THERE is no shortage of information about the potential within African natural resources and food systems.
What lacks, especially among decision-makers, is curiosity.
Yet curiosity is the beginning of knowledge and problem solving.
Trappings of formality prevent African policy-makers from being curious about why informality continues to thrive although more resources are directed at building formal institutions.
If formal institutions like grain marketing boards and agricultural marketing authorities were effective social enterprises, the informal economy wouldn’t be growing fast.
Turning 2026 into the year of more curiosity about indigenous food
Given the amount of food diversity in countries like Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo, why are neighbouring countries importing food that is abundant across the border?
What information do farmers need to stay connected to local and global markets?
- Free media environment key developmental reportage says PemSec Mangwana
- Pogba tipped to join Spanish giants
- Corruption watch: No-one is taking the Motlanthe report seriously
- CAPS United rob Wha Wha
Keep Reading
These are the kinds of questions that African leaders should be curious enough to answer in 2026.
While indigenous food is abundant in most African communities in physical form, what is missing is knowledge, which is the undocumented software around that food.
That is why each African community should build a local food basket to embed knowledge within African food systems.
What makes conventional industrial agriculture a formidable force is not just physical inputs like seed, chemicals and fertiliser, but also a powerful supply chain knowledge system with cold chains which are easily
rolled out across countries and regions.
With enough curiosity, the same should be done with indigenous food through African territorial markets.
Curiosity as a new way of seeing food systems
Africans need curiosity about their food systems more than general information.
It is through curiosity that policymakers can end up building market systems that answer recurring questions around who really sets the price in a self-organised territorial market.
Besides energising value chain actors to do what they are good at, curiosity can expand every value chain actor’s potential and explore new possibilities like combining seemingly unrelated fruits to produce a totally new beverage.
Rather than resort to persuasive advertising that is designed to mislead, leaders can use curiosity to clarify their mission by articulating what problems they are trying to solve by promoting one commodity like wheat when the majority of consumers are re-embracing indigenous tubers for breakfast.
Through curiosity, farmers and other value chain actors can see the big picture and imagine how things will be if the national food systems agenda succeeds.
Why should farmers lower prices to accommodate middlemen?
This is the kind of question that can only be asked by a curious mind.
Lack of curiosity sustains the status quo in which ministers lie to the nation that the economy is growing when local shops are filled with imported food.
Curious people always ask questions and search for answers.
For instance, they want to know under what circumstances selling commodities in kilogrammes makes more sense than setting prices using naked eyes.
Their minds are always active and become stronger through continual inquiry exercises resulting from curiosity.
Without curiosity, farmers cannot identify or observe new ideas or new lessons.
When farmers are curious about something in their farming practice, their minds expect and anticipate new ideas related to the subject.
Curiosity enables farmers and policymakers to see new worlds and possibilities that are normally not visible.
Such possibilities are hidden behind the surface of normal life and in territorial markets.
It takes a curious mind to look beneath the surface of these markets and discover new worlds and possibilities.
It is through curiosity that farmers can observe consumer buying patterns in the market.
While some traders think being positioned at the entrance of the market attracts more customers, most customers do not buy at the entrance, but prefer getting inside the market.
Another interesting curiosity dimension relates to commissions in territorial markets where traders often charge 10% commission for helping farmers to sell their commodities.
That commission also covers marketing costs like off-loading and fees for trading space.
In cases where farmers do not understand commission, the trader charges US$1 for marketing a 60kg bag of cucumber or butternuts.
In some situations, this can benefit the farmer more than the trader.
For instance, if a farmer brings 10 bags of butternuts which are sold for US$20 each, the trader earns US$10 as commission while the farmer takes home US$190.
However, if the same product is in short supply pushing the price to US$40/bag, the trader will still receive US$10 commission while the farmer pockets US$390.
Under these circumstances, a good relationship between the farmer and trader can see the farmer adjusting the commission upwards, according to the total income and give the trader at least US$30 as commission.
Relationships also minimise marketing costs for the farmer.
For instance, those who off-load commodities from the truck can charge a farmer US$60 to off-load a 15-tonne truck, but the trader/middlemen can pay US$15 for such services because he has built long-term relationships with the off-loaders.
This is where it becomes beneficial for farmers to work with middlemen who have already invested in building relationships within the ecosystem.
A middlemen can also pay the transporter after the commodity has been sold, but new farmers can be made to pay for transport services once the commodity has reached the market even if it has not yet been sold.
Unless farmers and policy-makers are curious, they will not know some of these important nuances.
