Evidence Q&A: A structured approach to evidence accessibility and use
The CGIAR evidence portal on climate change, gender, and agriculture—developed collaboratively by CGIAR and Campbell South Asia—offers an innovative example of how Knowledge Translation (KT) can be applied to support a top global policy issue. It fills a gap in the evidence landscape: while the impacts of climate change disproportionately affect women and marginalized groups in agri-food systems, policy responses have often been inconsistent and under-informed. This is due in large part to fragmented evidence, poor and insufficient synthesis, and limited access to or use of high-quality research. The CGIAR platform directly addresses these issues by transforming academic evidence from systematic reviews into a format that is structured, accessible, and actionable—making it possible for policymakers, donors, and practitioners to meaningfully engage with the research.
All content is based on systematic reviews—research syntheses that follow clear, replicable methods for identifying, assessing, and analyzing primary studies. This approach ensures that the evidence product is based on the best available evidence from a range of geographies, provides consistency in how findings are interpreted, and ensures transparency in the process of knowledge translation. Importantly, gender is treated not as an add-on but as a core dimension that cuts across all topics, from climate impacts to adaptive strategies and institutional interventions.
The platform’s architecture is designed to reflect how users—especially those in policy or implementation roles—seek and apply information. Instead of presenting data in static reports or isolated studies, the portal uses a layered question-and-answer structure. Users begin at the top level with seven broad, policy-relevant questions, such as “How are women farmers in rural areas adapting to climate change?” From there, they can drill down into more specific sub-questions—typically between four and eight per topic—that narrow the focus to particular mechanisms or practices, such as the role of traditional knowledge in adaptation.
Each of these sub-questions is supported by a three-part content structure, which allows users to engage with the material at varying levels of detail depending on their interest and needs. A short summary offers key takeaways in plain language, ideal for decision-makers with limited time. A longer summary provides deeper insight, offering contextual analysis and highlighting how the evidence aligns with broader policy concerns, particularly around equity. For those seeking full transparency and methodological detail, a technical review digest links directly to the systematic reviews themselves, along with review-level summaries of their scope, methodology, and quality.
To support exploration of the evidence, the platform incorporates advanced filtering tools that allow users to navigate the evidence across several thematic dimensions. Content is tagged to align with themes such as adaptation (covering behavioural, technological, and infrastructural responses), mitigation (strategies for reducing emissions and managing carbon), innovation (emerging gender-sensitive technologies and delivery methods), governance (institutional structures and decision-making), and livelihoods (including income, assets, and safety nets). This means, for example, that a user interested in rural women’s adaptation strategies can quickly identify relevant evidence within the broader governance context.
The platform also provides structured outputs that support both high-level strategy and programmatic design. Each sub-question includes the three layers of content described above—short summary, long summary, and technical digest—which together provide a clear path from insight to action. These outputs serve as building blocks for a range of uses, whether preparing a strategic briefing or designing a new intervention.
In addition to the question-and-answer format, each of the seven main questions is linked to a one-page policy brief. These briefs summarize the most important findings, suggest potential interventions, and highlight both opportunities and limitations in the evidence. Written for use in practical settings—such as ministerial meetings, donor briefings, and strategy workshops—these briefs distill complex findings into actionable insights without sacrificing analytical clarity.
What makes the CGIAR platform particularly notable is its dynamic and forward-looking design. It is built not as a static repository, but as a living infrastructure that evolves with the evidence base. It will allow for regular updates as new systematic reviews become available and allows for expansion into new thematic areas as policy needs shift. Plans are also in place to enhance interactivity—introducing features such as stakeholder forums, collaborative evidence annotation, and integration with real-time climate data. These capabilities are intended to ensure the platform remains relevant, adaptive, and responsive to its users over time.
Strategic Implications
The CGIAR evidence platform is a good practice example of translating complex research into usable policy guidance. Its structure reflects three core insights. First, that decision-makers do not need more data—they need reliable, well-organized evidence that directly addresses the questions they are facing. Second, that systematic reviews provide the necessary credibility, but thoughtful design and navigation are what make the evidence accessible. And, third, that integrating gender, agriculture, and climate within a single knowledge product mirrors the complexity of real-world development challenges, enabling more coherent and coordinated action.
