As the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) draws to a close, the landscape for UK-funded research and innovation (R&I) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) looks markedly different. With total Official Development Assistance (ODA) R&I funding expected to reduce dramatically going forwards, the question is not how to replicate GCRF, but how to learn from it.
At a recent GCRF closing event, we reflected on what Itad’s evaluation tells us about what worked, what didn’t, and what might be carried forward. Here are three personal takeaways for funders like the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; Department; Department of Health and Social Care; Defra; UKRI; and others investing in global research and innovation.
1. Equity isn’t just ethical – it’s effective
One of the strongest messages from the evaluation is that equitable partnerships are not just a moral imperative – they deliver better results. When LMIC researchers, communities, and non-academic partners are meaningfully engaged, research becomes more relevant, more impactful, and better value for money.
This is not just about ODA. Embedding equity from the outset (through governance, funding structures, and decision-making) should be the norm, not the exception. Encouragingly, in the Closing Event, one funder mentioned already applying these lessons to their non-ODA research in Antarctica by engaging local people.
There is a need to go further of course, with participants also raising issues around structural issues (who leads, who receives the funds), and epistemic justice (e.g. the co-validation of science with indigenous and local knowledge).
2. Time matters as much as money
Research takes time. So do relationships. Many GCRF projects, even those with pre-existing partnerships, needed longer than expected to build the trust and collaboration required for meaningful impact. There were insights from the panel of how this worked in practice under GCRF Hubs. As one participant put it, it would be great in future to have a ‘year zero’ to build well before the pressure to disburse.
Going forwards in a constrained funding environment, one suggested option is to stretch funding over longer periods. This could support deeper partnerships and more sustainable outcomes – especially when paired with flexible, adaptive management approaches.
3. Don’t underestimate the value of joining up across a portfolio
GCRF’s scale was unprecedented, but its complexity also posed challenges. Where coordination mechanisms were in place (with investments such as in the programme managers for the GCRF Hubs) they added real value by linking projects, sharing learning, and supporting delivery.
Future programmes, even if smaller, can also benefit from intentional design at the portfolio level. This includes investing in programme-wide learning, network building, knowledge exchange, and legacy planning. By both building on what came before and linking across a portfolio of R&I grants, this can amplify impact.
Final thoughts
There was so much more discussed at the event: better storytelling around impact, being more deliberate about what gets funded, aligning with other international funders to achieve more together. The above were just three personal reflections.
The GCRF era may be ending, but we should continue to apply its lessons. As the UK reimagines its approach to global research and innovation, there’s a real opportunity to do more with less – by being more equitable, more strategic, and more connected.
At Itad, we’re continuing to work with funders and partners to apply these insights. If you’re grappling with similar questions, we’d love to hear from you.
