Independent Dialogue
Geographical focus:
Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia (Republic of The), Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Discussion topic outcome
Both food systems and research will have to coevolve, one informed by the other in an ongoing fashion. How can we plan and invest in long-term research capacities needed to support this? There was strong consensus around the need for collaboration between institutions to ensure joined-up thinking and scalable approaches to increasing research capacity. Ideas included the creation of platforms to collaborate at national, regional and global levels, as well as multi-institutional grants that could foster intra and inter country collaboration, knowledge and expertise sharing. This approach was se
... Read moreen as a ‘multiplier’ for the continent that could add value to country investments and combat ‘brain drain’. Another area of agreement concerned processes by which research capacity gaps could be identified and filled. Identifying gaps requires well-planned approaches that apply the right designs and tools, since errors could result in the misdirection of resources at the cost of other priorities. Participants suggested that robust monitoring, evaluation and feedback systems should be developed to identify research gaps, direct planning and funding. Locating gaps in capacity for food systems research is only useful if it is effectively communication to decision makers. Therefore, a high value was placed on developing the expertise to communicate research to the right stakeholders, beyond publications and conferences, so as to promote research uptake into action. The idea of ‘multisectoral approaches’ emerged among the breakout groups. This term is often used but participants questioned whether it is authentically pursued across the continent, and if not – what are the barriers? Collecting multisectoral data is an important starting point, as is the need to build and/or strengthen the capacity of national institutions to work together (example: Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture) in order to improve collaborative capacity. Upstream work is urgently needed to ensure that curriculums and research agendas at African universities are interdisciplinary and intersectoral. A debate around terminologies took place in plenary, and participants agreed on the need for coherence around the phrases: multidisciplinary; interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. Communicating and collaborating with policymakers and funders was deemed of utmost importance among all, with a strong emphasis on the need to articulate the value added of research and research capacity investment in each subnational/national/regional context. Linked to this was a common call to identify the relevant decision-making stakeholders and structures (i.e. donors/governments/processes) and target these with refined advocacy asks. There was broad consensus that implementation evidence is powerful in helping policymakers make decisions to change the system. Therefore, fostering research-based policies through long-term relationships between researchers and policymakers is crucial. Involvement of researchers from myriad disciplines in designing education policy and interventions is paramount. However, Dialogue participants agreed highlighted barriers to engaging with policymakers and funders, including other sectoral priorities and bureaucracy. Bringing policymakers into the process of identifying capacity gaps early on would give them a better understanding of the research process and the significance of these shortfalls for the wider economy. Also, a wider range of stakeholders into policy dialogue processes -i.e. students, educators, beneficiaries/users– will further demonstrate how research impacts on people’s lives, and thus the importance of directing resources into the pipeline of expertise. Some outlying ideas emerged from separate groups. These included sending postgraduate students abroad to build capacity and foster ideas exchange; to place greater emphasis on indigenous knowledge and traditional systems in curriculums and policy forums; and to establish institutional sharing systems for costly equipment and resources. While these topics were not necessarily proposed by every group, they are none-the-less invaluable ideas that stimulated discussion. Read less
Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Keywords: Data & Evidence, Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy