What happens when you bring 1,000 ocean startups and the wider impact ecosystem into the same room?

I had the opportunity to represent Wave at At One Impact Week in Singapore, supporting the 1000 Ocean Startups coalition in its efforts to bring blue innovation stakeholders together, foster collaboration and create new opportunities for ocean innovators to connect with the wider impact ecosystem.

I was involved in several parts of the programme:

🌊 Meet 1000 Ocean Startups — I had the opportunity to present Wave and share how we are working to connect innovators, ecosystem enablers, businesses, investors, knowledge and markets to accelerate ocean regeneration.

🤝 Community-led dealflow workshop — exploring how startup support organisations can collaborate more effectively by sharing and endorsing promising startups within a trusted network. A simple but powerful idea: the community helping each other strengthen the support funnel and shine a light on the startups they believe have real potential.

💬 Ocean narrative session — I moderated a conversation with outstanding investors on how the ocean ecosystem can better respond to the challenges startups face as they scale. We then took the discussion into a practical workshop.

And I left Singapore with a few reflections.

1. The ocean community is strong — and ready to go further.

It is inspiring to see how committed, knowledgeable and collaborative this community is. But it also needs more support: more capital, more market access, stronger connections with other ecosystems and, importantly, more people and institutions willing to help build the infrastructure around innovation.

2. The ocean community is becoming truly global.

1000 Ocean Startups is already a global coalition, and the launch of its local sub-network in APAC , after the launch of the African segment in last June, is an exciting next step. I expect other regional networks to follow. Local connection + global collaboration can be a powerful combination.

3. And yes — the gender representation deserves a big shout-out! 👏

It was genuinely encouraging to see such strong representation of women across the coalition and throughout the event.

4. We need to keep opening the ecosystem.

One of the most valuable aspects of the gathering was the mix of ocean and non-ocean stakeholders. Extending the conversation beyond the traditional ocean community creates new connections, perspectives and opportunities.

Family offices and foundations were particularly visible, bringing not only capital but also expertise, networks and operational support.

Corporates, however, were largely missing from the conversation.

And this left me with a question:

What is preventing corporates from engaging more deeply with ocean innovation — particularly when climate turbulence is creating new risks, but also new opportunities to strengthen resilience and performance?

We can guess the answers. But without their voices, we don’t really know.

5. Singapore offers some interesting lessons.

The collaboration between the ecosystem, family offices, foundations and other enablers is particularly striking. Some actors are contributing not only funding, but also expertise, networks and hands-on operational support.

There are approaches being developed here that are worth studying — and potentially adapting and replicating in other regions.

6. The narrative matters. A lot.

A recurring theme throughout the week was the need to evolve the narrative around ocean innovation.

For startups to scale, we need to move beyond a conservation-only framing and build evidence-based narratives grounded in use cases, business value and real-world impact.

And there isn’t one narrative.

The story needs to adapt to the audience — investor, market or policymaker — as well as to the sector, whether aquaculture, energy or biotechnology, and even to the technology maturity, from relatively accessible solutions to deep tech.

That adaptation is ultimately the responsibility of each startup and organisation.

But building the foundations for stronger, evidence-based narratives is an ecosystem responsibility.

I also noticed some important gaps.

🌍 MENA was largely absent. Beyond African representation from organisations such as Ocean Hub Africa and Sote Hub — and with the notable presence of Tunisia’s startup Chitelix — the Middle East and North Africa were not really represented.

This is something I would love to see change.

I left Singapore with potential collaborations, a long list of people and organisations to follow up with, and, inevitably, an even longer list of things to do.

But most importantly, I left with confidence that innovation is part of the solution.

Confidence that community-led approaches can help unlock it.

And a sense of actionable hope — the kind that gives us the stamina to keep going for the long haul.

Thank you to the 1000 Ocean Startups community and everyone who made At One Impact such a valuable space for connection, learning and collaboration.

Open the ecosystem. Connect the pieces. Activate new markets.

That’s the work ahead. 🌊

The Gulf of Gabès, once home to lush oases and vibrant seagrass ecosystems, has become the symbol of Tunisia’s uneasy balance between economic necessity and environmental collapse. The phosphate industry, long valued as a national economic pillar, now stands at the heart of one of the country’s deepest ecological and social crises.

An Industry That Built — and Burdened — an Economy

Phosphate has been a cornerstone of Tunisia’s economy for decades. At its peak in 2010, the sector contributed nearly 9% of national GDP and exports. Today, that share has fallen to around 2–4%, yet its strategic weight remains. The state-owned Groupe Chimique Tunisien (GCT) in Gabès continues to employ thousands, sustaining local livelihoods and the regional economy. For many, the plant represents economic security in a country still struggling to diversify.

But this dependency comes at a hefty price. Since the 1970s, more than 500 million tons of phosphogypsum waste have been discharged into the Gulf, destroying 90% of the biggest Posidonia seagrass beds — a vital carbon sink and nursery for marine biodiversity. The collapse of fisheries has erased tens of millions of euros in income, while studies estimate that ecosystem service losses in 2014 alone reached €105 million, exceeding the phosphate industry’s added value in the same year.

Beyond biodiversity, the crisis has deeply human consequences: soil acidification, polluted groundwater, respiratory illnesses, and lost agricultural livelihoods. Gabès’ tourism potential remains largely unrealized and might be lost due to environmental damages.

The ESG Paradox

The GCT publishes regular ESG reports, yet its latest audit (July 2025) highlights major non-compliance with national environmental standards — air emissions (SOx, N₂O, particulates, fluorides, CO₂), marine pollution, and waste mismanagement.
The company acknowledges the need for 306 million Tunisian dinars (≈$100 million) in environmental investments to meet regulatory compliance.

In its recent environmental and social plan (September 2025), the company announced new funding from the European Investment Bank (EIB) without disclosing the amount. However, the proposed actions remain limited to monitoring and communication rather than tackling core issues such as emission reduction, clean-up operations, or ecosystem recovery and regeneration. Transparency is progress — but impact still lags far behind the scale of the crisis.

