Ukraine’s profile on the GEF website as of 07.10.2026; amounts are in US dollars. We calculated the shares used and the totals for all cycles ourselves. The explanation of the GEF-6 shortfall is the authors’ assessment. This material is for information only: our fund is not a GEF Agency and does not allocate GEF funds.