Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund Research into Use (RIU) synthesis report: executive summary

Published 15 September 2025

Executive summary

This synthesis report explores how the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) supported the application of research and innovation (R&I) in policy and practice from 5 cluster case studies across:

• India
• Kenya
• Vietnam
• Lebanon
• the Southern Indian Ocean region

It sets out the practical outcomes achieved by GCRF projects working in these regions and the factors associated with success. This evidence supports learning for future funds, promoting best practice to achieve effective impact pathways.

GCRF evaluation overview

The Global Challenges Research Fund ran between 2016 and 2025 and has now closed. It was a £1.5 billion R&I fund overseen by the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) Department for Science, Innovation and Technology^{[footnote 1]} (DSIT)^{[footnote 2]} and predecessor Departments who commissioned this evaluation of the fund by Itad.  It was implemented by 17 of the UK’s R&I funders, who commissioned R&I as partner organisations (POs).^{[footnote 3]} This evaluation examines the fund’s progress from activities to impacts by gathering evidence to test its Theory of Change (ToC). The evaluation has been conducted in 3 stages over a 5-year period from 2020 to 2025.

The final stage of the evaluation (running from 2023-2025) focuses on the outcomes arising from GCRF’s research and innovation being taken up and applied in LMICs. Outcomes of interest include R&I contributing to a change in policy or practice and/or attitude and behavioural change.^{[footnote 4]} The primary users of the evaluation are DSIT ODA teams and the UK POs that fund R&I. Secondary users will include other UK government funders of ODA R&I, and those interested in international R&I partnerships.

This synthesis report combines evidence and analysis from the ‘Research Into Use’ (RIU) case study clusters to answer the overarching evaluation question: “What results has GCRF produced or contributed to, and what has worked in terms of transforming outputs to outcomes, and outcomes to impacts?”

To identify and analyse changes that GCRF may have contributed to in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), 5 case study clusters (4 country-based, one regional), comprised of 36 research grants (known as awards) were conducted under 5 overarching themes:

1. Food security and agricultural sustainability in India – 9 awards
2. Marine and coastal governance in the southern Indian Ocean region – 9 awards
3. Clean, safe, resilient water supply in Kenya – 6 awards
4. Young people’s access to education and employment in Lebanon – 6 awards
5. Socio-ecological resilience to climate change impacts in Vietnam – 6 awards

The RIU case studies were selected on the basis of a review of GCRF’s portfolio, the GCRF ToC and a literature review that identified common theories of how R&I contribute to real-world change, as well as consultations with DSIT analysts.^{[footnote 5]} In each case study cluster, the analysis explores the pathways from R&I to outcomes and ultimately to real-world impact in each context. The case study clusters were implemented in parallel from April 2023 to June 2024.

Synthesis findings

The report findings focus on outcomes and impacts of the Fund, the factors associated with positive results, and recommendations arising from this.

Overall, awards are achieving faster progress towards real-world impact than was anticipated in the GCRF ToC^{[footnote 6]}, with Longer-Term Outcomes (LTOs) already emerging in four areas: policies, practices, R&I capabilities, and to a lesser degree, market development. Given the complex systemic processes shaping these outcomes, this represents an important contribution by GCRF-funded awards towards real-world impacts on complex global challenges.

Longer-Term Outcomes

Policy improved through the use of GCRF-supported evidence

GCRF R&I contributed to improved policy design and implementation in all five case studies at national, state and local levels – a key step in GCRF moving towards real-world impact at scale. For example:

• In India, GCRF evidence helped catalyse state government investment in sustainable agriculture and improved livelihoods.
• In Kenya, research influenced policy and regulatory change, including enhanced risk assessment procedures for livelihood and natural resource management and evidence-informed ‘suitability maps’ to inform new regulatory approaches to fisheries development in Lake Victoria.
• In Southern India Ocean (South Africa), decision makers made use of GCRF-related evidence in the development of marine economy management plans and incorporation of evidence into international ocean governance processes.
• In Vietnam, we saw increased use of evidence within policy processes on disaster risk management and impacts on rural livelihoods.
• In Kenya and the Southern Indian Ocean, GCRF projects enhanced the inclusion of poor and marginalised communities in decision-making processes. Achievements included the legal recognition of customary rights to resources and livelihoods and boosted participation of vulnerable communities in policy processes that affect their lives, access to natural resources and livelihoods. Inclusion of vulnerable communities with precarious livelihoods in policy processes is significant, as it lays a foundation for policies to potentially respond to their needs in the future.

As policy impact typically unfolds over a longer-term time period, it is important to investigate the mechanisms behind early and successful policy influence for future learning. Researchers who took an active role working with active civil society partners and other embedded stakeholders were able to overcome institutional-level obstacles, such as timing issues, electoral cycles and changes in policy agendas. Responding to a stated demand for the research by relevant government actors and working with policy actors to catalyse demand and build user-side capacities was also fundamental in achieving policy impact at a quicker pace.

Innovations supported improvements in practices and implementation approaches

Evidence from India, Vietnam, Kenya and Lebanon indicate that GCRF awards are supporting the adoption of technological innovations and influencing improvements in practices and implementation approaches, at both small and wider scales. For example, pockets of change have been seen in specific settings such as Indian farmers improving water management practices via improved water use scheduling and community coordination, while in Vietnam, the uptake of an app for real-time monitoring improved rice crop quality. These show potential for lasting impact for the current users, but there is not yet evidence for this adoption to be more widespread. In Lebanon there was some evidence of GCRF influencing practice through one award team’s ability to respond to new needs arising from the crisis there. The team were able to share their learning about including disabled students in education settings, a topic which sadly became of increasing importance, given the port explosion and increase in violent conflict in Lebanon.

Uptake of GCRF-funded novel methodologies and techniques show promise for lasting impact and international replicability. Examples include:

(i) applying various mapping methodologies in Vietnam and southern Africa and
(ii) the water hyacinth detection techniques developed under an Indian award but applied in Kenya.

Strong demand for technology outside the original testing context was also evident in the Indian Ocean example of novel tracking devices for small boats. Authorities from several other nations in sub-Saharan Africa, including Mauritius, Senegal, Zanzibar, Namibia, Mozambique, the Seychelles and the Gambia, have expressed an interest in trialling the innovation in their respective counties. The scale of this expansion provides an indication of wide demand for the solutions developed through the GCRF award and their relevance and applicability to multiple contexts.

Markets and value chains strengthened

Although there is less evidence in this outcome area relative to others, mainly due to a smaller number of market-facing awards in the sample, evidence from India and Vietnam did demonstrate how small research and networking grants stimulate value chains, further scaling innovations. Outcomes included enabling digital platforms tailored for smallholder farmers to access market information, manage logistics, or extend the shelf life of perishable goods. These awards worked by developing commercially relevant innovative technologies or innovative business models to enhance the participation of low-income producers in a value chain, thereby strengthening market access and value chains.

R&I capabilities strengthened in low and middle income countries

Almost all awards evidenced cross-country collaboration and new opportunities for employment and career progression. GCRF awards provided training in new skills, opportunities to learn-by-doing and knowledge exchange that directly benefited researchers and contributed towards the successful research within the awards themselves. For example, opportunities for knowledge exchange between researchers were provided in one Indian Ocean award through establishing a training centre to support increased research and technical marine science skills.

Evidence for improved R&I capabilities (skills, networks and infrastructures) comes from examples of collaboration networks established across countries and greater opportunities for career progression and employment for researchers, particularly early career researchers. R&I capabilities have also been developed outside the higher education sector, extending to partners operating in the systems that GCRF seeks to influence as a means to increase uptake and demand for R&I-led practice. For example, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in Lebanon enhanced their research and advocacy practice through collaboration with a university partner. In Vietnam, interdisciplinary collaboration between the university and private sector sparked the creation of an enterprise to manufacture and market rice protein snack products. Capacity strengthening of award holders (in both the UK and LMICs), wider research teams and non-academic partners, can support lasting change. The networks created or sustained through GCRF awards have supported institutional learning and collaboration and acted as a conduit to bring in resources and further funding to the partners. Table 1 below summarises key achievements observed in each cluster case study.

