What a fishing village taught me about transforming complex systems

by Ledama Masidza/

What a fishing village taught me about transforming complex systems

Ledama Masidza
Ledama Masidza

Latest posts

Share:

An interview with Ledama Masidza

When you meet Ledama Masidza, you quickly sense his deep bond with the ocean.

A Marine Conservationist, Indigenous Food Systems Advocate, and natural storyteller, he has dedicated his young and impressive career to working with fishing communities to restore balance between livelihoods and marine life.

Among his proudest achievements is helping secure user rights for a 12,000-hectare co-managed marine area on Kenya’s coast, an effort that has drawn global attention.

Ledama’s journey into conservation began in his childhood, watching how coastal communities depended on the ocean for survival while struggling to keep it alive. That early awareness grew into a passion he carried through university and into his first role in Kuruwitu, a small fishing village in Kilifi County. It was there, he says, that “the ocean became my first classroom in leadership.”

In this conversation with Stella Odhiambo, Ledama shares what he learned in Kuruwitu, why community ownership matters, and how applying a systems approach reveals that youth and local communities already hold the keys to lasting solutions.

Ledama filming for an upcoming documentary
Ledama filming for an upcoming documentary

What first drew you to working with the ocean and coastal communities?

The ocean was my first classroom in leadership. Right after graduating, I found myself in Kuruwitu, a small coastal village in Kilifi County, some 36 or so kilometres from Mombasa, Kenya.

I was working as an environmental program manager, supporting a 30-hectare Locally Managed Marine Area. I would spend long hours restoring coral, doing research, and filming this incredible sanctuary.

Inside, life flourished. Outside, I would find discarded nets, turtles trapped, and reefs stripped bare. It broke my heart. I knew we couldn’t only protect small pockets of ocean…we had to restore the wider seascape. And that could only happen with the community fully in the lead.

What was happening in Kuruwitu’s fisheries, and why was change so urgent?

By 1999, the Kuruwitu fishery had collapsed. 5,000 metric tonnes of fish gone. Regulations existed but were weakly enforced. Beach Management Units, which were supposed to lead governance, had no resources, no training, no leadership support. And unlike land, the ocean has no title deeds.

Fish swim across boundaries. How do you secure tenure over food that moves? That reality pushed me to see conservation differently: you can’t eat conservation. Real conservation is about both biodiversity and livelihoods.

Families were struggling. Fishers would go out to sea and return empty-handed. Young people had little reason to see fishing as a viable future. Without urgent action, both culture and ecology were at risk. That urgency forced us to ask: what would it take to build a community-led system that lasts?

Ledama graduating from the African Food Fellowship
Ledama graduating from the African Food Fellowship

Building a functional, community-led governance system sounds complex. At Wasafiri, we use Systemcraft as a way to make sense of such change. Did you see this approach at play in Kuruwitu?

Absolutely. Supported by Oceans Alive and the Kuruwitu Beach Management Unit, the steps we took align closely with the five dimensions of Systemcraft. My understanding of this approach deepened when I became a fellow of the African Food Fellowship and saw these same dimensions applied not just to oceans, but to food systems across Africa. I saw it lead to real environmental impact.

It began with organising for collaboration. The Beach Management Unit needed legitimacy. So I helped them hold elections. Yes, 21-year-old me! We had to update their constitution and secure legal standing. Without that collective structure, nothing else could have taken root.

Then we had to set the direction. Mapping the fishing grounds with researchers gave the community a clear picture of their territory. Seeing it on a map created a shared sense of responsibility: this is ours to protect.

From there, we turned to harnessing collective intelligence. Not so simple when wary NGO’s refused to share their data with us. We were looking at 1-year-old studies. So we carried out new surveys with fishers, co-creating a baseline of data. This wasn’t abstract research; it was knowledge the community could use to guide decisions.

To make it matter, we brought everyone into the process. I’ll never forget taking stakeholders snorkelling: inside the sanctuary, the reefs teemed with life; outside, they were barren. That single experience spoke louder than any report. I believe it fanned a shared urgency for action.

Finally, we had to change the incentives. Together, the community drafted bylaws on fishing gear, enforcement, and surveillance. It wasn’t easy – because in truth, a broken system works for some people or some of the time. There was definitely some resistance to change, and debates often grew heated. But over time, the rules began to shift behaviours, rewarding stewardship over short-term gain, and giving fishers a reason to protect rather than exploit.

And when the government granted official recognition, it brought us full circle to collaboration again. This time on a larger scale. The community now had both the authority and the partnerships to act as true stewards of their ocean.

Ledama at the Africa Youth Summit in 2024
Ledama at the Africa Youth Summit in 2024

Why is community ownership essential for lasting conservation solutions?

Because only the community can balance survival with stewardship. Outsiders may bring funding or science, but if families go hungry, no project will last. Ownership transforms conservation from an external agenda into a practice rooted in culture and livelihood.

What lessons from Kuruwitu can be applied to wider food systems?

The lesson is this: solutions already exist within communities. Youth and local leaders know their realities better than anyone else. With space, knowledge, and resources, they can transform entire systems, whether fisheries, forests, or food systems.

You’ve described this process as "Collective System Action." How does that link to your approach today?

Collective System Action means no single project or actor can drive transformation alone. Change requires shifting incentives, coordinating coalitions, setting clear direction, making it matter to people’s lives, and continuously learning. That’s what we lived through in Kuruwitu. It wasn’t a linear project; it was a systems journey.

Ledama at COP28
Ledama at COP28

Looking ahead, why do you believe global solutions can and should come from Africa?

Because we’ve already shown it’s possible. What started in Kuruwitu became a model shared at the World Conservation Congress and at COP. From there, it inspired adoption at different levels: by organisations such as African governments and the African Protected Areas Congress at a continental scale, and by global bodies through platforms like Nature Seychelles and the World Conservation Congress.

Today, I co-founded the Local and Indigenous Food Systems Transformation Network (LIFT), connecting communities across continents. Turns out the ideas born on an African coast, a small fishing village, can inspire the world.

In conclusion, systems thinking is not an abstract theory. It is a living, adaptable practice. What Ledama helped build in Kuruwitu shows that communities and youth hold the keys to solving global challenges, starting right here in Africa.

If you’re grappling with a complex social issue and want to understand our approach Systemcraft a little better, see what our easy to grasp, self-led course is all about here: Systemcraft Essentials course by Wasafiri

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share:

Seeing the system: how systems thinking is helping unlock progress in global eye health

by Scott Hinkle/

Seeing the system: how systems thinking is helping unlock progress in global eye health

Anna McKeon &
Scott Hinkle

Latest posts

Share:

Systems thinking helps us make sense of the messy, interconnected challenges that shape our world. A recent pilot course by Wasafiri and IAPB shows how this approach is transforming how professionals tackle avoidable blindness.

Eye health is the global public health crisis that no one’s talking about. 2.2 billion people, nearly a third of the world’s population, live with some form of sight loss.

The consequences ripple through every part of life: children unable to learn, adults unable to work, and older people unable to live independently. And for half of these people, 1.1 billion people, that sight loss is avoidable. Solutions exist; most are low-cost and proven. So why does avoidable blindness persist?

The answer lies not just in science or infrastructure, but in systems. IAPB (the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness) shared mission is to end avoidable sightloss, and their global strategy embraces the need for transformative systems change to achieve this.

However, there is a leadership gap in eye health, as in many sectors which have developed from clinical professions. Top-down leadership and siloed, competitive approaches are common, and working with a systems mindset is a relatively new idea.

Systemcraft is Wasafiri’s practical approach to tackling complex problems. In 2024, IAPB partnered with Wasafiri to pilot a Systemcraft course tailored for professionals working in eye health. The goal was to help people working in this field think differently, lead more collaboratively, and identify new leverage points to drive lasting change.

This marked the first time the course had been tailored to a specific health issue, bringing together 16 participants from around the world to learn and apply systems thinking to complex challenges in their work. The feedback was clear: systems change is essential in eye health, and this kind of learning community is one powerful way to build it.

What we did: Piloting Systemcraft for the eye health sector

Over eight weeks, participants from across regions and organisations came together to explore the dynamics shaping the eye health system; power, incentives, narratives, structures, and relationships. The course combined self-directed learning with peer coaching calls and asked participants to bring a real problem from their context and work through it using the tools and approaches introduced each week.

What participants valued: New thinking, practical tools, and connection

The course opened up new ways of thinking and acting. As one participant put it, “I found it an eye opener. I had this opportunity to talk about my complex example, I had good conversations with people around the world… Some people advised me with things that I really need to change in my work.”

Others reflected on how useful it was to have both a strategic framework and practical tools: “It’s very hands-on, I must say. That’s what I really appreciated. A very good composition of theory and practical use. Not expensive, easy to go for, and gives a lot of value.”

Participants noted how applicable the learning felt to the real-world complexity of eye health. One explained: “We were not talking about new problems, but we were exposed to different approaches to the current issues we are faced with in the day-to-day. A bit more critical thinking, even categorising the problem, trying to look for stakeholders and people who we can collaborate with. I think that’s a good approach.”

Another highlighted a powerful insight from the course: “The fact that the system is working, but it’s working for a few people. That’s where the problem is. That point really helps to see how best we make changes.”

Participants also valued the chance to learn together. Peer conversations and feedback were central to the experience. One reflected that the group space helped to embed the learning: “The group was where we put things into practice and got to talk about what we’re doing and hear feedback. It was great.”

What we learned: There’s an appetite for systems change… and room to grow

This pilot confirmed that system change matters in eye health and that there is an appetite across the sector to build capability to lead it. Participants saw this work as relevant not just to specific challenges they’re working on now, but to the long-term evolution of their organisations and systems.

“Even though we have not solved the problem, we have at least improved cataract coverage. The more collaborations we do, the more learning we can share with others. So overall, our impact is bound to be more.”

Several participants reflected on who in their organisations should take part in future cohorts, from team managers and Country Directors to anyone involved in shaping internal or external change: “Each change project internally is at least a bit of systems change – so having that kind of understanding and awareness is something to go for.”

At the same time, there were clear areas for improvement. Many wanted more time with peers and facilitators, and a stronger sense of closure. Some found it hard to make time between sessions for reflection and application.

Others suggested delivering the course more intensively over a shorter time period, or aligning future cohorts with major eye health events.

Several participants proposed setting up a community of practice for alumni – recognising that lasting change requires ongoing reflection, connection and support.

As one participant put it: “This course changed the way I’m thinking.”

If you would like to run a cohort course for your organisation, or if you’re facing a complex problem in the social development space and would like to learn more about our process, view the Systemcraft page or reach out to stella@wasafirihub.com.

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share:

We don’t need new tools, we need new mindsets – a conversation about MEL for systems change

by Carolin Schramm/

We don’t need new tools, we need new mindsets – a conversation about MEL for systems change

Carolin Schramm
Carolin Schramm

Latest posts

Share:

At Wasafiri, we work with our partners and clients to design and implement systemic approaches to drive transformational impact. Across our work in food systems, climate resilience, or peace and inclusion, the desire to shift systems in more equitable, sustainable directions is increasingly accompanied by a critical question: how do we know it’s working?

That’s where Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) for systems change comes in. We’ve been working to explore how MEL can evolve to meet the complexity of systems work. We’re experimenting, listening, learning and adapting – and shared our emerging thoughts in a draft discussion paper. (Read our evolving thinking on MEL for systems change).

To discuss some of our own learning and hear from others on a similar journey, we recently hosted a MEL practitioner webinar.

The conversation felt timely and confirmed increasing interest in the topic across different stakeholders. Yet, the field is still new for many, it comes with practical challenges, and the desire for more exchange and learning.

What we have learned

  • Pressure to show impact is growing, yet timelines are shrinking. Development programming is increasingly expected to deliver rapid results while accommodating new and often competing agendas. This creates a mismatch between ambitious goals and the limited time available for meaningful systems change. From a MEL perspective, being upfront with clients and partners from the outset is essential to align expectations, define realistic ambitions, and clarify what is and isn’t achievable.
  • Mixed readiness among funders for MEL in systems change. Donors vary widely in their openness to MEL approaches suited to systems change, with traditional funders often favouring less risk and innovation. In a context of constrained resources and global uncertainty, it remains unclear whether donors will double down on value for money or embrace more adaptive, learning-driven approaches. Philanthropic funders may be better positioned and more inclined to adopt systems thinking than their traditional counterparts.
  • Terminology can get in the way. Let’s face it, systems change language can be confusing. What do we really mean by “adaptive”, “emergent”, or “transformative” in practice? Using simple, practical language is essential if we want to bring more people into the conversation. This is especially true when working with more non-traditional development actors.
  • We don’t need new tools, we need new mindsets. The MEL tools exist. The challenge lies in how, when and why we apply them. The same logframe, theory of change, or survey can be used in radically different ways if the purpose shifts from proving to learning. It’s less about inventing new frameworks and more about helping teams ask better questions, hold uncertainty, and surface insights that lead to action.
  • Clients need support but not overload. From a consultant’s point of view, there’s a fine balance between building clients’ MEL capacity and burdening them with more frameworks. The goal isn’t to hand over a toolkit and walk away. It’s to support adaptive learning in a way that feels useful, realistic, and integrated into how programmes run.
  • The ‘why’ matters more than ever. In complex systems, we may not be able to prove exactly how change happened. But we can get better at understanding why certain things worked, and why others didn’t. Realist approaches, contribution analysis, and other context-sensitive methods are gaining traction because they embrace nuance and prioritise learning over attribution.
  • We need more shared spaces like this. There is value of shared learning. MEL for systems change looks different across sectors and geographies, but the underlying principles (and struggles) are surprisingly common. We can learn a lot from each other.

What’s next?

We don’t have all the answers. But we’re committed to staying in the conversation and to making our learning visible as we go.

We’ve pulled together a short discussion paper that summarises what we’re trying, what we’re noticing, and what we’re still wrestling with. It’s not a toolkit or a how-to guide. It’s a work in progression just like systems MEL itself. What can you do?

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share:

How do we know that Systems Change is working?

by Kate Simpson/

How do we know that Systems Change is working?

Carolin Schramm &
Kate Simpson

Latest posts

Share:

At Wasafiri, we spend a lot of time wrestling with big, messy questions. One of the big challenges with systems approaches to change is how do we learn about what is happening? How do we measure change in complex systems?

Traditional monitoring and evaluation (MEL) tools can feel like trying to catch smoke in your hands when you’re dealing with complexity and uncertainty.

We have done a lot of work with partners developing approaches to systems based MEL across systems in food, climate, peace, and livelihoods. We are very much in a learning phase.

To push our practice and share what might be useful to others, we’ve pulled together a work in progress discussion paper: “MEL for Systems Change”.

As a next step, we would love to hear from practitioners:

  • What resonates, what have we missed?
  • What are others learning in their practice?
  • What should we look at next?

We’d love to hear what you think. Whether this sparks new ideas or challenges your own approaches to MEL, drop Carolin a line at carolin@wasafirihub.com.

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share:

School feeding initiatives, a game-changer for East Africa

by Stella Odhiambo/

School feeding initiatives, a game-changer for East Africa

Stella Odhiambo

Latest posts

Share:

School feeding programs are more than just meals on a plate. When designed well, they create jobs, strengthen local food systems, and support children’s health and education. Yet, despite their potential, investment remains alarmingly low across Africa.

The reality is stark: while governments, NGOs, and development partners have made strides, the scale of the challenge far outweighs current efforts. With school feeding at the intersection of nutrition, local economies, and food security, it is clear that no single organisation can solve this alone.

Wasafiri works with a broad network of partners to convene, coordinate, and unlock solutions that drive systemic change. But time is running out. If we want to make school meals a truly sustainable solution, the world needs to act – and invest – now.

A missed opportunity for food systems actors?

Across East Africa, school meals are often the only reliable source of daily nutrition for millions of children. In Kenya, for example, nearly 4 million children benefit from school feeding programs. Yet these initiatives remain largely dependent on donor funding and food imports, failing to harness the full potential of local economies.

Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF) presents an opportunity to shift this paradigm. By sourcing food from local smallholder farmers and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), school feeding programs can:

  • Boost rural economies by creating predictable demand for local produce.
  • Improve food security by strengthening regional food systems.
  • Enhance nutrition by prioritizing diverse, locally available foods.
  • Increase resilience by reducing dependence on external food aid.

Despite these benefits, only a fraction of Africa’s school feeding programs are meaningfully linked to local food systems. A scoping review conducted by Wasafiri found that while 76% of school feeding initiatives claim to support small-scale farmers, only 43% have preferential contracting for them, and a mere 7% have legal frameworks to ensure their inclusion. In other words, the potential of HGSF remains largely untapped.

The question is not whether HGSF works; it does. The question is, why is Africa still struggling to make it the norm rather than the exception?

Unlocking the potential of local farmers and MSMEs

While school feeding should be a win-win for both children and local food producers, smallholder farmers and MSMEs face significant barriers to entry. Wasafiri is involved in CCHeFS, a project funded by IDRC aimed at integrating MSMEs and smallholder farmers into school feeding initiatives. Our research reveals some of their challenges:

  • Market access: Many smallholder farmers lack the scale and consistency required to meet the demands of school feeding programs.
  • Financing constraints: MSMEs and farmer cooperatives struggle to access the credit needed to expand production or invest in better infrastructure.
  • Procurement barriers: Government procurement processes often favour large suppliers, sidelining small-scale producers.
  • Logistical hurdles: Weak supply chain networks mean that even when smallholder farmers can produce sufficient food, getting it to schools efficiently is a challenge.

Wasafiri, alongside its partners, is working to identify practical ways to integrate MSMEs and smallholder farmers into school feeding supply chains. We are exploring financing models, capacity-building programs, and policy shifts that could make HGSF scalable. However, the reality is that these efforts, while necessary, are just a drop in the ocean. What is needed is serious, long-term investment.

Where will the investment come from?

The need for financing in HGSF cannot be overstated. While national governments have made commitments, budget constraints mean that school feeding programs often remain underfunded and inconsistent.

Private-sector engagement is almost non-existent in many cases. Yet, major global players such as impact investors, philanthropic foundations, and large agribusinesses have the resources to fill this gap. Organisations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have invested heavily in food systems transformation. But school feeding has yet to receive the level of attention (and funding) it deserves.

We believe this must change. The case for investment is clear:

  • Return on investment: Studies show that for every $1 invested in school feeding, there is a $9 return in improved health, education, and productivity.
  • Impact on local economies: Research from the CCHeFS project demonstrates that integrating MSMEs into school feeding programs can create thousands of jobs and increase farmers’ incomes by 30-50%.
  • Climate resilience: Sourcing food locally can reduce the carbon footprint of school meals while promoting climate-smart agriculture.

The question is: who will step up?

A call to action: We must act now

Wasafiri has spent years working to understand the complexities of school feeding in Africa. We have conducted research, convened stakeholders, and supported policy discussions. But we cannot do this alone.

If we are serious about transforming school meals into a tool for systemic change, we must move beyond pilots and fragmented projects. We need:

  • Large-scale investments to support smallholder farmers and MSMEs in becoming viable suppliers.
  • Policy shifts that prioritise local procurement and reduce barriers for small businesses.
  • Multi-stakeholder collaboration, bringing together governments, donors, and the private sector.

If you are a funder, policymaker, or organisation that cares about the future of school feeding, now is the time to engage. The solutions exist. The question is whether we have the will to implement them at scale.

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share:

African Food Fellowship opens applications for cohort 5, introduces new impact area

by Jacqueline Kubania/

African Food Fellowship opens applications for cohort 5, introduces new impact area

Jacqueline Kubania

Latest posts

Share:

The African Food Fellowship is delighted to announce that applications are now open for its fifth cohort. The Fellowship is recruiting 80 new Fellows in Rwanda and Kenya, 40 for each country. These are food systems leaders who are passionate about working together to create healthy, inclusive, and sustainable food systems.

Interested candidates can submit their applications before the deadline closes on April 25, 2025.

The Fellowship has also updated its impact areas for this round of applications to better reflect a shift in continental priorities. In Rwanda, we are now targeting applicants working in the impact areas of Healthy and Nutritious Foods, Climate Smart Agriculture, or Inclusive Markets and Trade, while in Kenya, we shall be accepting applications from people working in Horticulture for Inclusive Markets, Blue Economy for Food or Agri-finance.

The impact areas are informed by the new Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) Strategy and Action Plan 2026-2035 endorsed in January 2025 by 55 African Union member states. The agreement introduced ambitious new targets, including Increasing agricultural productivity by 50%, reducing undernourishment to less than 5%, reducing negative environmental impacts of agriculture by 40%, and increasing the value of processed food exports by 30%. It also aims to integrate over 10 million small-scale farmers into agricultural value chains. These changes show a more holistic approach in how food is produced, processed, and distributed.

Applications now open

“The new Kampala Declaration signed in January this year has inspired us to revise our impact areas to better align with the targets outlined in the agreement. We now have a sharper focus on trade in both countries, as well as a more deliberate inclusion of climate smart agriculture in Rwanda, and an expansion of aquaculture to encompass the blue economy in Kenya. Targeting leaders working in these areas means that we’re able to better support Africa’s food systems transformation agenda,” said African Food Fellowship Director Joost Guijt.

Currently active in Rwanda and Kenya but with ambitions to expand to all Economic Zones in Africa by 2030, the African Food Fellowship is a dynamic network of leaders working together on bold change to make food systems healthy, sustainable, and inclusive. It is dedicated to building the leadership capacity of food systems actors in Africa so they can better respond to challenges and craft sustainable solutions.

“A lot of investments have been made to end hunger, tackle malnutrition, raise productivity, and generally improve food systems in Africa. However, few have focused on building the capacity of the people tasked with delivering these ambitious targets. Africa needs good leaders to deliver healthy, inclusive, and sustainable food systems the African Food Fellowship is investing in these leaders,” said African Food Fellowship Rwanda Lead Anysie Ishimwe.

The Fellowship has built a thriving ecosystem for food systems actors in Africa to connect with their peers and gain essential leadership skills and knowledge to transform food systems. Fellows are co-creators and co-owners of this ecosystem.

Successful applicants will join an impact network of over 230 Fellows in both countries. They will start their journey with the prestigious Food Systems Leadership Programme (FSLP), a world-class 10-month programme  delivered virtually by faculty from Wageningen University & Research and Wasafiri Consulting. During the programme, Fellows acquire shared language, knowledge and tools to unpack food systems, analyze their complexity, and identify opportunities for systemic interventions.

The Fellowship also supports Fellows as they design, implement, and adapt their food systems actions. Fellows identify common goals and work on new pathways that are healthy, inclusive, and sustainable. They exchange ideas, mentor each other, and work together to achieve shared goals.

Current Fellows include government officials, community leaders, entrepreneurs, farmers, scientists, development workers, financiers, educators and journalists. They contribute different perspectives, practical skills and networks to the Fellowship. Collectively, they can shift the power, policies, investments, and incentives that shape food systems. 

“We especially encourage women, farmers, and people living in marginalised areas to apply because they are often left out of leadership opportunities. The Fellowship is a diverse and inclusive space whose members enrich it with different perspectives, experiences and networks. It reflects the wide spectrum of skills, specialisations, and identities in which food systems in Africa operate,” said African Food Fellowship Kenya Lead Brenda Mareri.

The Fellowship charges a fee of USD 1,000 for the Food Systems Leadership Programme, payable in two instalments. A limited number of scholarships are available for those who can demonstrate they need it. We encourage and support participants to seek organisational scholarships.

Originally posted on the African Food Fellowship website.

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share:

Monitoring, learning and evaluation for a complex world

by Kate Simpson/

Monitoring, learning and evaluation for a complex world

Kate Simpson

Latest posts

Share:

Complex problems need dynamic MEL approaches

Systemic approaches to complex change offer the opportunity to tackle our most persistent challenges at scale – like creating climate-resilient food systems, ending child marriage or generating the millions of jobs that Africa’s growing youth population needs.

However, how do we monitor and evaluate the impact of our change efforts? Without ways to do so, we cannot learn what is working (and what is not). And without a true understanding of impact, it is difficult to galvanise the resources of time, effort enthusiasm and money that change at scale will require.

Traditional monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) practices in development have predominantly been built to serve funders keen to ‘prove’ the efficacy of their work and hold partners accountable. They have rarely been designed to serve those who live within the complex world to be changed.

Often, they have been designed for a mythical static and linear world where impact can be attributed to isolated specific activities. Such approaches pay scant regard to the activity (intentional or otherwise) of other actors, and don’t adapt well to the characteristics of complex problems such as emergence, uncertainty and interdependency.

Systems MEL uses traditional tools; but uses them in different ways with different objectives

Learning about the ways systems are changing is not determined by the data collection tools we use, but by the things we pay attention to, the questions we ask how and when, and who we want the learning to serve.

There are several core principles that underpin systems MEL approaches:

  • Serve the problem – MEL approaches designed primarily in service of funders and accountability can be extractive in nature, focused on holding partners accountable and producing learning in forms that are either private or difficult to access. In contrast, MEL-orientated systems change should be useful to a wide audience of people, both those who live with, and those who work on, the issue. It should help people better understand what is going on, how change is happening and where and why efforts are getting stuck.
  • Integrate MEL in strategy and implementation – traditional MEL approaches are often structured around specific reporting milestones, evaluations tend to happen upon completion of program activities or milestones, and M&E managers may operate in isolation from strategy and implementation. One key objective of systems MEL is to produce data and learnings that support real-time decision-making. To achieve this, we need a close and ongoing relationship between strategy, learning and implementation roles and responsibilities.
  • Pay attention to activity and context beyond a single intervention – traditional MEL is often focused on trying to isolate and measure the (expected) impact of a single project or intervention. But when an intervention environment is complex, it means straightforward cause-and-effect relationships are uncommon. Systems change is never the result of a single intervention by a single actor. Therefore, systems-based MEL looks at the context beyond the parameters, trying to capture what is emerging with a focus on both expected and unexpected changes as well as looking at specific interventions and the wider systems context.
  • Reduce asymmetries of information and knowledge – systems that are working poorly for some and well for others typically have strong asymmetries of information. With the most marginalised often having the least access to knowledge about the issues that affect them the most. A MEL approach that compares the efficacy of early flood warning systems across a number of communities may share that information with the providers or funders of those systems but not necessarily the affected communities. Whom, if they had access to that insight, may be able to make their own adjustments to how they use and engage with the early warning systems available to them. Systems MEL holds an open mind to who is a producer and who is a consumer of learning, and therefore intentionally puts learning back into the systems in ways that are accessible to all affected actors and redress rather than exacerbate asymmetries.

Here at Wasafiri we work with a range of clients and partners on systems-based monitoring, evaluation and learning such as the World Economic Forum’s Platform of Global Public Goods (PGPG). We created theories of change and metrics to track progress across various initiatives, from improving ocean health to preventing violent extremism in East Africa.

We also worked with Jobtech Alliance who employed a systems change framework focusing on collaborative behaviours, practical interventions supporting digital platforms, and ecosystem-level influence to create quality jobs in Africa.