Reframing the Economic Equation

The debate is not about closing plants, but about realigning economic value creation. When environmental costs exceed revenues, externalities cease to be “external.” They become a financial and societal liability.

To move forward, four shifts are needed:

1. Accountability and Policy Alignment: Tunisia must introduce enforceable standards, sanctions, and incentives that make environmental performance a measurable component of industrial productivity.
2. Financial Integration of Externalities: Environmental degradation and health costs should be accounted for in company financial statements and national GDP.
3. Investment in Transition: Modernization of facilities, adoption of cleaner technologies, and biodiversity restoration (e.g., Posidonia nurseries) require substantial capital.
4. Strategic Vision: The GCT should evolve from a “do no harm” stance toward a net-zero and regenerative model, embedding sustainability at the core of its governance and community relations.

Financing the Green and Fair Shift

Here lies both the challenge and the opportunity. The transformation of Gabès cannot rely solely on public budgets or international aid — it demands a sustainable finance strategy capable of mobilizing private capital with measurable impact.

Sustainable finance offers the right instruments and frameworks to reprice risk, reward long-term value, and fund transition pathways:

• Green Bonds: GCT could pioneer Tunisia’s first green bond issuance, locally or internationally, linked to clear environmental performance indicators — phosphate waste reduction, emissions control, and biodiversity restoration.
• Blended Finance Models: Partnerships combining public guarantees, development finance, and private investors could de-risk environmental infrastructure projects and crowd in capital for ecosystem recovery.
• Impact Infrastructure Funds: International investors are increasingly seeking large-scale, measurable projects in emerging markets that contribute to climate adaptation, decarbonization, and social resilience — precisely the kind of investments Gabès now needs.

The financial community’s appetite for ESG-aligned investments is growing rapidly. Yet Tunisia’s capital markets remain largely underutilized. With the right governance, transparency, and measurable outcomes, Gabès could become a demonstration case of how sustainable finance can convert ecological debt into future-oriented assets.

This approach also creates a virtuous cycle: cleaner production reduces healthcare costs, restores agricultural and fisheries productivity, and attracts new industries and tourism — all of which strengthen fiscal stability and long-term competitiveness.

A Narrow Window of Opportunity

Gabès’ crisis is not unique; it reflects the broader dilemma of resource-dependent economies across the Global South. But it also presents a unique opportunity: to test whether sustainable finance can move beyond rhetoric and become a tool for real transformation.

The science is clear, the social cost undeniable, and the financial logic increasingly compelling. What remains is the governance will — and the strategic foresight — to invest not just in production, but in preservation and regeneration. Because the true cost of inaction is one Gabes can no longer afford.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X22011006

https://www.agbi.com/manufacturing/2023/08/tunisia-to-scale-up-phosphate-production/

http://www.gct.com.tn/fileadmin/user_upload/audit/Rapport_Audit_E_S-GCT-Gab.pdf

http://www.gct.com.tn/fileadmin/user_upload/Audit_de_Conformite_E___S/plan_de_gestion_environnemental_et_social_GCT.pdf

Last week in New York for the UN General Assembly, I entered what should have been a celebration of progress in sustainable finance. Instead, the mood was unsettled. On one side, President Donald Trump dismissed climate science and mocked sustainability advocates. On the other, global investors, policymakers, and entrepreneurs were discussing climate tech, blue innovations, and new collaborations that point toward a growing ecosystem.

The tension was striking: a widening gap between politics and markets, between short-term narratives and long-term trends.

The Bad News: Headwinds and Contradictions

• Political Backlash: Across several major economies, sustainability is being sidelined. Some leaders openly question climate science, while others downgrade it in favor of “more urgent” priorities.
• Defense Over Climate: With escalating conflicts and war threats, countries once seen as climate leaders are now prioritizing defense budgets over green innovation and biodiversity protection.
• Resource Extraction Race: From Africa to Groenland, the rush for rare earths and critical minerals for batteries and clean tech risks repeating old mistakes — economic opportunity overshadowing ecological damage.
• The Energy Burden of AI: Data centers powering artificial intelligence consume vast amounts of energy, with no proven pathway to net zero at scale.

Together, these forces fuel the perception that sustainability is a “luxury” the world can no longer afford.

The Good News: Capital and Resilience Rising

And yet, the numbers tell a different story.

• Investment Momentum: Sustainable and impact investing in public and private markets continues to grow at unprecedented rates. In the HBS Sustainable Investing program, I am proudly enrolled in, led by Vikram Gandhi and Shawn Cole, the data is clear: ESG is on their way to become mainstream, and frameworks for impact are moving slowly but surely toward standardization.
• Triple Bottom Line Logic: From my work at Wave, a collective action platform for ocean regeneration, the evidence is overwhelming: impact investing delivers business value. Markets expand, technologies mature, customer behaviors evolve, and boards increasingly align their values with their capital. Why chase only financial returns when economic, environmental, and social performance can be achieved together?
• Insurance and Asset Repricing: Extreme weather is recalibrating markets. Insurers are raising premiums or exiting high-risk regions such as wildfire-prone California and hurricane-exposed Florida. This is directly shaping asset values: properties without credible adaptation strategies are marked down as stranded risks, while resilient assets — those demonstrating continuity planning or climate-proofing — command a premium.
• Regulatory Pressure: Far from fading, disclosure frameworks are tightening. The EU’s CSRD and SFDR, the ISSB’s global standards, and Canada’s OSFI Guideline B-15 all require companies to disclose the financial materiality of climate risks. Investors now expect not just transparency but also actionable adaptation plans.

The conclusion is clear: sustainability is no longer a niche — it is a driver of valuation, governance, and competitiveness.

Projections: Three Possible Futures

So where do we go from here? Three scenarios are emerging:

1. Collapse: Political turbulence derails momentum. Asset owners retreat from ESG, redirecting attention to defense and extractives.
2. Pause: Political noise causes a slowdown, but the underlying foundations of SDGs and sustainable finance remain solid, ready to accelerate when stability returns.
3. Shift: Boards, private markets, and civil society push ahead regardless of politics. Gen Z consumers demand responsible products, investors align portfolios with values, and resilient companies gain capital advantage. In this view, sustainable investing becomes less dependent on policymakers and more rooted in market and societal forces.

