In the first article in this series, From Kampala to impact: building functional agri-food systems in Africa, we showed that the transformation of African agri-food systems is not due to a lack of ideas or solutions. Concrete levers already exist on the continent, proven by experience, capable of producing real results provided that states become truly functional and that each stakeholder fully assumes their role.
But identifying levers is not enough.
From 2026 onwards, the Kampala Declaration will not judge intentions. It will hold each actor accountable through simple, direct and unavoidable questions.
—
Kampala faces the test of responsibility
Beyond speeches, solemn declarations and slogans, the Kampala Declaration will ask each actor in agri-food systems simple, concrete and uncomfortable questions. These questions are not ideological. They are measurable, political and operational.
—
1. What the state will now have to assume
Does public agricultural funding actually reach producers?
- How many farmers have actually received inputs, support or agricultural services?
- Can this be demonstrated simply and publicly, with clear and verifiable evidence?
If the state cannot answer this question clearly, then agricultural policy is failing, regardless of its stated intentions.
Have we made clear choices or are we still trying to do everything at once?
- Which sectors have we really prioritised?
- Do budgets, infrastructure and public policies really follow these priorities?
Without clearly defined priorities, there is no transformation, only dispersion.
Are we quickly correcting what is not working?
- Which agricultural programmes have failed this year?
- What concrete changes have we made as a result?
An effective state is not one that never makes mistakes, but one that recognizes its mistakes and corrects them quickly.
—
2. What farmers’ organizations can no longer avoid
Are we able to clearly state what the state has promised and what it has actually done?
- Are we monitoring budgetary and political commitments in the agricultural sector?
- Are we highlighting the gaps between official promises and achievements on the ground?
The advocacy work of farmers’ organizations will only have an impact if it is based on irrefutable facts.
Are we partners in finding solutions or merely whistleblowers?
- Do we make concrete and realistic proposals?
- Do we help to improve what already exists, rather than simply rejecting it?
Without credible proposals, protest loses its political force.
Do we speak on behalf of producers with verifiable facts or just rhetoric?
- Do we have data from the field (income, access to inputs, land, credit)?
- Do we use structured tools to support our positions?
The political credibility of farmers’ organizations now depends on their ability to produce and use reliable data, not just to protest.
—
3. Responsibilities that the private sector can no longer avoid
Does our activity create real value for local producers?
- Do farmers really earn a better living thanks to our activities?
- Are economic relationships balanced and equitable?
An extractive private sector undermines the transformation it claims to support.
Are we investing for the long term or just looking for quick profits?
- Do our investments strengthen local value chains in a sustainable way?
- Do they create stable, long-term jobs?
Agri-food processing requires patience, trust and a long-term vision.
Are our practices socially and environmentally responsible?
- Do we respect the land, communities, women and young people?
- Are we reducing losses and negative impacts on the environment?
Without social and environmental responsibility, there can be no social legitimacy or economic sustainability.
—
4. The decisive role of civil society
Are we really following public action or just the rhetoric?
- What do budgets, beneficiary lists and observed results actually say?
- Are our analyses based on verifiable data?
Citizen vigilance begins where official rhetoric ends.
Are we helping citizens to understand and take action?
- Do farmers and consumers understand their rights and the issues at stake in agriculture?
- Are our messages accessible, clear and educational?
An effective civil society informs before it denounces.
Are we credible and truly independent?
- Are our analyses honest, even when they are uncomfortable?
- Do we avoid opportunistic or complacent posturing?
Without moral credibility, civil society loses all influence.
—
Conclusion: Kampala as a moment of truth
The questions raised here directly extend the ten levers presented in the first article in this series. They constitute the decisive test. Kampala will only mark a turning point if each actor agrees to be evaluated not on their intentions, but on their actions, choices, corrections and consistency.
The transformation of Africa’s agri-food sector is no longer a matter of new strategic frameworks.
It is now a matter of responsibility, political courage and accountability.
Kampala is not a slogan. It is a test of truth.