We are developing an open-access approach to MEL for systems change based on our own practice. Currently, we are seeking an initial round of feedback from partners and friends. If you would be curious to learn more and offer some friendly advice, please reach out to stella@wasafirihub.com. Once we have further iteration, we will be sharing publicly and running a number of live discussion sessions. So follow us on LinkedIn to sign up when we go live.

Here are some links to other good folks doing good work in this space:

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share:

Building peace in East Africa: A conversation with Wasafiri’s peace and inclusion lead

by Stella Odhiambo/

Building peace in East Africa: A conversation with Wasafiri’s peace and inclusion lead

Stella Odhiambo

Latest posts

Share:

From Northern Kenya to Ethiopia, Aisha Adan’s work reflects her belief in local leadership, collaboration, and research that drives action. Her passion for stable, peaceful communities shines through in every project she touches—and serves as a powerful reminder that the solutions to big challenges often start at the grassroots.

When it comes to peace, stability, and inclusion, Aisha believes in practical solutions that put people at the centre. With years of experience tackling governance issues, extremism and conflict in Kenya’s most vulnerable regions, Aisha has seen firsthand what works – and what doesn’t.

From engaging communities to driving research that matters, her approach is clear: meaningful change starts with those closest to the challenges.

I sat down with Aisha to learn more about her work, her reflections on the region, and what excites her about creating solutions that stick.

Can you share a moment when you saw meaningful change happen in a project you were part of? What made it work?

One moment that stands out is our Community-Led Research and Action (CLRA) experimentation initiative with a marginalised community on the Kenyan coast.

This was an intervention designed to let communities take the lead in solving their own problems. They conducted their own research, identified solutions that could work, and took action.

The impact was incredible. We saw individuals develop critical thinking, a stronger sense of belonging, and a real understanding of their own communities.

What made it work? Well the people themselves did. Their lived experiences gave the project its heart and focus, making sure that the solutions were practical and sustainable.

Aisha

In your experience, what’s one small but powerful way communities can promote peace?

It starts with open and inclusive dialogue—creating spaces where everyone, no matter their background, can be heard and respected. Trust grows from these conversations, and from trust comes collective problem-solving and small steps towards changing mindsets.

What do you think is the biggest barrier stopping women and young people in East Africa from influencing decisions about their future?

Structural inequality. Socio-cultural norms hold many women and young people back. They often don’t have the resources, opportunities, or platforms to shape their futures. Without agency and economic independence, they’re stuck on the sidelines.

You’re currently working on a sustainable peace project in Ethiopia. Who will this project benefit, and what excites you most about it?

This project benefits Ethiopian communities most vulnerable to conflict by helping policymakers and local leaders become better at preventing and responding to external threats. It’s all about strengthening Ethiopia’s systems for conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

What excites me most is that Wasafiri is coming in to do the stuff we do well. In this case, our role is to produce timely, action-driven research. We’re leading efforts to create insights that inform the project’s strategy in real time, so our work can respond directly to what’s happening on the ground.

Finally, for someone who’s passionate about making a difference in this space, what advice would you give?

If you’re working on changing the system so that it works better, and for more people, I would say inviting diverse voices and perspectives as part of the decision-making process.

Conflict is inevitable, but violence isn’t. Real, transformational change happens when we work together inclusively.

Why people doing systems change work matter

People like Aisha, who are doing the slow work to shift mindsets and complex systems, amplify lesser-heard voices, and support communities to be more resilient in the face of changing socio-economic challenges, are the backbone of good, lasting change.

Their work reminds us that real transformation doesn’t happen overnight; it happens through sticking it out, building quality networks, and committing to meaningful collaborations and partnerships.

Whether you’re working on creating more inclusive spaces for marginalised youth who are vulnerable to radicalisation, or making Africa’s food systems more resilient to the effects of climate change, your contributions create ripples that lead to a more peaceful, equitable and sustainable world.

Photo by Bobby Randu

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share:

The power and practice of impact networks: Lessons from food systems transformation

by Claudia Piacenza/

The power and practice of impact networks: Lessons from food systems transformation

Claudia Piacenza and

stella odhiambo

Latest posts

Share:

Networks that bring together cross-sector leaders to work on shared problems super charge impact in complex environments.

In Africa, the challenges of hunger and malnutrition remain stark: one in five people – over 282 million – are undernourished (State of Food and Agriculture (FAO 2019)), and 30% of children under five suffer from stunted growth. Despite some progress, these figures highlight how far we are from achieving key nutrition and health targets.

Compounding the issue, Sub-Saharan Africa loses over 30% of its total crop production every year – equivalent to more than USD 4 billion in value. These losses not only strain food security but also undermine efforts to lift millions out of poverty.