Which hypothesis feels most likely? My bet: sustainable investing isn’t dead — it’s entering a harder, more political, but ultimately more mature phase.

To be continued…

Outdated or Evolving? Rethinking Startup Support in Emerging Markets

Introduction

In 2019, when Tunisia launched the Startup Act, the ecosystem was still young. A handful of incubators and accelerators existed — mostly concentrated in the capital, Tunis, and operating within high-income circles. There was an urgent need to democratize access to knowledge about tech entrepreneurship, scalability, growth strategies, and lean startup methodologies.

Startup Support Organizations (SSOs) emerged as essential infrastructure — educational bridges aiming to create inclusive opportunities for aspiring founders across the country. The number of SSOs grew rapidly, surpassing 30 entities and offering more than 50 support programs. The shift to digital during the pandemic further expanded access, onboarding hundreds of students, young professionals, and aspiring entrepreneurs into this vibrant new space.

SSOs in Early-Stage Tech Ecosystems

From pre-incubation to acceleration to investment-readiness programs — with and without funding — a broad array of initiatives emerged. Yet, tracking impact and achieving meaningful KPIs proved difficult. Some of the recurring challenges included:

● Limited expertise: The ecosystem was new, with few experienced tech entrepreneurs or investors. SSOs often lacked the depth of knowledge required to deliver high-impact support.

● Generic, donor-driven curriculum: Programs were typically shaped by funders’ terms of reference rather than market needs or founder capabilities, often lacking a compelling value proposition.

● Disconnected from the real economy: Founders were immersed in a romanticized Silicon Valley narrative rather than connected to local or regional market realities. Business partnerships and market access were limited.

● No direct funding to startups: SSOs, reliant on public and donor funding for their own operations, rarely funded startups themselves. Legal and operational complexities made equity or grant-based support rare.

● Misaligned business models: With funders (not founders) as their primary clients, many SSOs prioritized satisfying donor KPIs over startup needs, leading to misalignment and inefficiencies.

The Landscape Has Shifted Dramatically

Globally, startup knowledge has exploded. What was once niche is now mainstream. Thousands of free videos, courses, and toolkits offer self-paced learning. AI-powered mentors, global accelerators, and digital platforms provide strategic guidance on demand.

In this new context, many founders question whether traditional incubation and acceleration still meet their needs.

What Do Startups Actually Want?

A poll conducted in a Tunisian founders-only Facebook group asked participants to rank their expectations from SSOs. The top three responses were:

1. Access to networks and communities
2. Access to funding
3. Access to business and market opportunities

These represent the most pressing demands from the startup community today. Founders are vocal about their frustrations with the status quo: flashy events, glamorous pitch nights, and superficial celebrations are no longer enough. Instead, they want tangible, business-oriented support.

Startups now look for:

● Strategic connections: Introductions to relevant partners, clients, or investors — not just attendance at events. SSOs that can open doors to corporates, public institutions, and international stakeholders are valued most.

● Direct access to funding: Whether through grants, convertible notes, or investor introductions, funding is still perceived as a top pain point. Even if overestimated at times, the need for cash flow in early-stage ventures remains real.

● Business opportunities: Real deals, pilot projects, procurement access, and partnerships that can unlock revenue and growth. SSOs must move from being knowledge centers to being business facilitators.

● Operational support: Legal guidance, financial structuring, admin assistance, accounting support — these services can save startups critical time and prevent costly mistakes.

● Personalized mentoring: Rather than generic workshops, founders increasingly value one-on-one mentoring sessions with confirmed experts who have relevant experience and insight.

● Exposure through media and international events: Not only to gain visibility, but to build credibility and open new markets. Media coverage, international competition participation, and global community engagement are important enablers.

In stark contrast, traditional training modules were the least requested. The implication is clear: the role of SSOs must evolve beyond education to become more hands-on, deal-oriented, and network-driven.

Strategic Shifts for SSOs: What Needs to Change

1. Clarify Your Unique Value Proposition

● What is your unique strength?

● What network can you activate and grow for the benefit of your startups?

● What specific outcomes can founders expect from you within a clear timeframe?

2. Shift from Mass to Tailored Support

● Treat startups as real businesses, not learning projects.

● Treat founders as clients or partners, not students.

● Move toward curated, high-value interventions — not generic programs.

3. Put Skin in the Game

SSOs need to align incentives with founders by sharing risk and reward. Some models to explore:

● Equity-Based Support: Take a small equity stake (e.g. 3–7%) in exchange for high-touch support, just like Y Combinator or Flat6Labs.

● Venture Studio Model: Co-create startups and retain larger equity (10–30%). Build from scratch with founders.

● Revenue-Sharing or Success-Based Fees: Provide support in exchange for a small % of future revenues over a few years.

● Convertible Agreements: Offer services now in return for equity that converts when the startup raises funds.

This approach fosters deeper trust, improves support quality, diversifies SSO revenue, and signals maturity to external partners. It also encourages SSOs to select startups more thoughtfully and deliver real value.

4. Integrate into the Local and Global Value Chain

● Local Partnerships: Build strong ties with corporates, municipalities, and ministries. Be a bridge between startups and real economy players.

● University and Research Links: Stay close to talent pipelines and innovation hubs.

● Ecosystem Collaboration: Co-design with other SSOs, VCs, and studios to create consistent founder journeys.

● International Bridges: Create gateways to global accelerators, investors, and innovation hubs. Track KPIs like international MoUs, startup cross-border collaborations, or export opportunities enabled.

5. Become a Label of Quality

Prioritize excellence. Build a rigorous, transparent selection framework aligned with your vision and values. This will:

● Attract high-potential startups

● Build long-term trust with partners

● Turn your SSO into a recognized stamp of quality and credibility

Conclusion: From Educators to Catalysts

As startup ecosystems in Africa and beyond mature, SSOs must evolve. Once knowledge gatekeepers, they are now expected to be business catalysts.

This requires difficult shifts: from standardized to customized, from donor-focused to founder-focused, from knowledge to impact. And yes — from passive support to active investment, with real skin in the game.

The future SSO will be lean, integrated, and deeply connected — using AI for routine operations and dedicating human capital to strategy, partnerships, and trust-building. It will no longer operate on the periphery, but at the very heart of startup growth.

To truly support founders, SSOs must walk alongside them — not ahead, not behind, but in the arena, risking, building, and growing together.

Public policy plays a crucial role in fostering entrepreneurship and innovation. When well-designed, it can accelerate economic growth, but poorly crafted policies risk stifling entrepreneurial spirit. Around the world, diverse public policy initiatives are being implemented to promote tech-driven entrepreneurship. This article outlines 4 of the main regulatory approaches, offering a non-exhaustive catalogue of incentives that policymakers can adapt and combine to meet local needs:

1. Small Business Acts and Startup Acts
2. Investment promotion
3. R&D promotion
4. Open trade encouragement

Key Policy Frameworks:

1. Small Business Acts and Startup Acts:

These laws often target small businesses and high-growth startups, offering:

• Tax incentives: Reduced income tax rates, tax holidays, and exemptions on dividends.
• Financial support: Grants, loans, stipends (e.g., Tunisian Startup Act), and government-backed venture capital.
• Streamlined procedures: Simplified business registration, licensing, and regulatory exemptions.
• Market access: Priority in public procurement, export support, and collaboration with local corporations.
• Capacity building: Training, mentorship, and targeted programs for women, underprivileged populations and youth.
• Talent attraction: Startup or talent visas, internship grants, and flexible hiring regulations.

2. Investment Promotion Acts:

These frameworks attract domestic and foreign investors through incentives like:

• Tax breaks, duty-free imports, and financial grants.
• Provisions for easier access to financing, fast-tracking permits, and streamlined business setup processes.
• Guarantees and Protections for Investors: Offers protection against expropriation, ensuring that investments cannot be nationalized or seized without fair compensation. Often includes guarantees for the repatriation of profits, dividends, and capital, along with favorable conditions for currency exchange.
• Protection of intellectual property, guaranteed profit repatriation, and non-discriminatory treatment of foreign investors.
• Dispute Resolution and arbitrage Mechanisms: Establishes methods for resolving disputes between investors and the state, often including domestic court options and international arbitration mechanisms. May reference specific arbitration frameworks like the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
• Entry and Establishment Provisions: Outlines the rights and procedures for establishing a business, detailing the necessary approvals and conditions for operating within the country.
• Encouragement of technology transfer to foster local innovation.

3. R&D Promotion Acts:
Focused on advancing research and innovation, these acts may include:

• Tax incentives: Credits and deductions for R&D expenses, especially in priority sectors.
• Direct funding: Grants for early-stage research, prototyping, and commercialization efforts.
• Collaboration support: Incentives for partnerships between academia, research institutions, and industry.
• Infrastructure development: Funding for research parks, innovation hubs, and advanced facilities.
• Incentives for Hiring R&D Personnel: Provides tax incentives, grants, or stipends for hiring R&D professionals, such as scientists, engineers, and researchers.
• IP protection: Simplified patent processes and mechanisms for commercialization.
• Support for Technology Transfer and Commercialization of research outputs by simplifying spin-offs, licensing processes and providing access to legal resources.

4. Open Trade Acts:
Policies promoting trade can foster innovation by:

• Reducing tariffs and trade barriers.
• Streamlining customs procedures to facilitate imports and exports.
• Access to International Markets and Export Incentives through support to enter new export markets through reduced export restrictions, grants, tax rebates, or support for participation in international trade fairs. It may also be through regional or international treaties that allow ease in expanding business abroad.
• Encouraging technology and knowledge exchange through global partnerships.
• Liberalizing skilled labor movement and easing access to global R&D funding.
• Supporting digital trade and anti-monopoly measures to encourage market competition.

A Flexible Toolkit for Policymakers

These frameworks can be tailored and combined to suit the unique needs of local ecosystems. For instance, policymakers can prioritize tax relief for early-stage startups in developing economies or promote R&D clusters in mature markets.
In addition, Policymakers can adopt a mix-and-match approach, creatively combining incentives from the four key frameworks to design holistic policies that address diverse challenges and opportunities. For example, pairing tax breaks from Startup Acts with technology transfer incentives from Investment Promotion Acts can simultaneously support entrepreneurs and attract investors. Incentives should evolve alongside the ecosystem’s growth, ensuring relevance and sustainability.

A Call to Policymakers

Dear policymakers,
What do you believe is missing from this array of incentives to build an innovation-driven economy? Which national examples stand out as models of success, demonstrating the potential of well-crafted frameworks to generate wealth and drive economic dynamism?

I look forward to your insights and reflections.

Ecosystem building is a collective effort, requiring contributions from a variety of stakeholders. In African contexts, where resources and funding are often limited, international enablers play a pivotal role in fueling and fostering growth. This support is both welcomed and appreciated, becoming a cornerstone in many ecosystem-building strategies. However, such reliance also presents risks, as shifting international funding strategies, especially in today’s politically and economically unstable times, can jeopardize the long-term sustainability of these ecosystems.

The Scale of Foreign Donations and Investments
It is difficult to quantify the exact amount of foreign donations and investments directed toward Africa’s digitization, innovation, and startups, but the scale is undoubtedly significant. Africa continues to be the leading destination for DFI (Development Finance Institution) investments, accounting for 40% of total new commitments in 2023, amounting to €3.8 billion — an increase of 12% from the previous year.

International funding takes various forms, including investments, co-investments, loans, and grants. Traditionally, these funds are channeled to support public strategies and initiatives, typically allocated to public institutions such as Ministries of Finance, Economy and Planning, or technical ministries like Telecommunications, Digitization, Education, and Academic Research.

In recent years, however, international funding has been diversifying its allocation methods. Increasingly, funding is being directed toward the private sector. This includes investments in venture capital (VC) funds and direct grants to startup support organizations, research labs, or even startups themselves.

In Tunisia, for example, the World Bank allocated a $75 million loan in 2019 to catalyze startup investment and foster the tech and innovation ecosystem.

Similarly, Benin received a $300 million donation in 2021 to support education, entrepreneurship, and the promotion of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Several European DFIs, including the European Investment Bank, AFD, CDC, DEG, FMO, Proparco, Swedfund, and Norfund, contribute substantial funds across various African countries.

Additional support comes from global organizations like the UN through programs such as the UN Accelerator Labs, as well as initiatives led by ITC and other key international players. Foreign cooperation agencies, including the European Union, GIZ, Expertise France, Dutch Development Agencies, and USAID, also provide substantial grants and donations across the continent.

The Role of DFIs as Ecosystem Enablers
DFIs and foreign cooperation agencies play an integral role in shaping Africa’s tech ecosystems. Their involvement spans nearly all aspects of ecosystem building: from public policy advocacy and legal framework drafting to capacity building for stakeholders and driving digitization strategies in both the public and private sectors. These entities fund Startup Support Organizations (SSOs) and startups, act as LPs in Fund of Funds and in regional VC funds, sponsor participation of national delegations in international events, and promote local ecosystems on the global stage.

Acting as funders, enablers, capacity builders, and connectors, DFIs amplify national strategies by providing critical resources, expertise, and best practices. However, the governance and motivations behind these initiatives are often shaped outside Africa — in places such as the EU Parliament, Washington DC for IMF and IFC, or the UN offices in New York or Geneva. Decisions are typically driven by global agendas, which are then adapted to suit local and regional contexts and needs.

The Risks of Foreign Dependency
Reliance on foreign support comes with inherent risks. Such support is often tied to global political and economic agendas and is therefore vulnerable to shifts in the international landscape. Political instability, regional conflicts, or changes in donor countries’ priorities can result in disruptions or even the withdrawal of support.

Economic downturns in donor nations can reduce the funds allocated to African nations, as these contributions rely on taxpayer money, which may be redirected to address local economic challenges first (which is normal). A shift towards far-right political ideologies in donor countries can lead to significant changes in funding strategies. Or even, conflicts like the war in Ukraine or in Gaza can indirectly affect fund allocations.

Similarly, election outcomes in African nations or changes in political direction can result in a cessation of funding, as a way for foreign entities to express disapproval of new political orientations. In such cases, startups — private companies with no control over geopolitical decisions — bear the brunt of these changes, leaving the entire ecosystem vulnerable to external forces.

How to Build Less Dependent Ecosystems

This is a complex challenge with no easy solutions, but here are some areas for collective exploration:

1. Create a trustworthy environment for local and international investors: High-potential local startups are often required to incorporate abroad in investor-friendly jurisdictions to access larger funding opportunities. This is primarily due to the scarcity of local funds and the understandable apprehension of international investors about entering less-developed markets. However, this challenge can be addressed through the implementation of conducive public policies that create a healthy and trustworthy investment environment.For example, Mauritius’ Investment Promotion Act of 2000 significantly increased the number of funds created and attracted to the country. Similarly, the Astana International Financial Center (AIFC) in Kazakhstan, which introduced an independent jurisdiction based on British law, has greatly boosted investor confidence. This has led to a tenfold increase in venture capital over the past two years, attracting investments from across Central Asia.
2. Strengthen local Ecosystem Builders: Unite public and private sector ecosystem builders under a common vision to create a sustainable tech ecosystem. Collaborative discussions between these stakeholders are crucial for progress. Côte d’Ivoire is a notable example to watch, as the country is developing a holistic strategy to support local startups. This includes an encouraging legal framework and fostering collaboration between the public and private sectors to provide both technical and financial support to innovative companies.
3. Champion local political support: Advocate for political leaders who can champion the growth of tech ecosystems, startups, and the knowledge economy. While political alignment with governments may be difficult, maintaining an open dialogue with public institutions is vital for driving change.
4. Push for local funding: Public funds in many African countries may not match the scale of international support, but even small contributions can make a significant difference. Beyond financial aid, local funding represents a public endorsement of innovation as a strategic national priority.
5. Foster entrepreneurial resilience: Encourage resilience among entrepreneurs and ecosystem stakeholders to withstand external shocks. While African entrepreneurs are already resilient, there is a need to cultivate an African mindset focused on collaboration, bootstrapping, and prioritizing market validation over fundraising.
6. Engage the Private Sector: Work with the local private sector to promote innovation, build capacity, and provide funding. While the private sector’s involvement in emerging ecosystems is often limited, co-designing programs and fostering connections could yield promising results. Banks are increasingly supporting fintech growth through partnerships, collaborations, and mergers & acquisitions (M&A) opportunities. Ecobank is a prime example of this. As a Pan-African bank with a presence in 35 African countries, Ecobank is actively backing the growth of numerous fintech startups across different ecosystems, including Kenya, Nigeria, and Togo. This kind of private sector endorsement and engagement should be encouraged and expanded to more industries and countries.
7. Leverage international connections: Build relationships with international SSOs, investors, and global players to open up more opportunities for African startups. With global programs increasingly focused on diversity and inclusion, there is room for African startups to benefit from these initiatives.
8. Encourage regional collaboration: Form consortiums with neighboring countries to expand market access and connections for local startups. Regional collaboration can increase the ecosystem’s strength and reach.
9. Sustainability of support systems: Shift towards a model where startups contribute to the cost of services offered by incubators, accelerators, and experts. SSOs should establish sustainable business models to continue providing valuable services. Currently, many startups in Africa have become used to receiving free services, largely due to grants from DFIs and international donors. This practice has diminished their appreciation for the true cost of support, which needs to change.

Conclusion
For African ecosystems to thrive sustainably, they must aim for greater local ownership, regional collaboration, and entrepreneurial independence. International funding can play a crucial role in the short term, but long-term success lies in developing self-sustaining models, fostering private sector engagement, and building resilience to withstand external shocks. By aligning local political, financial, and entrepreneurial interests, Africa can create thriving ecosystems that are less vulnerable to the whims of global geopolitics.

