Food systems need joined-up thinking, not just more investment

There is no shortage of ideas on how Africa can improve its food systems.

We know the challenges: food insecurity, post-production losses, climate pressures, low productivity and weak market access. We also have many of the technologies, approaches and investments that can help address them.

Yet progress towards sustainable, resilient and inclusive food systems remains slow. A lack of finance is often identified as the main problem – and finance does matter. But more money alone does not guarantee better results. An investment can fail to deliver the expected impact if sufficient planning, understanding and thinking hasn’t been done beforehand. If we misunderstand the problem, choose the wrong solution or fail to consider what else needs to be in place for that solution to work, money alone won’t overcome these shortcomings.

As world leaders are gathering in Kigali for the Africa Food Systems Forum, the big question should not simply be how much are we investing?

Instead, my experience suggests, that two other changes are particularly important. First, we need to recognise that assumptions, rather than evidence, often sit behind many decisions. Second, we need to stop treating connected problems as if they exist in isolation.

The danger of assuming we already know the answer

There is an understandable attraction to simple solutions. A new piece of technology or infrastructure is tangible. It can be funded, delivered and measured. But food systems are rarely simple, and a solution that works in one place will not necessarily work somewhere else.

Take food loss. Post-production food loss is a genuine problem, but it is not one single problem with one single solution. Food can be lost at different stages in a supply chain and for very different reasons. Climate, markets, infrastructure, farming practices and consumer demand can all affect what happens after a crop leaves the field.

As renewable energy technologies become more accessible and affordable, they offer important opportunities to improve agricultural production, processing and storage, particularly for communities that lack reliable access to energy. But a promising technology is not automatically the answer in every context.

Cold storage is a good example. Practical Action’s experience in Malawi provides a useful illustration. The Renewable Energy for Agriculture project, which ran between 2021 and 2023, brought together agricultural production, renewable energy and access to markets. Women farmers were supported with solar-powered pumps, greenhouses and agricultural advice. Their tomatoes were then intended to be stored in a solar-powered chill plant before being sold into higher-value markets, including supermarkets and tourist lodges around Lake Malawi.

It was an attractive model. The different elements appeared to reinforce one another: better production, renewable energy, post-harvest storage and access to higher-value markets. And after two years, the results looked encouraging. The women were generating additional income, with reported improvements in food security, farming practices and women’s empowerment.

But the story did not end when the project ended. Some challenges had already started to emerge during the project. Covid disrupted the premium markets the model had been designed around, with travel restrictions affecting tourist markets and the subsequent withdrawal of a major supermarket buyer creating another challenge. At the same time, informal traders began buying more of the produce. Unlike the formal buyers, who collected produce weekly, local traders were coming almost every day. This meant tomatoes did not need to spend long periods in the chill plant, which was being used at only around 30% of its capacity.

At the time, these were seen as challenges that could be addressed within the project model, rather than threats to the model itself. But after the project ended, they deepened.

The tomatoes entering the chill plant were also warm, something that was difficult to avoid in the increasingly high temperatures in Malawi’. This caused condensation, which contributed to mildew and mould and affected the quality of the tomatoes.

So, the social enterprise tried something very simple: it switched the refrigeration off. The tomatoes did not deteriorate. Because they were being collected frequently, and because they could be harvested before they were fully ripe, they did not actually need to be chilled. The chill plant has since been repurposed as an unchilled storage facility.

The lesson is not that cold storage is automatically a bad investment but that an assumption that cold storage is always the solution, often ignores, other, more appropriate and cost-effective solutions.   Investment needs to follow a specific understanding of the problem and the conditions needed for a solution to work in the context you are dealing with.

