Pascal Corbé’s Post

Multi-stakeholder platforms are everywhere. Influence isn’t. In food systems, platforms are set up to bring actors together, align interests, and improve coordination. Yet many of them never shape a single real decision. The experience from Kenya in this SNRD Africa article puts the spotlight somewhere slightly uncomfortable. Impact depends on how a platform is built and run day to day. You can have the right mix of stakeholders, regular meetings, and open exchange—and still see very little movement on policy, investment, or implementation. The difference shows up in the underlying structure: - Clear governance that defines purpose, roles, and links to formal decision-making - Coordination that connects discussions with concrete follow-up across institutions - Learning processes that allow the platform to adapt as conditions change One line from the article stayed with me: “Coordination does not mean control — it creates conditions for voluntary alignment.” That idea carries quite a bit of weight. Many platforms create space for exchange, but struggle to carry decisions through complexity, competing interests, and shifting priorities. 💡 If you’re working with or funding these platforms: How clearly is their influence defined? Where do discussions actually land after the meetings? What changes because this platform exists? Here's the article: https://lnkd.in/dAtMWjc7 Disclaimer: SNRD Africa is my client. #DevelopmentCooperation #FoodSystems #MultiStakeholder #Governance #PolicyMaking #AgSys #WE4R #africa

  • No alternative text description for this image

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories