Research, increased data collection, and better technology are frequently cited as solutions to challenges relating to agricultural systems in Africa and Europe. This is reflected, for example, in the investment commitments to digital technologies under the framework of the partnership between the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU), and the increased calls for public and private research collaborations. Nonetheless, further reflection is needed on what other types and sources of knowledge are necessary to be drawn upon to enhance the strength of the partnership in addressing such issues. 

“There is a recurrent question about what kind of knowledge and expertise will enable food systems to become sustainable, just, and resilient. This question invites us to think beyond our usual conceptions of what knowledge is.”

These were some of the introductory words shared by Melania Mora from the Brussels Office of the Baha’i International Community (BIC) at an event titled “The role of knowledge in food systems in the Africa-Europe Partnership hosted by the organization on 23 May 2023.

Paul Okumu, Head of Secretariat at the Africa Platform on Governance, Responsible Business and The Social Contract, highlighted the importance of local knowledge held by populations and communities at the grassroots and pertaining to their rural realities as he remarked that “there is some kind of belief that local knowledge is secondary to what we sometimes define either as global or international knowledge, and so when we are talking about or referring to local knowledge, we see it as something that needs to be done by NGOs, or it needs to be something which needs to be done by some farmers; but here, really, if we are talking about ‘local’ or ‘local knowledge’”

The value of considering local knowledge more centrally in policy and other initiatives was reiterated by Lucy Esipila, Secretary General of Caritas Africa. She described how “when groups come together at the community level to identify priorities, share their challenges, and assess their capacities, they are able to generate knowledge that we can use at different levels. And when we engage these local actors in policy debates, we ensure that challenges at the community level and the knowledge of the community level make sense at the intercontinental level…so when we are making decisions we are taking into account the reality of these communities”.

A recurrent theme throughout the conversation was the progressively pressing need to think about practical ways to allow for broader insights to inform broader policies at higher levels of policymaking. 

Speaking from the perspective of climate change discussions and having recently attended COP27, Carolina Cecilio, a policy advisor at the climate think tank E3G, shared how “there is always this question of how knowledge at the state level, which is what is represented in these international conferences, might not represent what is happening at the local level. And there is always this gap.” She further reflected on how thought is needed on “how to create spaces that somehow start to integrate at the local level but then also go into the national and international; because I do think that we need to make sure we shift to the perspective that local communities become protagonists in the system… they are the ones doing the work, so it is completely fair that they gain more space.”

Participants concluded that, ultimately, envisioning such spaces and mechanisms requires a shift in mindset. Rachel Bayani, Representative of the Brussels office of the  Baha’i International Community, shared a reflection on how “we need a mindset in which we see that everyone has knowledge. But what are the kinds of postures that allow for that knowledge to emerge?”

The dialogue recognised the complexity of the topic and the multiple questions that emerge from it, some even at the most fundamental level. Stephen Murphy, a researcher at the University of Leeds, raised some of these questions which need to be collectively addressed. He pointed out how moving away from the idea of a transfer of knowledge to a flow of knowledge raises questions given that a “flow is multidirectional. Participating and generating knowledge is very different from receiving, even if it is good knowledge… So what does that flow look like? And who is the knowledge for and who is it generated by?”