Practical Action’s work in India reinforces this. Research in tomato, mango and strawberry value chains found that, despite high postharvest loss, cold storage does not provide an immediate answer. Improvements in farming and harvesting practices and better coordination between farmers and buyers, need to come first. These improvements are relatively low cost and would help increase the quantity and quality of produce, expanding the value of agricultural markets, creating a better enabling environment, in the long run, for higher value investments, such as cold storage. In other words, the use of cold storage (and similar developments) should not be driven by the availability of the technology itself.  Instead, the provision of technology should be based on need, and on what the market can viably support.

Food systems do not operate in silos

The second challenge is that even when we identify an appropriate solution, it may not work if we look at it in isolation. For farmers, agriculture, energy, water, finance and markets are not separate issues. They are part of the same livelihood.

Finance can enable access to energy. Energy can support water management and production. Increased production leads to higher incomes if farmers can access viable markets. Higher incomes can then allow farmers to repay finance and invest again. Remove one part of that chain and the whole model can become weaker.

The same connections can create opportunities. The Kilimohai for Schools project in Kenya provides one example. The model brings together farmer groups, regenerative agriculture, certification, school feeding programmes and local markets. The market opportunity provides an incentive for farmers to adopt more sustainable practices, while improved nutrition is one of the intended outcomes. A further component is being developed that would connect waste management with the production and distribution of organic fertiliser, which could then return to farmers and support regenerative agriculture.

There are still gaps. Irrigation is one of the challenges already identified, because without reliable water farmers may struggle to provide a consistent supply of food to schools. Solar irrigation could potentially form part of a future phase, but it is not without risks. Although it can increase agricultural production, it can also create new pressures on groundwater. Unlike diesel-powered pumps, where pumping more water comes with a direct fuel cost, solar pumps can make it inexpensive to pump for much longer periods. Without appropriate management, that can reduce the incentive to use water efficiently and contribute to groundwater depletion. Evidence from India has shown how the shift to solar pumping can contribute to groundwater shortages.

The answer is not to reject solar irrigation. As with the refrigeration example, the answer is to understand the wider system in which it will operate, recognising the linkages between irrigation and other issues such as water resource depletion. Once those issues are understood, appropriate risk management mechanisms can be put in place, such as water management committees and water efficient technology such as drip irrigation.

More finance is not enough on its own

This matters particularly as investment in productive-use energy grows. At the Africa Food Systems Forum this year, Practical Action and the Rockefeller Foundation are exploring investment in productive use of energy for underserved groups. One of the key messages from that discussion is that increased finance or better business models will not, on their own, be enough.

What is needed is a workable approach: different forms of finance working together, from early-stage grants and blended finance through to more commercial capital, alongside an integrated approach to energy, agricultural production, markets and other sectors.

A solar pump is not, on its own, a food-system solution. Neither is a cold store. Neither is finance. Their value depends on what they enable, how they connect with other parts of the system, and whether the conditions are right for them to succeed. The 2026 Forum’s focus on investment, food security and nutrition, climate resilience, innovation, and trade and markets reflect precisely these kinds of connections.

So, what should change? If we want investment to deliver more, we need to change some of the ways we make decisions.

For donors and investors, this means supporting approaches that bring sectors and institutions together rather than funding them in isolation. It means coordinating with other funders, supporting cross-sector learning and generating stronger evidence about what integrated approaches can achieve.

For policymakers, it means generating evidence that reflects local circumstances rather than simply importing what worked elsewhere. It means encouraging different ministries and teams to plan together from the beginning and creating incentives for them to collaborate.

For agricultural and energy organisations, it means starting with a proper understanding of the context rather than arriving with a ready-made solution. It means building partnerships that reflect the connections within food systems and measuring success across the wider system including productivity, incomes, nutrition and resilience rather than focusing only on individual sector targets.

To be able to do all this, we must get better at learning after projects finish and we must include this in our budgeting. This does not necessarily require more money or new technology. It requires us to make better decisions with the knowledge and solutions we already have, and to be willing to change course when the evidence tells us we should.

The goal should not simply be to invest more, but to invest better, based on evidence, shaped by local realities and designed to recognise how different parts of the food system work together.