In recent years, governments across Europe have invested significant effort in understanding how scientific evidence feeds into policymaking. Mapping exercises, workshops and comparative studies have helped diagnose strengths and weaknesses in national systems. But a key question remains: how can these insights be translated into concrete improvements?

Spain offers an interesting example of how to move from diagnosis to action. A few years ago, analyses carried out within the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC; Cañibano ) initiative on science-for-policy ecosystems described Spain as having a growing yet still fragile system. The landscape was characterised by multiple advisory actors, increasing political attention to evidence-informed policymaking, and ongoing efforts to formalise practices, but also by fragmentation and limited coordination.

A major institutional step followed in 2024 with the creation of the National Office for Scientific Advice (ONAC) at the centre of government. Designed to connect policymakers with scientific expertise and promote good advisory practices, ONAC represents a move towards more structured and visible science advice within the Spanish administration. Yet institutional reform alone was not the end of the story. Recognising that ecosystems are shaped not only by structures but also by interaction and shared understanding, ONAC turned to a more participatory approach.

In 2025, it convened 13 scientific forums involving more than 500 researchers, creating a space for dialogue on how evidence is used (and could be better used) in public decision-making. These discussions resulted in 30 recommendations and a set of priority actions, offering a concrete roadmap for strengthening Spain’s science-for-policy system (see Foros ONAC de Asesoramiento Científico, in Spanish).

From 30 recommendations to priority actions

The 30 recommendations from the ONAC forums cover several concrete intervention areas to strengthen Spain’s science-for-policy system. They call for formalising advisory mechanisms within government, including clearer procedures for requesting and using scientific input and more stable integration of experts into policymaking processes. They emphasise the development of professional knowledge brokerage functions, such as dedicated intermediaries, improved communication formats (e.g. policy briefs), and better matching between policy questions and available expertise. A strong focus is placed on capacity building, proposing training for both civil servants and researchers to work effectively with evidence and interact across institutional boundaries. The recommendations also address incentive structures, suggesting recognition of policy engagement in academic careers and support for interdisciplinary collaboration. Finally, they highlight the need to strengthen data access, transparency, and evaluation, including monitoring how evidence is used in policy and assessing the impact of advisory processes. Together, these proposals aim to move from a fragmented system towards a more systematic, demand-driven and accountable use of scientific knowledge in policymaking.

Common challenges across European ecosystems

What makes this step particularly relevant in a European context is how it connects with broader patterns observed across countries.

In Denmark, similar analysis shows a rich but highly sectoral and fragmented landscape, where multiple advisory mechanisms coexist but require stronger coordination (see Pedersen_Hvidtfeldt_The_Danish_Eco_System_of_Science_for_Policy_2021_.pdf). In Finland, by contrast, the system operates as a decentralised network built on trust and collaboration, with fewer formal structures but strong traditions of cooperation; alongside challenges in ensuring continuous interaction and alignment with policy needs (see Discussion Paper - The Finnish Science-for-policy Ecosystem). Spain’s approach sits somewhere in between. By combining a central coordinating body (ONAC) with broad-based stakeholder engagement, it illustrates a hybrid path: institutionalisation complemented by co-creation.

Across these different models, common challenges emerge. Science-for-policy systems often struggle with:

• fragmentation and weak coordination

• gaps between knowledge production and policy needs

• limited incentives and skills for engagement

• insufficient mechanisms for sustained dialogue

These challenges have been repeatedly highlighted in JRC workshops bringing together policymakers, researchers and practitioners from across Europe to share experiences and co-develop solutions.

Key lessons for evidence-informed policymaking

Spain’s ONAC forums demonstrate the value of turning analysis into collective reflection. By mobilising the scientific community to co-produce recommendations, they help build both ownership and legitimacy, increasing the likelihood that reforms will be implemented.

The Spanish experience also highlights a broader lesson: there is no single model for evidence-informed policymaking. Countries differ in their institutional traditions and governance cultures. What matters is the ability to adapt, learn, and connect, combining structures, people, and processes in ways that work within each context.

As Europe continues to strengthen its science-for-policy agenda, examples like this show that progress depends not only on understanding ecosystems, but on actively shaping them through dialogue, collaboration, and experimentation.

In this sense, Spain’s journey, from mapping its system to co-creating solutions, offers a practical illustration of how evidence-informed policymaking can evolve: step by step, actor by actor, and increasingly, together.