How Wasafiri helped align partners to move Grow Africa from vision to implementation and collective momentum
Are you an intermediary organisation holding relationships that don’t neatly align?
Translating between languages that don’t quite match? Are you expected to deliver certainty in situations defined by uncertainty and be accountable to multiple worlds at once, such as funders, communities, institutions, and partners, all with different incentives, timelines and definitions of success?
If this sounds like you, then this recent paper published by Climate KIC and supported by Wasafiri is for you. The paper is the output of a Global Community of Practice of intermediary organisations, all working in the space of climate adaptation and resilience, but speaks to the tensions intermediary organisations everywhere navigate.
https://wasafirihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ChatGPT-Image-Apr-24-2026-11_58_56-AM.png10241536Kate Simpsonhttp://u05.88f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wasafiri-LOGO-1.pngKate Simpson2026-04-24 14:38:302026-04-24 14:42:26New publication: our recent work with Climate KIC on intermediaries, funding and systems change
How Wasafiri helped align partners to move Grow Africa from vision to implementation and collective momentum
Many multi-stakeholder initiatives stall not because ambition is lacking, but because alignment never fully happens.
The vision is strong. The partners are credible. Political will exists. And yet progress moves far more slowly than expected.
More often than not, the challenge is alignment.
When the World Economic Forum and partners shaped Grow Africa, the ambition was clear: to strengthen collaboration and mobilise investment in African agriculture. Governments, businesses and development actors were engaged. Energy was present.
But ambition alone is not enough to move a system.
In complex environments, actors operate with different incentives, accountabilities and time horizons. Without deliberate alignment, even committed partners can pull in parallel rather than in concert. This is a familiar pattern in complex initiatives. Partners agree on the destination, but struggle to agree on priorities, sequencing, and how their efforts fit together in practice.
Our role was to help partners move from shared aspiration to clearer direction and coordinated action. This meant creating space for honest conversations about roles, priorities and decision-making. It meant looking at the system as a whole — where influence sat, where friction lay, and which shifts could unlock progress.
Rather than adding another layer of strategy, the emphasis was on strengthening the collective ability to decide and act together, and to adapt as conditions changed. This is where our Systemcraft approach became important.
Rather than focusing only on plans or individual actors, Systemcraft helped us look at the incentives, relationships, power dynamics and decision-making structures that shape how change actually happens. By helping partners surface these dynamics together, the process created shared clarity on priorities, roles, and points of leverage.
In practice, this helped partners see how their individual efforts connected to a wider agenda, where coordination was needed, and what practical pathways could move the platform forward. The focus was not simply on designing a strategy, but on strengthening the system’s capacity to align, decide and act collectively.
Over time, the platform reported clearer priorities and stronger coordination across participating actors. Conversations shifted from broad aspiration to practical next steps. Participants were better able to see how their contributions connected to a shared agenda, reducing duplication and strengthening confidence in the platform’s direction.
Grow Africa helped catalyse more than US $10 billion in private-sector investment commitments in African agriculture, with over US $1.8 billion implemented1. Public reporting also indicates these investments reached more than 8.6 million smallholder farmers and created around 58,000 jobs.2
While no single intervention can claim sole credit in a system of this scale, the experience reinforced a core insight: coordinated action is what enables ambition to translate into credible outcomes. For leaders responsible for turning ambition into movement, this capability can be the difference between activity and traction.
Facilitating Action Planning for Systems Change is one of the ways we support partners working on complex challenges. If you would like to explore how this could strengthen your own initiative, please reach out to Ian Randall.
Across Africa, technology is shaping how people learn, heal, trade, and entertain themselves.
From mobile money to AI-powered health platforms, digital innovation is opening doors that once seemed firmly shut. But if there is one thing that came through clearly in a recent gathering partner convening, it is this: technology alone will not deliver transformation. It is the ecosystem around it that will. The partnerships, financing, and the culture of experimentation is what will determine whether Africa’s digital future is inclusive, sustainable, and rooted in impact.
At Wasafiri, we see this every day in our work alongside partners across Africa and beyond. Our network of systems-change consultants helps organisations step back, see the bigger picture, and build the collaborations needed to turn innovation into lasting impact. The insights we’ve recently gathered strongly echo the themes that are shaping Africa’s digital future.
Cecilia speaking at the Porticus Rooted for Impact partner convening in Nairobi. 2025
Tech for Good is more than gadgets and apps
The phrase Tech for Good is gaining momentum across the continent, and rightly so. It captures the idea that innovation is not just about shiny apps or impressive code, but about solving real problems in ways that expand dignity and opportunity for the millions who need it.
Take HEAL, a survivor-centric digital mental health platform designed in Kenya to support those who have experienced sexual and gender-based violence. It combines the reach of technology with the sensitivity of culturally attuned counselling, offering confidential support through an AI-powered therapist. This is Tech for Good at its best. It meets people where they are, with tools that respond to urgent social needs.
And the potential goes far beyond health. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, AI alone could add up to US $1.5 trillion to Africa’s economy by 2030 if the continent captures just 10% of the global AI market.1
Applications range from boosting climate resilience to expanding access to finance and education. Done right, digital innovation can become one of the greatest equalisers of our time.
Why experimentation matters
A shift in mindset from seeing innovation as a high-risk gamble to embracing it as a process of trial, learning, and adaptation will take experimentation. A scary notion for many.
Africa needs to create spaces where startups, researchers, and development partners can “fail fast” and “learn faster”. Iterative prototyping, open innovation, and bold experimentation are essential tools for navigating uncertainty and making limited resources go further.
When innovators have the freedom to test, pivot, and refine, they find creative solutions that rigid, risk-averse systems overlook. This agility is what allows new ideas to grow from fragile pilots into scalable, life-changing services.
The role of policymakers, investors, and funders here is clear: to create safe conditions for experimentation. That means financing early-stage pilots, supporting incubators, running case competitions, and backing mentorship across sectors. By backing the process as much as the product, they enable innovators to take the risks that lead to breakthroughs.
Cecilia speaking at a Porticus partner convening workshop in Nairobi
Partnerships as the engine of scale
But no single innovator or organisation can build the future alone. Strong partnerships are the glue that holds Africa’s innovation ecosystem together.
We have already seen how collaboration between governments, private investors, civil society, and academia can spark progress. For example, when mobile money took root in East Africa, it scaled because regulators allowed space for experimentation, because telcos invested in infrastructure, and because communities quickly integrated it into daily life.
The same is true today. Whether it’s scaling an ed-tech platform across borders or embedding renewable energy solutions in rural communities, the challenge is less about inventing the technology and more about weaving the right web of relationships around it. Trust, shared vision, and joint investment are what turn bright ideas into systemic transformation.
This is also where Wasafiri has found our role: helping partners see the bigger picture, convene unlikely coalitions, and design the collaborative platforms that enable innovation to take root and scale.
Mobilising capital for African-led innovation
If partnerships are the engine, capital is the fuel. And here, Africa still faces a stubborn gap. Too often, funding for innovation is short-term, donor-driven, or externally designed, leaving local innovators struggling to grow beyond the initial or start-up stages.
This is beginning to change. More African investors are entering the field, and global players are recognising the importance of long-term, locally anchored finance. But the shift needs to accelerate.
Sustainable financing means aligning investment strategies with systemic outcomes. It means measuring success in equity, resilience, and social impact, and not just profits.
At the recent convening, we see that there is also an urgent need to make capital more inclusive. By 2030, Africa is projected to create 230 million new digital jobs, and over 650 million people will need to reskill or upskill2. Ensuring that women, youth, and marginalised groups can access the resources to participate in this future is not optional; it is foundational.
Seeing the bigger picture
At the heart of these conversations lies a hopeful vision. To get there, three shifts are essential:
Embracing a culture of experimentation – normalising “fail fast, learn faster” approaches so that innovation becomes a process of discovery, not a single bet.
Strengthening collaborative ecosystems – building partnerships across sectors and borders to scale what works.
Mobilising sustainable capital – unlocking financing that is long-term, inclusive, and impact-driven.
It is easy to get swept up in headlines about AI breakthroughs or the latest startup on the block. But the deeper story is not about the technology itself. It is about people and the systems they create together.
We believe that Tech for Good in Africa is ultimately a collective endeavour. It is about ensuring that the digital future is not something that happens to Africans, but something shaped by Africans, for Africans.
https://wasafirihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/generated-image-1.png7681344Cecilia Mwangihttp://u05.88f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wasafiri-LOGO-1.pngCecilia Mwangi2025-12-03 10:52:052025-12-05 12:34:09Unlocking Africa’s Digital Future Through Partnership and Experimentation
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
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
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
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
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
https://wasafirihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/MandaDay2-40.jpg534800Ledama Masidzahttp://u05.88f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wasafiri-LOGO-1.pngLedama Masidza2025-09-04 23:41:552025-09-09 13:21:48What a fishing village taught me about transforming complex systems
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.
https://wasafirihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/An-illustrated-image-of-diverse-health-professionals-collaborating-in-a-virtual-meeting-or-workshop-.png10241024Scott Hinklehttp://u05.88f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wasafiri-LOGO-1.pngScott Hinkle2025-07-25 07:50:582025-07-25 08:09:13Seeing the system: how systems thinking is helping unlock progress in global eye health
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.
https://wasafirihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Camels.jpg10342113Kate Simpsonhttp://u05.88f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wasafiri-LOGO-1.pngKate Simpson2025-05-14 11:14:562025-07-01 07:48:36How do we know that Systems Change is working?
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:
https://wasafirihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/DALL·E-2025-01-29-14.30.17-A-futuristic-digital-network-visualization-in-landscape-format-with-interconnected-nodes-and-data-points-representing-complexity-and-interconnected-s.jpg10241792Kate Simpsonhttp://u05.88f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wasafiri-LOGO-1.pngKate Simpson2025-01-29 16:38:412025-04-23 12:41:59Monitoring, learning and evaluation for a complex world
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.
https://wasafirihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/pexels-francesco-rosati-130660296-10718795.jpg12801920Claudia Piacenzahttp://u05.88f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wasafiri-LOGO-1.pngClaudia Piacenza2024-12-04 10:37:042025-06-15 16:09:39The power and practice of impact networks: Lessons from food systems transformation
Return of the hero: Systems leadership needs individuals willing to step up
The idea of leadership as an activity for a heroic few has been well critiqued. But as we confront a climate crisis and growing social polarisation is it time for a rethink?
For the last decade or so leadership thinking has encouraged us to see ‘leadership as a team sport’. Collaboration, distributed action, innovation, participation are the sources of power that leadership draws on and unleashes in the many, not the few. And this is undoubtedly a good thing.
However, as we confront a climate and biodiversity crisis; as we wrestle with growing inequality and polarisation; and as we search for new forms of economy, new forms of national and global governance, and if we are to create private firms capable of more than just maximising share holder profit – maybe we are going to need a few more heroes to show up?
We will never deal with the complex and ambiguous challenges we face if we just wait for some sort of heroic leader to show up. That is, someone who seems to have more courage, more certainty, more insight, more knowledge, more passion, more hair, just more… than we have. They are not coming. Mostly because they don’t exist. But also because no one person, however brilliant, and well intentioned can tackle complex problems alone. Collective action is the only form of action.
However, the sort of challenges we face are going to require significant disruption of the status quo. They are going to require businesses to internalise things that they have long externalised – like their impact on their environment, or on the health and wellbeing of staff. Government departments need to change how they relate to citizens; academic institutions need to take responsibility for both who they educate and who (and why) they exclude. International NGOs will need to let go of some of the resources they control and let others control them if decolonisation and localisation are to be realised. What ever sector you sit in there are deep changes to make in who has power, who is served, who is excluded. And as with all systems level change, there will be resistance.
Significant shifts in power have never come through consensus. They have been pushed for and demanded and alternatives built to prove what’s possible. And people have taken risks to do these things. Personal risks – with their own careers, assets, popularity, credibility and even their bodies. And this is the sort of heroic leadership we are going to need. The sort where individuals are willing to risk things that matter to them; and to be seen to do so.
But it is not an either or. We are going to need both heroic leadership acts and mass unleashed, collaborative, participatory, experimental, unstoppable, relentless leadership. So there are a few caveats in my call for a little more heroism:
All heroes need (a lot) of friends
For change to happen a lot of people need to take a lot of actions. When Rosa Parks decided to claim her right to sit on the bus she put her body on the line. She risked her freedom, her physical safety. The year long Alabama bus protest which followed saw hundreds of people wear their shoes out as they walked to and from work.
The ensuing dismantlement of the racist Jim Crow Laws was an outcome both of the action of heroes (of which Rosa Parks was one) and of a legion of people who did the long slow personal work of following. Systems change needs both – the individual heroes who stand out and the masses who stand up. Most of us won’t have what it takes, or the opportunity, to be heroes but we can respond to them when they shown up.
The unsung heroes matter
One of the big problems with ‘hero leadership’ is that it tends to just focus on the internal story of the person and not the wider context they were in. Sometimes the same action done by a different person or in a different moment has much less impact. A few months before Rosa Parks there was Collette Colvin – who also claimed her right to sit where she chose on a bus. Her action was the same, her impact was not.
Perhaps because of who she was (younger, less well connected) perhaps the moment wasn’t quite right. Likewise, Greta Thunberg was not the first person to mount a school strike for the climate. Systems change is a dynamic thing. There are windows of opportunity that are hard to predict till after someone has charged through them. So if we need heroes then we need a lot of them, and only a few will get their stories told.
Heroic acts not heroic people
The problem with people who do heroic things is that they always turn out to be flawed. If we are going to ask more of ourselves and each other in terms of visibility and boldness then we also have to accept individuals’ abilities to be both wonderfully right and good and also wrong and flawed. This is not some sort of offset scheme where the good and bad are tallied and an average found. Rather it is an acceptance that both will exist in all of us.
Ultimately, we can not leave the climate crisis, social justice and the building of a more peaceful and equitable world in the hands of the few. It is going to need collective action. But nor can we expect to make a difference without being seen, without being willing to spend some of the things many of us have carefully built – our careers, our popularity, our security, our networks, our perceived competence, our invisibility.
https://wasafirihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/oleg-laptev-QRKJwE6yfJo-unsplash.jpg12801920Kate Simpsonhttp://u05.88f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wasafiri-LOGO-1.pngKate Simpson2024-11-11 07:47:362025-06-15 16:11:12Return of the hero: Systems leadership needs individuals willing to step up
