The project aimed to support seven European countries—Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands—in strengthening their capacity for evidence-informed policymaking within governance and public administration. It sought to enhance political and scientific understanding of the investments and actions needed for evidence to meaningfully inform policy decisions. Central to this effort was the development of a shared analytical structure that translated the concept of evidence-informed policymaking into practical, policy-relevant terms and provided a common foundation for country-specific research.
In the first phase, national kick-off meetings were organised to engage ministries, research bodies, advisory organisations, and other stakeholders. These were followed by national diagnostic reports prepared by expert teams, drawing on extensive surveys that converted the shared analytical framework into concrete questions. Engagement with domestic institutions, universities, social partners, and civil society ensured that diverse perspectives informed the analysis and strengthened national ownership of the process.
The second phase focused on identifying gaps and needs while introducing international comparison and benchmarking against good practices. Interactive focus groups and workshops enabled peer learning across countries. Based on these exchanges, tailored national roadmaps were developed, outlining policy recommendations and implementation actions to strengthen evidence-informed policymaking systems. Alongside this, capacity-building workshops for policymakers, scientists, and knowledge brokers, as well as thematic learning exercises, supported skill development and mutual understanding.
By bringing together national findings, the project extracted broader lessons and articulated key principles for healthy evidence-informed policymaking ecosystems. Rather than prescribing a single model, it highlighted that effective systems depend on national context, culture, and governance arrangements. Nevertheless, shared insights emerged around the value of a common language, ecosystem thinking, and a strategic, forward-looking approach that complements detailed national analysis.
One major lesson was the importance of shared terminology and frameworks in aligning actors across government and research communities. A common language helped identify needs and gaps more clearly, enabled mutual learning, and supported collective action on reforms. The project also reinforced that evidence ecosystems do not self-organise and require deliberate co-ordination, incentives, and infrastructure to connect policymakers, researchers, and intermediaries effectively.
The findings underscored persistent challenges in cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary working. Siloed administrative structures and discipline-specific advisory bodies often limit the use of integrated evidence, even when high-quality research exists. Countries were encouraged to strengthen inter-departmental collaboration, formulate cross-cutting knowledge agendas, and improve mechanisms for synthesising and integrating evidence across policy areas.
Leadership and high-level demand for evidence emerged as critical drivers of cultural change. While many countries possess strong evidence supply capacity, its use is often constrained by political pressures, short time horizons, and limited absorption capacity within government. Visible support from senior officials, formal integration of evidence into decision-making processes, and regular high-level discussions on the state of evidence use were identified as effective ways to build a sustained culture of inquiry.
The project also highlighted the need to address skills and competence gaps on both the supply and demand sides of the ecosystem. Strengthening analytical capacity within public administration, improving researchers’ ability to engage with policy, and professionalising knowledge brokerage functions were seen as mutually reinforcing priorities. Training, fellowships, pairing schemes, and clearer career pathways were identified as valuable tools, but only when embedded within supportive institutional cultures and incentive structures.
Overall, the project demonstrated that an ecosystem approach to evidence-informed policymaking can act as a catalyst for change. By combining national analysis with international comparison and interactive learning, it reshaped policy discussions, expanded the range of options considered by governments, and helped create favourable conditions for reform. The experience shows that sustained investment in coordination, leadership, skills, and trust is essential for evidence to consistently inform better public policy outcomes.