Amid these challenges, could the power of networks offer solutions?

Why networks (and not just collaboration) matter

One of the biggest challenges when working on complex problems is adapting to an ever-changing context.

One of the pre-conditions for operating in an adaptive way is dynamic learning. When we approach issues from just one angle, one niche expertise, or one specific or static point of view, we risk falling into the well-known trap of the blind scientist who, touching an elephant’s ear believes that she is touching a fan.

It is only by bringing together diverse perspectives that we can truly see the “big picture” (or in other words, the whole elephant).

Spoiler alert: the “big picture” is not just big – it’s rich and multifaceted.

For example, let’s look at the average age of farmers in Africa. Many organisations are working to engage youth in agriculture, recognising the importance of securing the next generation of farmers.

These efforts rightly focus on making agriculture more attractive for young farmers by lowering barriers to access it, increasing the role of tech and digital tools, and reframing the narrative around entrepreneurial opportunities.

At the recent Kenya Transform Food Festival hosted by the African Food Fellowship, we worked around this very issue – engaging youth in agriculture.

By bringing in different perspectives, the conversation quickly moved beyond traditional business models and the cost of agricultural inputs to collective narratives and educational approaches. Suddenly, we looked at a very familiar problem in an unfamiliar way.

We dived into cultural insight: in many rural areas, schools and families use farm work as punishment for undisciplined children. This shift in focus – from economic barriers to cultural narratives and educational practices – was a revelation to many. Suddenly the problem took on a new dimension, leading us to explore how to reshape perceptions about agriculture and food production, starting with very young children in schools.

While this idea may seem obvious to a sociologist or anthropologist, it was an eye-opener for participants from the private and public sectors.

So why was this breakthrough possible?

It came down to one critical approach that defines how networks work: we placed our shared objective at the centre of our discussion, rather than starting with a particular solution or organisational point of view.

As one of our Fellows once said: “Leave your logos and egos at the door and focus on the common purpose.”

The role of trust in building networks

Of course, for networks to work, we need trust at their core. I’ve heard from many leaders that building trust is the foundation for real collaboration.

Trust allows us to share not just knowledge but resources, shifting from a learning phase to actionable plans. It’s about helping everyone see each other as partners rather than competitors.

In practice, trust takes time and care – it grows as we consistently show up, follow through on commitments, and invite open dialogue. This way, networks become not only strong but safe spaces for everyone involved. We create an environment where funders, local organisations, and practitioners feel comfortable sharing ideas, knowing they’ll be met with respect and openness.

Trust is the foundational pre-condition to move from a competitive approach to a place of collaboration.

When we curate a network that wants to stimulate action (and ultimately deliver impact) we tend to focus on the support provided in the form of grants, technical assistance, facilitation and so on. If we don’t intentionally invest in building trust, our efforts are at high risk of not delivering the expected results.

Systems leadership: The key to lasting impact

Ultimately, networks are a means to an end. The end here is to improve the way people eat, their health and the health of our planet, and their inclusion in economies and societies.

Leading change that transforms our current food systems takes a special kind of leadership. Leadership that drives system transformation requires mastery of complex thinking, adaptive management, and collective action.

A recent study by the African Food Fellowship shows that while technical skills are essential, they are not enough. On top of being agronomists, food safety scientists or nutritionists, food system leaders must embody the qualities of a businessperson, an advocate, a communicator, and an organiser.

Do such leaders exist? And what is the right balance between the skills that we need to develop as individuals versus those we cultivate as part of a collective entity?

How do we know if a network is having an impact?

It’s one thing to build a network, but how do we know it’s truly making a difference? There are two indicators that matter most: network health and impact.

A healthy network is one with active participation, where each member feels valued and connected.

A healthy network provides an opportunity to engage in a variety of ways, based on individual gifts, traits, and life stages.

Impact, on the other hand, is harder to attribute directly to the work of networks. For this reason, we focus more often on contribution and influence.

An invitation to join the journey

Do you want to bring organisations and individuals together around a complex problem? Are you interested in exploring the intersection between network curation and system thinking? Get in touch! Reach out to Claudia on claudia@wasafirihub.com.

The African Food Fellowship recruits new Fellows every year. We will soon be inviting food systems leaders in Rwanda and Kenya to join the Fellowship, which offers a much-needed community of change-makers, learning opportunities about food systems leadership, and chances to collaborate with others working on similar problems.

Visit the African Food Felowship’s website for more information and keep an eye out for calls for application.

Photo by Francesco Rosati

Read more Wasafiri blogs
Download Systemcraft

Share: