CLARE Capacity Strengthening Hub Policy Influencing Workshop and CLARE-ASEAN Research–Policy Dialogue,
Bangkok, 22–26 June 2026

Dr. Priya Singh

Climate adaptation is frequently discussed as a challenge of implementation. Governments require actionable knowledge, researchers are encouraged to generate policy-relevant evidence, and development agencies increasingly emphasise evidence-informed decision-making. Yet a persistent question remains at the centre of climate adaptation efforts across the Global South: under what conditions does evidence acquire influence within policy and practice?

The question is deceptively simple. Significant advances have been made in understanding climate risks, vulnerabilities, and adaptation pathways. Research has generated valuable insights into resilience-building, governance, adaptation finance, urban planning, and community-based responses to climate change. Yet the movement from evidence to policy, and from policy to implementation, remains uneven. The existence of knowledge does not guarantee its uptake, nor does policy change emerge automatically from research findings.

Understanding this gap requires moving beyond a linear view of policy change. Climate adaptation does not unfold through a straightforward sequence in which evidence generates policy and policy generates action. Rather, the uptake of evidence is shaped by institutional capacities, governance arrangements, political priorities, resource constraints, decision-making processes, and the broader environments within which knowledge is interpreted, negotiated, and acted upon.

It is this question that lies at the heart of the CLARE Capacity Strengthening Hub Policy Influencing Workshop in Bangkok. The workshop culminates in Research Evidence and Policy Making: What Works to Advance Climate Adaptation and Resilience–A Research–Policy Dialogue, organised by CLARE-ASEAN with the support of the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT). The progression is deliberate. The workshop will create a space for examining how research engages with policy processes, while the dialogue broadens that conversation to consider how evidence can contribute to climate adaptation governance and implementation across ASEAN and the wider Global South.

As climate risks intensify across the Global South, governments are increasingly required to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, competing priorities, and resource constraints. The task is therefore not only to generate knowledge about adaptation pathways but also to ensure that such knowledge informs planning, governance, finance, and implementation processes. Understanding how evidence acquires influence has consequently become a central concern for both researchers and policymakers seeking to advance climate adaptation and resilience.

The programme begins from a recognition that engagement with policy processes is rarely linear. Influence frequently emerges through agenda-setting, relationship-building, institutional learning, and sustained engagement rather than through direct pathways from research to policy outcomes. While many adaptation initiatives begin with carefully designed Research-for-Impact strategies, experience often reveals a more complex reality. Strategies evolve, opportunities emerge unexpectedly, institutional constraints reshape engagement, and pathways to impact are continually adapted in response to changing circumstances.

More importantly, it moves beyond a conventional capacity-building model. It is not intended as a forum for reporting successes or showcasing best practices. Rather than offering a toolkit for policy engagement, it creates a space for examining how influence actually unfolds. Participants will explore the non-linear pathways through which research enters policy processes, the institutional environments within which evidence is interpreted and negotiated, and the conditions under which knowledge acquires traction within decision-making systems. Across four days, researchers and practitioners from across the CLARE portfolio will reflect on experiences of policy engagement, examine how Research-for-Impact strategies have evolved in practice, and consider what lessons can inform future adaptation initiatives.

Underlying these discussions is a broader concern with the research–policy interface itself. How does research enter policy processes? Why do some forms of evidence gain traction while others remain peripheral? What enables knowledge to travel across institutional boundaries and contribute to decision-making? As adaptation challenges intensify, these questions have become increasingly important for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike.

Its emphasis on peer learning, comparative reflection, and adaptive engagement strategies reflects an understanding that policy engagement is not simply a technical skill. It requires navigating uncertainty, institutional realities, and political contexts while identifying opportunities through which evidence can acquire relevance within decision-making systems.

It is from this foundation that the Research–Policy Dialogue derives its rationale.  The exchange will carry lessons emerging from the workshop into conversations with policymakers, practitioners, development partners, and regional stakeholders. If the workshop is concerned with how knowledge acquires influence, the dialogue turns to the equally important question of how evidence is incorporated into governance and implementation systems operating under competing priorities, institutional constraints, and resource limitations.

The Research–Policy Dialogue focuses on the research–policy–practice interface in its fullest sense. Discussions on evidence uptake become discussions about governance; reflections on engagement become conversations about implementation; and questions of institutional learning become questions of adaptation action. Particular attention is directed towards urban adaptation and resilience, institutional capacity, implementation challenges, and comparative lessons from ASEAN and the wider Global South, where climate risks and governance realities increasingly intersect.

At a time when climate risks continue to intensify across regions and sectors, one of the most pressing dilemmas confronting adaptation is not limited to generating knowledge. It is equally a question of understanding how knowledge acquires influence, how evidence travels through institutions, and how policy processes translate insights into action.

Climate adaptation is often framed as a challenge of implementation. Yet implementation is shaped long before policies are adopted or programmes are launched. It is shaped in the spaces where evidence is interpreted, priorities are negotiated, institutions respond, and knowledge acquires influence. Understanding those spaces may be essential to narrowing the distance between evidence and action.