Table 1: Overview of research-into-use case study clusters and key achievements

Country	Cluster theme	Key achievements observed in the cluster
India	Food security, nutrition and sustainability	Co-produced mobile app for tracking invasive water hyacinth adopted by local communities and flower waste collection established as a local enterprise in Telangana and Kerala. Improved efficiency and enhanced cold storage solutions for agricultural products in various states, supported by small-scale farmers’ adoption of mobile apps for reducing post-harvest losses during transportation. Evidence and media engagement by projects influenced policy changes to support sustainable agriculture and improve livelihoods, plus government investment by various state governments in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha and Orissa helped to scale results.
Kenya	Clean, safe, resilient water supply	Local communities adopted innovations and improved practices, including more efficient water and natural resource mobilisation in dryland regions of the north and south; sustainable use of lake sites for fish farming; combined more solar generation and irrigation systems. Evidence and engagement with decision-makers led to policy and regulatory change; enhanced risk assessment procedures for livelihood and natural resource management; evidence-informed ‘suitability maps’ to inform new regulatory approaches to fisheries development in Lake Victoria. Networks formed during these projects have helped to generate follow-on resources for initiatives related to water and food security.
Indian Ocean	Marine and coastal ecosystems and economies	Evidence produced by NGOs and legal challenges led to policy changes, including marine economy management plans & increased involvement into international ocean governance processes. Combined scientific and social science evidence strengthened advocacy efforts for the recognition of customary rights, including integration of small-scale fishers’ rights and livelihoods into marine spatial planning policy. Contributions to adoption of ecosystem-based approaches to ocean governance and facilitating women’s involvement in ocean governance processes.
Vietnam	Socio-ecological resilience to income change impacts	Innovative solutions adopted by farmers and government agencies to boost resilience included new risk assessment tools, climate-resilient rice varieties and advanced flood modelling systems. Increased use of evidence within policy processes on disaster risk management and impacts on rural livelihoods. Contributions of new methods for hazard maps taken up in other regions e.g., tropical cyclone impact forecasting in South Africa.
Lebanon	Young people’s access to education and employment	Crisis context prevented the emergence of longer term outcomes, but foundations established, including multi-stakeholder networks and equitable international partnerships to support outcomes in the education sector. Capacity building of non-academic actors on key issues, e.g. disability awareness in media professionals. Uptake of research findings by local actors e.g. use of disability inclusive design by architects and designers involved in reconstruction of Beirut port.

Across the case studies, contextual challenges and political constraints were the strongest factor associated with minimal progress in achieving Shorter-Term Outcomes (STOs) and LTOs. STOs refer to early changes resulting from GCRF awards, within a short time period, and LTOs refer to longer-lasting, more sustained changes. The analysis showed four key factors which contributed positively to achieving STOs and LTOs.

GCRF’s flexible funding was a key enabler of impact

Opportunities for funding to develop and scale research and innovation is a major global gap identified through the case studies. GCRF was consistently seen as unique in providing a range of flexible funding types, from network and partnership development grants, through early career support, and fully-fledged research funding, with embedded impact activities. Interviewees highlighted that there were few funding opportunities like this.

Effective ways of working

GCRF researchers and innovators navigated contextual and political challenges through a series of common ways of working: iterative stakeholder engagement, responding to opportunities to amplify change; building networks to position credible evidence or innovation for take-up; and new capabilities mobilised to amplify change.

For example, as observed in India, Vietnam, Indian Ocean, Kenya and Lebanon, tools, guidelines and data that had been co-produced with stakeholders were more aligned with the concerns of decision makers and communities and responded better to local conditions, and were more likely to be seen as credible. Award holders built relationships with key decision makers, learning how to tailor findings to their priorities, and how to capitalise on opportunities to influence decisions.

Networks are critical for mobilising findings in dynamic contexts

Agile networks, both new and existing, were also key to navigating dynamic policy contexts. For example, in the Indian Ocean case study, GCRF-supported researchers and their network of partners in South Africa were able to respond to the window of opportunity presented by the nationwide marine spatial planning process, mobilising evidence, champions and legal challenges to successfully support the integration of small-scale fishing communities’ customary rights to livelihood and food security as considerations in the policy process.

Reciprocal capacity strengthening is a driver of impact

Mobilising mutual capacity strengthening helped to advance outcomes, where both UK and LMIC partners developed skills and infrastructures. For example, in India, collaboration between UK research institutes and local researchers brought together different expertise to develop algorithms for thermal data processing and training students in advanced techniques. Vietnamese partners were able to leverage the reputation of UK institutions to give them access to new networks and key stakeholders, which was important for uptake of their innovation. Involving local researchers, institutions and organisations helped to tailor technological innovations to the relevant market and value chain and to create demand for and interest in the tools and services.

Lessons and recommendations

Lessons

The case study cluster evidence highlights how a strategic and impact-focused approach is needed to establish the foundations for development impact from the start. Six key lessons have been identified for future funds and programmes.

1. Clustering awards working on the same issue in the same country is crucial for coordination, sharing learning on complex issues such as EDI, and achieving critical mass for greater impact within country systems.

GCRF was not designed around strategic clustering of awards working on similar challenges within the same geographies or contexts. A portfolio approach was considered through the establishment of the Challenge Leaders, but ultimately this was not successful.^{[footnote 7]} The RIU case study evaluation retrofitted coherent portfolios within thematic and country contexts to gain holistic insights into how pathways to impact worked (or not) in different contexts. This also provided evidence on what impacts could have been achieved, had a more strategic approach to coordinating awards been taken.

Award holders brought together by the evaluation noted that earlier coordination by funders could have helped with combining efforts, promoted shared learning and amplified impact. This represents a missed opportunity to cluster and connect awards (with the exception of some GCRF programmes such as Hubs and Future Leaders – African Independent Research (FLAIR)). Evidence shows that while individual awards mobilized significant stakeholder networks, there were limited opportunities to share learning on key impact drivers with other teams working in similar fields. In challenging areas such as EDI, teams could have pooled learning on, for example, integrating and involving vulnerable communities in the research process.

The RIU case study clusters have effectively shown post hoc that the clustering approach would enable awards to work together synergistically and achieve critical mass. The evidence from the case study clusters shows that, while the fund has achieved faster than expected progress for this stage of implementation, perhaps greater progress could have been achieved by taking a clustering approach and capitalising on the learning network potential.

2. GCRF’s evaluation evidence shows that proactively managing for development impact, alongside research excellence, is closely associated with progress towards impact. This involves building in the processes that drive impact right from the design phase and optimising these throughout implementation - so fund-level prioritisation and resourcing of the foundations for impact is vital.

GCRF was designed to go beyond considering research excellence alone to promote challenge-led, excellent ODA research with impact. This has not always translated into the implementation of R&I, where research excellence was at times prioritised over impact, as has been evidenced in our previous reports.^{[footnote 8]} Nevertheless, the RIU case study clusters provide further evidence that when ways of working that support the four foundations for development impact^{[footnote 9]} (coined as ‘ODA excellence’ by the evaluation) are prioritised and invested in, these actually catalyse pathways to impact and create momentum for sustainable change.

This prioritisation, along with funding, is needed from the fund level in order to ensure consistent integration of these ways of working and achievement of ODA excellence across the whole portfolio of R&I investments.

3. GCRF’s flexible funding and diverse award types enabled outcomes by creating local partnerships and stakeholder networks, able to adapt to changing conditions and emerging needs.

The RIU case study clusters illustrate how, in a country context, a combination of different, and flexible, funding mechanisms effectively created local stakeholder networks and systems for moving research into use in country contexts. GCRF’s flexible funding, investment in local partnerships, and strategic award sequencing was a key enabler of outcomes. From a cluster perspective, diverse award types supported various R&I stages - small exploratory awards led to larger ones, while early career awards, networking awards, and capacity-building awards played crucial roles in catalysing networks and stakeholder engagement. Large-scale awards such as the One Ocean Hub case study demonstrated how strategically combining diverse grants in a mixed portfolio built interlinked research efforts, effectively moving research into use. GCRF’s funding flexibility allowed teams to adapt to changing conditions and emerging needs.

4. Iterative engagement, co-production and proof of concept testing with local stakeholders are key to R&I being positioned for use, enabling research teams to respond to emerging opportunities to promote influence and uptake of their findings.

Case studies show that iterative engagement at local and national levels is vital for building contextual understanding and enhancing stakeholder receptiveness, both crucial for LTOs. Co-production with stakeholders ensures R&I products are better aligned with local conditions and decision-makers, boosting R&I credibility and fostering positive mechanisms like research engagement and relevance.

This alignment is particularly important in politically challenging environments, such as Lebanon, and is amplified by active civil society involvement. Stakeholder readiness and receptiveness are key for R&I uptake, as they build capacities and opportunities to apply, adapt, and champion research findings. Direct collaboration and co-creation with stakeholders are essential. Timing research and leveraging policy moments are also critical, but academics often lacked direct access to policymakers, underscoring the value of partnerships with influential civil society and other partners.

5. Reciprocal capacity-building relationships are crucial for many STOs - strengthening research system capacities through diverse funding mechanisms could further enhance impact potential.

Case study evidence shows how these relationships, where both UK and LMIC partners develop skills and infrastructures, built a strong foundation for interdisciplinary and innovative work. Strengthened institutional capacities can sustain interdisciplinary collaborations into the future, responding to emerging needs beyond the life of the project. However, the cross-case analysis suggests that enhancing research capacities only leads to outcomes if other enablers, like accessible funding mechanisms, are present. Funds like GCRF could invest more in institutional research capacities, which has potential for sustaining long-term outcomes.

6. Networks are critically important for scaling outcomes but were not consistently prioritised and resourced.

The case study clusters highlight many examples of how agile networks and champions are critical for navigating complex policy, practice and market environments in LMICs. The international collaboration within GCRF awards provided access to networks which brought together expertise from a range of LMIC and UK actors, often while addressing mutual skills gaps.

Given the importance of networks as a significant driver of impact at scale, the lack of a fund-wide effort to build connections and coordination between GCRF awards working in the same countries on the same issues has been a significant missed opportunity. Networks have also not always reached their full potential, especially where funding was curtailed as a result of the ODA budget. Many of the networks and partnerships that were maintained were kept alive largely through individual efforts of researchers, based on pre-existing relationships. Sustaining the stakeholder networks over time needs continued support to build shared understanding, trust and momentum towards impact.

Recommendations

Recommendations	Owners
1.1. Future funds should adopt clustering awards and building cohorts for learning and impact as a strategic management approach (avoiding the limitations of the earlier Challenge Leaders approach).[footnote 10] The UK R&I funding architecture makes this complicated because it requires coordination across different POs as well as information sharing and resources for this at programme management level. Nevertheless, the added value for impact justifies the extra effort needed.	Fund owner DSIT and POs
2.1. On-the-ground insight to ensure relevant, locally aligned R&I: RIU is unlikely to happen without strong in-country insights and engagement at all levels, from locally led problem identification and co-creation of solutions to local leadership and locally led networks. Future funds need to prioritise and support fair and equitable local-level engagement – a crucial driver of equitable partnerships, as well as operating as key RIU mechanisms.	Fund owner DSIT and POs
2.2. A focus on gender, social inclusion and poverty reduction: A focus on gender, inclusion and wider EDI issues can be challenging for R&I projects to integrate, requiring specialist skill-sets to understand how to involve vulnerable communities. Our evidence demonstrates that addressing EDI issues by analysing how a project impacts on existing inequities, and implementing appropriate mechanisms can catalyse pathways to impact. It is not only an ethical choice and is worth investing in for development impact. Future funds should prioritise EDI at the fund level, with expertise and tools to support teams in: (i) integrating an analysis of gender and intersecting vulnerabilities to understand how development challenges affect different groups of people; (ii) involving vulnerable communities in the research process; and (iii) identifying some of the less tangible barriers to positive RIU outcomes. The other foundations for development impact are covered under the specific recommendation they relate to.	Fund owner DSIT and POs
3.1. Future funds should continue to provide and sequence a diversity of award types to allow partnership development, growth of the networks, stakeholder engagement and collaborative ways of working that have been key to catalysing outcomes. Diverse granting should be done intentionally and applied within a clustering or portfolio approach at the country level.	Fund owner DSIT and POs
3.2. Future funds can strengthen the position of the UK as a research partner of choice by offering longer-term funding opportunities with more certainty of continuation, particularly in areas where there is a global gap in funding opportunities. Crucially, this should include research activities that prioritise interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral working, capacity building, networks and stakeholder engagement.	Fund owner DSIT and POs
4.1 Iterative engagement requires flexible funding that can respond to changing dynamics. Future funds should continue to prioritise stakeholder engagement from the outset and provide the type of flexible funding for communications, events, arts-based approaches, evidence advocacy and policy influencing that has proved effective in GCRF.	Fund owner DSIT and POs
4.2. Proof-of-concept testing that involves and engages the end users – communities, policymakers, practitioners and businesses – supports RIU through speeding up demand for innovations, as seen in the Kenyan community solar generation example. Future funds should fund pilots and demonstrate success through quick wins to provide the foundations for successful scaling.	Fund owner DSIT and POs
5.1. Future funds should improve the fairness of R&I funding, including establishing funding that can be awarded directly to LMIC research institutions, with a focus on mutual capacity strengthening between UK and LMICs. There should be recognition of the specific capabilities LMIC research institutions bring in terms of building and sustaining national networks which are crucial for lasting change.	Fund owner DSIT and POs
6.1 Networks and stakeholder engagement activities were key enablers; their absence appeared to stifle potential for impact. Future funds should consider including dedicated networking funding mechanisms that support these activities, including dedicated resources for stakeholder engagement activities.	Fund owner DSIT

1. Formerly the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). ↩

2. £1.5 billion between 2016 and 2021 was the budgeted investment; this does not reflect the subsequent budget changes and actual spend. See BEIS (2017) ‘Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF): How the Fund Works’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/global-challenges-research-fund/global-challenges-research-fund-gcrf-how-the-fund-works ↩

3. GCRF is delivered through 18 POs, including: the 7 Research Councils; Innovate UK; the Research Council’s umbrella organisation, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI); the 4 National Academies; the UK Space Agency (UKSA); and the 4 higher education funding councils. These POs manage and disburse finding through the existing system of universities and other research organisations, as well as to their partners in LMICs. Higher education funding is devolved to the 4 nations of the UK and administered by the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and (in England) by Research England. ↩

4. Kundill Kemp, G. (2017) Guidance Note: Research-into-Use in CARIAA. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/56601 ↩

5. 45 awards were sampled, including one multi-award Hub in the Indian Ocean region. Some limitations in researchers’ willingness to participate and contextual challenges meant that evidence was obtained and analysed for 36 awards in total. See the methodology section for more details. ↩

6. See Annex 1 for the GCRF ToC. ↩

7. See Vogel, I. et al. (2024) Evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund: Stage 1b Synthesis report Synthesis of the evidence on programme processes and progress towards impact in GCRF’s six flagship investments ↩

8. See BEIS (2022) Stage 1a: Synthesis Report of evidence on integration of relevance, fairness, gender, poverty and social inclusion in funded activities ↩

9. (i) On-the-ground insight to ensure relevant, locally aligned R&I; (ii) fairness and mutual capacity building in partnerships between UK and LMIC organisations, including non-academic partners; (iii) a focus on gender, social inclusion and poverty reduction; (iv) mobilising stakeholder networks for uptake. ↩

10. See learning brief for a more detailed look at how to achieve this ↩