Multi-stakeholder platform meeting (Ardhi Caucus) held on 16 February 2026 ⎮ Photo: © Ardhi Caucus

Multi-stakeholder platforms are widely promoted to improve collaboration and policy coherence in food systems — yet many struggle to influence consequential decision-making. Experience from Kenya shows that their impact depends less on dialogue itself and more on how governance, coordination and learning are deliberately structured and implemented.

Why many multi-stakeholder platforms struggle to move from discussion to decisions

Despite their growing number, multi-stakeholder platforms in food systems often fail to influence consequential decisions. They are widely promoted as mechanisms to improve inclusion, coherence and collaboration, yet many remain spaces for discussion rather than action.

At the same time, food systems face mounting pressure from climate shocks, population growth and competing demands on land and resources. Governments, local authorities, farmer organisations, civil society, private sector actors, researchers and development partners frequently operate in parallel. The result is duplication, missed opportunities and slower progress.

Multi-stakeholder platforms offer a potential solution. These structured forums bring actors with very diverse interests together to align priorities, navigate trade-offs and make collective decisions. They are designed to address complex challenges that no single institution can tackle alone. Yet outcomes vary immensely. The issue is rarely subject relevance; it is that governance, coordination and learning functions are often under-designed or under-used. When these foundations are weak, platforms struggle to influence policy-making, investment and implementation.

Experience across food systems, particularly through the Sustainable Agricultural Systems and Policies (AgSys) and the Women Empowerment for Resilient Rural Areas (WE4R) projects, reveals a recurring pattern: many platforms exist by name but lack the structural clarity and institutional anchoring required to shape outcomes. This raises a central question — what enables some platforms to influence decisions while others remain limited to dialogue?

Establishing governance that gives platforms purpose and legitimacy

Governance is often understood simply as ensuring the “right” actors are present. Representation matters, but governance goes further. It shapes decision-making, priority-setting, accountability and connections to formal policy processes.

In many platforms, mandates remain ambiguous, roles overlap, authority is informal and links to decision-making institutions are weak. In high-stakes food systems, such ambiguity can quickly erode trust and limit impact.

Effective governance does not need to be complex, but it must be deliberate. Participants need clarity about why the platform exists, what it seeks to influence and how its outputs connect to formal processes. This clarity depends on explicit mandates, transparent procedures and consistent communication.

Visibility also matters. Documentation, knowledge hubs and strategic use of digital platforms help communicate purpose, reinforce legitimacy and signal relevance to stakeholders. When governance is clearly defined and publicly communicated, platforms are better positioned to balance inclusion with effectiveness.

Strengthening coordination to translate dialogue into aligned action

Coordination determines whether multi-stakeholder platforms generate impact or stagnate. Many create space for dialogue but struggle to translate shared understanding into aligned action. Policies, investments and programmes are often designed and implemented by different actors with limited interaction. Without deliberate coordination, fragmentation persists.

Strong coordination reduces duplication, reveals complementarities and clarifies trade-offs across sectors and scales. It does not imply control over institutions; rather, it fosters voluntary alignment around shared objectives while respecting autonomy.

Informal arrangements are rarely sufficient. Platforms require clear governance structures — including constitutions, defined mandates and decision-making procedures — to enhance legitimacy, clarify roles and strengthen influence. When coordination functions effectively, platforms become reference points for collective planning, problem-solving and policy coherence, rather than simply additional meeting spaces.

Building structured learning to keep platforms responsive and relevant

Food systems are dynamic. Climatic shocks, market volatility, political transitions and shifting social demands continuously reshape priorities. To remain relevant, multi-stakeholder platforms must be capable of learning and adapting.

Learning requires deliberate space for reflection, honest discussion about what works and mechanisms that feed lessons back into decisions. Without structured learning processes, platforms risk repeating familiar conversations while conditions evolve.

Platforms that invest in learning can adjust focus, membership or processes as circumstances change. Adaptability is essential in food systems, where long-term resilience depends on decisions made under uncertainty.

Moving forward: investing in how platforms function — not just that they exist

Evidence across food systems shows that governance, coordination and learning form the foundation of impactful multi-stakeholder platforms. Supporting these platforms therefore requires attention to structure and functioning before financial or technical assistance.

Funding decisions should assess not only whether a platform exists, but also its mandate, institutional anchoring, decision-making procedures, accountability mechanisms and coordination capacity.

This calls for deliberate choices about which platforms to support and how. Support may involve prioritising platforms with functional governance arrangements or strategically strengthening identified gaps. In doing so, support shifts from financing dialogue to enabling platforms to influence decisions and deliver tangible results.

Without this shift, platforms risk remaining well-intentioned spaces for discussion rather than engines of systemic change in food systems.

Highlight Insights

• “Coordination does not mean control — it creates conditions for voluntary alignment around shared objectives.”

• “Without structured learning, platforms risk repeating familiar conversations while conditions evolve.”

• “Funding should prioritize strengthening functionality, not just financing dialogue.”

Shadrack Omondi from Landesa and Faith Alubbe from Kenya Land Alliance and a multi-stakeholder platform meeting (Ardhi Caucus) held on 16 February 2026 ⎮ Photos: © Ardhi Caucus

Additional Information

The findings presented here are drawn from a report developed under the Sustainable Agricultural Systems and Policies (AgSys) and Women Empowerment for Resilient Rural Areas (WE4R) programmes in Kenya. Authored by Nicole Knorr and Stephanie Mate, the report will be available from 11 March 2026.

For access or further information, please contact: Nicole.knorr@giz.de or Stephanie.Mate@giz.de