Africa Eu Partnership

Research · recorded briefing

Towards jointly funded research and innovation

How an African–European policy dialogue sought to build a shared research agenda around food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture.

· Historical record

Researchers examining samples together in a laboratory

Joint programmes depend on shared priorities, complementary expertise and transparent decisions about funding.

This archived initiative explored a more balanced model for cross-continental research: priorities would be set jointly, scientific capacity would be connected across regions, and participating institutions would work towards shared funding and oversight.

Recorded context

The underlying process began in 2013 and the original account described plans being developed during 2014 and 2015. Those milestones are historical, not current announcements. This page summarises the proposal in contemporary, plain language.

A shared starting point

Senior officials participating in a high-level policy dialogue on science, technology and innovation agreed to explore a jointly supported research and innovation partnership. Food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture were selected as the initial focus.

Conditions differed across African and European countries, but policymakers identified overlapping concerns: resilient food systems, responsible use of land and water, climate pressures, nutrition and the need to reduce fragmented research efforts. These common questions offered a basis for collaboration while leaving room for regional priorities.

From dialogue to a roadmap

A working group of specialists from both continents was asked to prepare material for a roadmap. Its task was to identify short-, medium- and longer-term milestones and consider how research priorities, funding instruments and institutional responsibilities might fit together.

The process relied on iterative exchanges between specialists and policy representatives. Preliminary material was circulated for consultation before further policy discussion. The intended departure from earlier models was an emphasis on mutual interest, joint design, co-ownership and benefits that could be demonstrated on both sides.

How priorities were assessed

The draft framework used practical criteria to compare possible research themes:

  • relevance to priorities identified in both regions;
  • likely research impact and prospects for practical uptake;
  • comparable or complementary scientific expertise;
  • potential to scale useful approaches; and
  • whether investment could address a genuine gap or coordinate related work.

Four connected research themes

1. Sustainable production

The first theme considered how knowledge-led farming could produce sufficient, nutritious food while responding to higher input costs, pressure on natural resources, land degradation and a changing climate. The aim was not simply higher output, but more resilient production with responsible resource use.

2. Food systems and nutrition

The second theme addressed the gap between food availability and good nutrition. It recognised that dietary problems are connected to production, affordability, access, distribution and the availability of nutritious foods.

3. Agricultural markets and trade

The third theme examined how joint research might reduce barriers to fair and reliable trade. Areas included food quality and safety, monitoring and diagnostics, price instability, and stronger links between small-scale producers and markets.

4. Coordination, innovation and capacity

The fourth theme brought together needs that cut across the programme: coordination between initiatives, research infrastructure, digital tools, skills development and stronger routes from research findings to practical innovation.

Funding and implementation

The proposed implementation model did not rely on one instrument. It considered a combination of existing research programmes, support actions and capacity-building measures. For the longer term, it suggested learning from platforms organised around co-ownership and co-funding.

That approach raised important governance questions: who decides the agenda, how contributions are valued, how institutions with different resources participate equitably, and how results are made accessible. A credible partnership would need clear answers as well as scientific ambition.

Why the proposal still matters

Although the roadmap described here belongs to an earlier policy period, its central questions remain useful when evaluating collaborative research. Joint programmes work best when participants define the problem together, connect complementary expertise, coordinate investments and plan from the outset how knowledge will reach researchers, producers, public agencies and communities.

For wider subject context, visit Science, Technology and Innovation.

What the roadmap included

The proposal joined scientific themes with the institutional conditions required to support useful, equitable research.

01

Shared priorities

Questions selected for relevance across both regions rather than by one funding partner alone.

02

Joint capacity

Complementary expertise, infrastructure, skills and digital systems connected across institutions.

03

Coordinated funding

A combination of existing instruments and longer-term approaches to shared financial responsibility.

04

Research uptake

Attention to how evidence could inform innovation, markets, public policy and food-system practice.

Source material

Read the historical record with its date visible

The magazine issue linked here provided the longer contemporary account of the working-group process. Its schedules, programme names and forward-looking statements reflect the period in which it was produced.

Recorded PDF · August 2014

Research partnership background

Use the source to examine the proposal's original framing, then distinguish planned milestones from subsequently verified outcomes.

Open the archived magazine issue →

Reading method

How Africa Eu Partnership handles this record

Historical plans are retained for research value without presenting old schedules as current policy.

Date

Identify when the dialogue, draft and consultation took place.

Separate

Distinguish proposed activities from completed or independently verified outcomes.

Explain

Translate programme language into clear questions about priorities, funding and governance.

Connect

Link the record to its broader science, technology and innovation context.