Towards Context-aware Institutional Interventions in African Food Systems

[Kevine]

The global development community is fixated on "solving" Africa's food systems challenges. Well-funded institutions (from global organizations to philanthropic foundations) deploy substantial resources, technical expertise, and sophisticated models. Yet, a glaring paradox remains: despite these polished efforts, food insecurity and malnutrition persist, and in some cases, worsen. The root cause is a fundamental disconnect between these top-down, one-size-fits-all interventions and the complex, on-the-ground realities of African food systems.

The paradox lies in the disconnect: while institutions bring advanced models and donor legitimacy, their interventions are often misaligned with African contexts, where food systems are hybrid, informal, and deeply shaped by history, culture, and local adaptive practices. These systems are dominated by smallholder farmers (constituting up to 70% of the workforce) and a dynamic informal economy of traders, processors, and vendors - the majority of whom are women. Instead of empowering these communities, top-down projects risk reinforcing inequities, marginalizing smallholders, and creating unsustainable dependencies.

We argue that the persistent failure of institutional interventions is not incidental but structural, rooted in a fundamental misdiagnosis of the problem and a privileging of technical solutions over political equity. By examining the dimensions of this disconnect and highlighting pathways for transformation, we aim to provide stakeholders with a clear framework for implementing interventions that are truly context-embedded, equitable, and effective.

Diagnosis of Systemic Failure​

The Tyranny of Top-Down Approaches and Governance Gaps​

The core failure begins with a philosophical clash in development approaches. Institutions frequently deploy a top-down, one-size-fits-all model rooted in the "Green Revolution" paradigm, prioritizing industrial agriculture, high-yield seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and large-scale mechanization. This approach, designed in distant boardrooms, is fundamentally misaligned with African realities:

• Dependency on External Inputs: The model creates a cycle of debt by making smallholder farmers dependent on expensive, imported inputs they cannot afford without subsidies. When subsidies are withdrawn, the model collapses, leaving farmers more vulnerable than before.
• Environmental Degradation: Industrial monocropping depletes soil fertility, contaminates water sources, and reduces biodiversity, undermining the resilience of traditional, diverse farming systems.
• Infrastructure Ignorance: The model assumes robust infrastructure for transport, storage, and market access (largely absent in rural Africa) leading to massive post-harvest losses and exclusion of smallholders from formal value chains.

Governance models exacerbate this problem. Interventions favor centralized, multi-stakeholder governance that ignores polycentric local structures (traditional authorities, trader associations, and cooperatives) that actually regulate food distribution. The result is poor implementation, low ownership, and limited sustainability. Furthermore, the financialization of food systems (through foreign investment and large retailers) prioritizes commercial returns over local food security, excluding small-scale producers and informal traders.

The Mirage of "Macro Wins" and Flawed Metrics​

Institutional interventions are often chasing the wrong victories, prioritizing globally credible metrics over locally meaningful outcomes. They highlight "macro wins" like the adoption of climate-smart crops, precision agriculture, or blockchain for traceability; solutions that are technologically impressive but practically inaccessible to the majority of smallholders who lack finance, infrastructure, or digital literacy.

This is driven by a fundamental misalignment of accountability. Institutions are accountable to donors, not communities. Their success is measured by Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) like "hectares covered" or "yields improved" rather than community-defined metrics such as reduced food prices, diversified diets, or the resilience of local markets. This creates a perverse incentive structure where producing impressive reports for external audiences takes precedence over fostering genuine, sustainable local ownership.

The Formalization Trap and Exclusion of Key Actors​

A critical blind spot is the systematic undervaluing and attempted formalization of informal food systems. African food systems are largely informal, comprising open-air markets, indigenous processing, and traditional distribution networks dominated by women and local cooperatives. Polished interventions, in their drive to "professionalize," often impose global certifications, compliance-heavy value chains, and standardized procedures that actively exclude these very actors.

This is not a technical failure but an equity failure. By treating women and youth as "beneficiaries" rather than central drivers of change, interventions replicate and exacerbate existing structural inequities. Issues of land rights for women, youth access to capital, and the cultural authority of indigenous knowledge remain unaddressed, ensuring that interventions benefit the already powerful and leave the most vulnerable behind.

The Gulf Between Institutional Design and Local Reality

Aspect of Intervention	Institutional Approach (Top-Down)	Local Reality & Need (Bottom-Up)	Resulting Consequence
Philosophy	Green Revolution: High-input, industrial, export-oriented	Agroecology: Low-input, diverse, focused on household food security & sovereignty	Debt cycle, environmental harm, loss of dietary diversity
Success Metrics	Donor-facing KPIs: Yields, hectares, CO₂ reduced	Community-facing outcomes: Affordability, nutrition, resilience, agency	Projects succeed on paper but fail on the ground
Governance	Designed in global headquarters; external accountability	Governed by local knowledge, traditional authority, informal networks	No local ownership; project collapse after funding ends
Target Actors	Large-scale farmers, formal agribusiness	Smallholders, women traders, youth, informal cooperatives	Exclusion of the majority; widening inequality
View of Informality	A problem to be formalized and professionalized	A strength to be leveraged and supported	Erosion of livelihoods and resilient distribution networks

3 Case Evidence: The AGRA Example and Beyond
The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) exemplifies these structural disconnects. This well-funded initiative, backed by prominent global institutions, has focused on increasing productivity of staple crops through high-yield seeds and fertilizers. However, evidence reveals:

• Despite billions invested, the number of undernourished people in AGRA's focus countries has increased, not decreased.
• Its narrow focus on maize has displaced more nutritious, climate-resilient traditional crops like millet and sorghum, leading to a decline in dietary diversity.
• The model has increased smallholder dependency on expensive inputs without building long-term resilience or addressing structural market barriers.

AGRA's failures are not unique. The Urban Food Systems Coalition (UFS Coalition), while theoretically sound in aiming for policy coherence, struggles with implementation due to limited engagement of informal vendors and producers, and jurisdictional mismatches between municipal and national policies. Similarly, the FAO's "Sustainable Food Systems Development" programme reported gender inclusion gaps demonstrating how even technically innovative programs fail to address broader inequities.

These cases illustrate a consistent pattern: interventions that are designed for global credibility rather than local authenticity inevitably stumble on the ground of complex African realities.

Pathways to Transformation: From Extraction to Empowerment​

Bridging the chasm between institutions and local realities requires a radical rethinking of power, design, and accountability. We propose five non-negotiable pathways for transformation:

Embrace Co-Creation, Not Imposition​

Dismantle the boardroom planning model. Build interventions with communities, not for them. This means involving local research institutes, farmer associations, women's cooperatives, and indigenous leaders from the problem-definition stage through to design, implementation, and evaluation. This is not mere consultation but the sharing of decision-making power.

Redefine Success with Community Metrics​

Shift the accountability framework. Move beyond yield and GDP to define success through metrics that matter to people: affordability of nutritious food, diversity of diets, ecological regeneration, and the increased agency of women and youth. Donors must accept these metrics as valid indicators of transformative change.

Leverage, Don't Erase, Informality​

Instead of trying to formalize informal systems, support them. Provide light-touch infrastructure (improved storage, market information systems, access to finance) that strengthens the efficiency and resilience of existing open-air markets, informal processors, and smallholder networks. Recognize these actors as the backbone of the African food system.

Embed Long-Term Partnerships for Endogenous Growth​

Anchor interventions within African institutions (local universities, SMEs, and cooperatives) from day one. The goal must be to build endogenous capacity for African-led transformation, ensuring continuity long after the donor project closes. This avoids the destructive cycle of duplication, short-termism, and dependency.

Apply an Equity-First Lens​

Design with the most marginalized at the center. This goes beyond including women and youth; it means actively dismantling the structural barriers that hold them back: championing land tenure reform, creating financial products they can actually access, and ensuring they hold leadership positions in governing bodies.

Strategic Shifts for Effective Intervention

Current Approach	Needed Shift	Practical Steps
Technical solutionism	Socio-technical approaches	Integrate political economy analysis, power mapping, and institutional analysis
Standardized models	Contextual adaptation	Develop location-specific theories of change, invest in contextual intelligence
Expert-driven planning	Co-creative processes	Establish multi-stakeholder innovation platforms, participatory budgeting
Project-based funding	Adaptive financing	Create innovation funds, outcomes-based financing, long-term flexible funding
External accountability	Mutual accountability	Develop shared measurement frameworks, community-led evaluation
North-South knowledge transfer	Horizontal learning	Facilitate south-south exchange, peer learning networks, practitioner residencies

A Call for Radical Accountability​

The disconnect in interventions fronted by polished institutions is not a minor implementation gap; it is a structural crisis of power and priority. It arises because interventions are designed to be globally credible rather than locally authentic. They prioritize technological silver bullets over nuanced socio-political solutions and value external accountability over community agency.

For stakeholders (including institutions, donors, and policymakers) the message is clear: the current model is broken. Continuing down this path is a wasteful and unethical disservice to the communities these interventions purport to serve. The loophole to avoid is the privileging of technical solutions over political equity.

The way forward requires humility, patience, and a commitment to redistributing power. It demands that global institutions become learners, not just experts. The true leverage point for transforming African food systems inclusively and sustainably lies not in another polished report or sophisticated technology, but in trusting and investing in the people who have been feeding the continent for generations.

The goal is not to build our project, but to support their system.

Recommendations for Immediate Action​

1. For Donors: Mandate co-creation and community participation as non-negotiable requirements for funding approval. Accept holistic success metrics beyond yields and income.
2. For Institutions: Decentralize decision-making to regional offices staffed by local experts. Establish accountability mechanisms to communities alongside donor reporting.
3. For Governments: Protect policy space from external agendas that prioritize exports over local food sovereignty. Strengthen support for informal food systems and smallholders.
4. For All Stakeholders: Invest in long-term horizontal learning platforms that facilitate south-south exchange and prioritize indigenous knowledge alongside scientific innovation.

African food systems are neither blank slates nor backward relics awaiting external rescue. They are complex, adaptive, and resilient ecosystems, already innovating in response to climate change, urbanization, and inequality. Only by respecting this reality can we genuinely transform them into foundations for inclusive, sustainable, and sovereign food futures.