We would love to hear from you about effective actions that have been implemented in your ecosystems that could serve as valuable lessons for peers in other regions. Additionally, are there other potential strategies or initiatives — beyond what has already been discussed — that you believe are key to building a more resilient and self-sustaining environment for startups and ecosystem stakeholders?

Please feel free to share your experiences, insights, and thoughts.

Tech ecosystems are sprouting up across Africa and other emerging markets like saplings in a greenhouse. These ecosystems, akin to tender trees, require careful nurturing and patience to flourish. However, for those in power eager to see immediate results, the temptation to axe these ecosystems prematurely can be irresistible. Here’s a tongue-in-cheek guide on how to kill your tech ecosystem in ten easy steps:

1. Set Unrealistic Objectives: Aim for the stars with lofty goals like producing several unicorns or generating 10% of GDP from startups within five years. Who needs feasibility studies or realistic timelines anyway?
2. Promote Entrepreneurship in Public, Stifle It in Practice: Champion entrepreneurship in your speeches and PR campaigns, but maintain outdated laws and bureaucratic red tape that strangle innovation in its crib.
3. Centralize Decision-Making: Consolidate power in the hands of a few, and bog down the decision-making process with layers of bureaucracy and stakeholders. Because why empower the grassroots when you can micromanage from the top?
4. Blur Governance and Hire the Wrong People: Forget about competence and expertise; hire cronies and yes-men to lead your tech initiatives. After all, who needs qualified leaders when you have nepotism?
5. Keep Alive, Revive, or Strengthen Obsolete Laws: Maintain outdated legal frameworks that hinder progress and undermine new supportive laws, initiatives, and entrepreneurial endeavors. Because what’s better than hindering progress with outdated regulations?
6. Doubt and Diminish Entrepreneurial Success: Discredit every small win by startups and entrepreneurs to sow doubt about their capabilities. Because nothing motivates like a constant barrage of skepticism and negativity.
7. Undermine Support Organizations: Diminish the work of incubators, accelerators, and investors, or better yet, co-opt them into ineffective government-run entities. Because nothing says progress like bureaucratic inefficiency.
8. Dry Up Funding: Strangle funding to startups and support organizations, and make it nearly impossible to attract investment from abroad. Because who needs capital when you have bootstrapping?
9. Blame the Ecosystem for Individual Failures: If one startup stumbles, blame the entire ecosystem for its downfall. Because collective punishment is the hallmark of effective governance.
10. Break Everything and Expect Miracles: Tear down what little progress has been made, then sit back and wait for the magic to happen. Because rebuilding from scratch is always more fun than incremental improvement.

In conclusion, if you’re a policymaker or politician looking to sabotage your country’s tech ecosystem, follow these ten simple steps. But if you’re actually interested in fostering innovation and economic growth, well, maybe try the opposite. Just a thought.

In the frenetic dance of tech evolution, it’s easy to forget the silent partner that sustains us all: nature. But as we race ahead with our agnostic, strictly shark-like tech ecosystems, are we missing a crucial point? The signs of strain on our environment are everywhere, from over-exploited resources to vanishing ecosystems. It’s time to pivot towards a more sustainable path.

Let’s face it — we’re fashionably late to the party. The big players have already divvied up the cake, leaving us scrambling to catch up. But the landscape has shifted dramatically in the past decade, and Mother Nature is sending us increasingly urgent distress signals. Climate change, species extinction, and ecological degradation are not just buzzwords; they’re stark realities staring us in the face.

Sure, many would argue that we’re already behind schedule, that we can’t afford to add more obstacles to our already daunting journey. But do we really have a choice? Building a tech ecosystem without considering its environmental impact is not just short-sighted; it’s downright irresponsible.

Take Africa, for example. Despite contributing minimally to global greenhouse gas emissions, the continent is bearing the brunt of climate change. From food insecurity to economic instability, the effects are manifold and severe. Agriculture, the backbone of many African economies, is under siege, with productivity plummeting due to climatic disruptions.

Consider the stark realities laid bare in the data: Africa, a continent responsible for only a fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions, is disproportionately bearing the brunt of climate change. The statistics paint a sobering picture — more than 110 million people directly affected by weather-related hazards in 2022, with economic damages surpassing US$ 8.5 billion. And the human cost? A reported 5,000 fatalities, with the true toll likely much higher due to under-reporting.

Agriculture, the lifeblood of many African economies, is under siege. Climate change has decimated agricultural productivity growth by 34% since 1961, leaving millions vulnerable to food insecurity. The projected annual food imports by African countries are set to triple by 2025, exacerbating the challenge of feeding a burgeoning population.

The health impacts of climate change are equally alarming. Tens of millions of Africans are already experiencing the negative effects, from heat stress to increased transmission of infectious diseases. Maternal health and child mortality rates are on the rise, fueled by severe climatic variables.

Water scarcity looms large, particularly in North Africa, where it’s estimated to affect up to 71% of GDP and 61% of the population. The projected loss and damage costs in Africa due to climate change range from US$ 290 billion to US$ 440 billion, underscoring the urgency of action.

So, what’s the path forward? It starts with a paradigm shift towards sustainability. ESG frameworks, often viewed as cumbersome regulations, must be embraced as guiding principles for responsible innovation. Startups, investors, research institutions, and policymakers all have a crucial role to play.

From startups to investors to research institutions, everyone has a role to play, and public and funding policies can help achieve this:

Startups: Innovation-enhancing policy frameworks are currently skewed towards financial outcomes and market growth potential, often neglecting startups’ societal and environmental responsibilities. It’s imperative that legal frameworks set clear expectations for startups to be socially and environmentally responsible in exchange for access to incentives. Startups must integrate environmental and social considerations into their business models from inception, recognizing their potential to drive meaningful change and shape the future.

Don’t get me wrong. We recognize the importance of a diverse range of ventures, including SaaS, entertainment solutions, retail, and logistics. However, we encourage all entrepreneurs to operate within a sustainable and responsible framework, minimizing their environmental footprint and maximizing positive social impact wherever possible.

Startup Support Organizations: These entities, often reliant on funding from development and cooperation agencies, public funds, or philanthropic sources, serve as crucial pillars in the startup ecosystem. By aligning their efforts with the imperative of sustainability, these organizations can catalyze meaningful change. Funding agencies have a pivotal role to play in this regard, as they can mandate ESG compliance and education within the startup cohorts supported by these organizations. Through incentivizing and prioritizing ESG integration, funding agencies can ensure that startups receive guidance and resources to embed environmental and social responsibility into their DNA. Moreover, funding agencies can encourage startup support organizations to adopt sustainable practices themselves, creating a ripple effect throughout the ecosystem. By leveraging their funding streams to drive ESG compliance, startup support organizations can become champions of sustainability, fostering a culture of responsibility and innovation within the startup community.

Investors: Investors are already being asked to have ESG strategies in order to raise funds. This emphasis on sustainability should be highlighted and tracked thoroughly. Investors must prioritize startups that demonstrate a commitment to environmental and social responsibility, recognizing that long-term success requires more than just financial returns. By holding startups accountable for their impact on society and the environment, investors can drive positive change and create value beyond profit.

Research institutions and universities must lead the charge in developing green technologies and fostering a culture of environmental stewardship. And policymakers must create the incentives and regulations necessary to foster a truly sustainable economy.

Universities: Alongside research and innovation, sustainable management and environmental awareness should be integral components of education across disciplines. From engineering to business and social sciences, all schools should prioritize teaching green technology and economy principles. By instilling responsible behavior for a sustainable future as a cornerstone of educational programs and entrepreneurship support initiatives, universities can prepare students to address pressing global challenges while fostering innovation with a conscience.

Yes, ESG frameworks may seem complex and daunting, especially for small businesses in emerging markets. But they are essential tools for building a future that is not just prosperous but also equitable and sustainable.

These SMEs are the lifeblood of emerging markets, driving economic growth and employment. By striking a wise balance between environmental and social responsibility, agility, and market competitiveness, SMEs can lead the charge towards a more sustainable future. But they need the right framework — one that incentivizes and empowers them to embrace sustainability without compromising their ability to compete.

ESG frameworks must be tailored to the realities of emerging markets, acknowledging the unique challenges and opportunities they present. Simplified guidelines, targeted incentives, and capacity-building initiatives can help SMEs navigate the complexities of sustainability while remaining agile and competitive.

Moreover, engaging every stakeholder in this new system of sustainable innovation is paramount. Startup support organizations, investors, policymakers, and research institutions must all play a role in fostering a culture of sustainability within the tech ecosystem. By providing guidance, resources, and incentives, they can help SMEs overcome barriers and embrace sustainability as a cornerstone of their business models.

In the end, the choice is clear. We can continue down the same path, ignoring the warning signs and hoping for the best. Or we can chart a new course, one that leads us towards a future where technology and nature coexist in harmony. The time to choose is now.

Sources:

https://wmo.int/media/news/africa-suffers-disproportionately-from-climate-change

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-how-climate-change-affects-health-in-africa/

https://www.uneca.org/stories/17-out-of-the-20-countries-most-threatened-by-climate-change-are-in-africa%2C-but-there-are

National Library of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10702879/

AFDB : https://www.afdb.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/afdb-economics_of_climate_change_in_africa.pdf

https://www.gartner.com/en/finance/glossary/environmental-social-and-governance-esg-

Where does one begin?

In a previous article, I outlined the critical questions policymakers must consider before embarking on the challenging journey of drafting, voting on, and implementing public policies. Yet, the work doesn’t end there. It merely lays the foundation for the complex process of ecosystem building.

Ecosystem development is a strategic endeavor that typically follows a voluntary desire or vision to create a conducive environment for digital innovators to thrive. This strategy is multi-dimensional, blending various infrastructural layers to support startups and entrepreneurs effectively.

In forthcoming articles, we will delve into the intricacies of the six pillars essential for ecosystem development. These pillars must be meticulously crafted, tailored to specific contexts: ecosystem maturity levels and overarching visions. But before we delve into the details, let’s provide a brief introduction to the fundamental 6+6 components.

6 Stratas:

1. Political sponsorship and support: It all begins with a vision. Embracing the wave of innovation and digitization to modernize economic policies and diversify revenue streams for the country. Additionally, it aims to fulfill the aspirations of the younger generation. They possess the vision and capability to envision new solutions to existing challenges, awaiting only the opportunity to bring them to fruition. An innovation-driven economy has the potential to catalyze a disruptive shift in both economic and social paradigms.
2. Technical and digital infrastructure: Just as roads and highways are essential for industrial and logistical activities, access to WiFi, fiber networks, and mobile connectivity are foundational components of digitization strategies. While emerging markets are generally progressing positively in this regard due to significant investments in infrastructure, challenges remain in ensuring quality and affordability. Moreover, improving public access to mobile devices, laptops, and banking services is still a priority in many countries.
3. Human capital: Often referred to as the knowledge economy, it hinges on the intellectual capabilities of individuals in creating innovative solutions using modern tools. Engineers, researchers, and business developers are invaluable assets in constructing a new functional system. Policymakers should evaluate educational infrastructure, curriculum quality, and the availability of resources, such as the number of engineering graduates annually.
4. Economic policy and weave: Emerging market economies are typically fragile and vary in their degree of regulation and formality. Economic dynamism and prosperity must be assessed, with thriving economies offering a conducive environment for startups by fostering partnerships, suppliers, and customers. Decision-makers must master these aspects, adapting legal policies and national strategies to the economic context, and preemptively correcting and adjusting strategies as needed. Innovation thrives in a healthy economic and policy environment.
5. Public administration infrastructure: Imagining public administration infrastructure as a baggage belt reveals its strategic importance. When functioning smoothly, it operates predictably and efficiently, facilitating the smooth flow of essential processes. However, any disruptions or inefficiencies can significantly impact individuals’ lives. Therefore, it is essential to audit and optimize this infrastructure, digitizing processes, tracking performance, and making improvements. Doing so can work wonders in stimulating and catalyzing entrepreneurial endeavors within a country.
6. Entrepreneurial culture: Shifting mindsets and cultures towards entrepreneurship, risk-taking, and innovation is a challenging endeavor. Countries may possess rich natural resources, strong public administrations, or entrenched middleman or rentier cultures, which can hinder the transition to an entrepreneurial mindset. Understanding and assessing these cultural nuances are vital for designing effective programs that foster entrepreneurship.

Now that you have assessed the solidity and specificity of your strata, it’s time to construct the pillars that will propel you toward your vision:

6 Pillars:

1. Public policy: Public policies serve as a manifestation of national commitment to innovation, scaling up entrepreneurial endeavors, and providing necessary adjustments to existing policies. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach due to varying local contexts and strata, necessitating strategies tailored to the maturity levels of the local ecosystem.
2. Funding continuum: Funding serves as the lifeblood of startups, yet innovation comes at a cost. The funding continuum comprises a chain of diverse financial mechanisms supporting ventures from ideation to growth stages. This includes prize awards, support from family and friends, grants, angel or VC equity investments, loans, and private equity.
3. Support value chain: University incubators, venture studios, accelerators, and incubators form essential pillars in ecosystem development. They play a strategic role in creating startup pipelines, enhancing tech entrepreneurial knowledge, disseminating entrepreneurial culture, facilitating promotion, and fostering connections with local and international players. Structuring the support network is vital to creating a seamless value chain, avoiding redundancy or disconnection between actors.
4. Connectedness: Ecosystem builders strive to forge invisible yet robust connections between stakeholders, spanning different personas and geographies — both locally and internationally. These connections foster synergies and sustain organic development, offering startups increased access to support, funding, markets, and international exposure.
5. Access-to-market: While funding often takes precedence, access to markets is vital for venture sustainability, particularly in small-sized, stagnant, or closed economies. Overcoming this challenge requires a range of actions, from public policy interventions to tech-focused international diplomacy.
6. Promotion: A thriving tech ecosystem requires nurturing and celebration. Promotion serves multiple objectives, including fostering entrepreneurial culture at the local level and positioning a country or ecosystem on the regional or global map to attract investors, startups, and talent.

Lastly, but certainly not least, are the values. They encompass the intangible energy and cultural elements that breathe life into an ecosystem. These values serve as the driving force, uniting individuals and fostering a culture of positivity, resilience, and collective progress.

Values:

• Ambition: Fueling aspirations and propelling individuals toward lofty goals.
• Collaboration: Encouraging teamwork and cooperation to achieve shared objectives.
• Trust: Building relationships based on reliability, integrity, and mutual respect.
• Inclusivity: Embracing diversity and ensuring that all voices are heard and valued.
• Continuous improvement: Cultivating a mindset of growth and innovation, always striving for betterment.
• Data and fact-driven: Guiding decisions and actions based on empirical evidence and insights, ensuring informed and effective strategies.

The tech ecosystem comprises a multitude of stakeholders and programs intricately intertwined and interconnected. They complement each other, with each entity playing a vital role that contributes to the ecosystem’s overall functioning. It’s the interplay between these entities that defines an ecosystem, setting it apart from isolated actors or programs. Given the critical role of these ties, fostering a culture grounded in specific values becomes imperative.

These values serve as the bedrock upon which successful ecosystems are built, transforming competition into collaboration, fostering trust among all players, and creating an inclusive environment that welcomes diverse perspectives. By setting high standards and striving for a shared vision, ecosystems can unlock their full potential. However, building such a culture is perhaps the most challenging aspect, with outcomes often unpredictable yet immensely impactful.

This theory stems from five years of empirical observations and experiments during my tenure as an ecosystem director within a local operator of a national strategy in Tunisia. Tunisia notably pioneered the enactment of the Startups Act in 2018, aimed at fostering tech entrepreneurship. This firsthand experience provided invaluable insights into both the far-reaching impact and inherent limitations of policy implementation at a national scale. It allowed for a critical examination of prevailing ecosystem-building theories alongside practical, on-the-ground realities. The Tunisian context served as a real-life laboratory and case study for strategies centered around tech entrepreneurship.

However, this journey is ongoing, and I am eager to engage with fellow ecosystem builders. What additional strata or pillars would you suggest? How crucial are values in shaping successful tech ecosystems, and which values do you believe are paramount in this endeavor? Please share your thoughts. Let’s continue to learn and evolve together.

Unveiling the Startup Illusion: Critical Questions Every Policymaker Must Answer

In an era where talk of startups acts, innovation bills, and the emergence of new tech hubs saturates political discourse, it’s crucial to scrutinize the readiness of nations to foster a conducive environment for startups. The allure of becoming the next Silicon Valley in Africa or elsewhere may seem enticing for politicians eager to garner support, but the reality is far more complex.

Policymakers must embark on a critical self-assessment journey before delving into the arduous task of drafting and passing legislation aimed at nurturing startup ecosystems. Here are some tough questions they must grapple with:

Vision and Objectives: What exactly does it mean for a country to aspire to build a tech ecosystem or transition to a digitized economy? Without a clear vision and defined objectives, efforts to support startups may lack direction and coherence.

Infrastructure Readiness: Is the country’s tech infrastructure up to par? Are internet access and mobile connectivity widespread and affordable? Without adequate infrastructure, startups will struggle to thrive in an increasingly digital world.

Economic Policy: Does the country truly encourage and support private initiatives, or are bureaucratic hurdles and government intervention hindering entrepreneurship? An open and stable regulatory environment is essential for fostering innovation and growth.

Administrative Management and Processes: How easy is it to start a business in the country? how easy it is to raise and invest funds? Are administrative processes transparent and free from corruption? Excessive red tape and regulatory ambiguity can stifle entrepreneurial endeavors.

Political Stability: To what extent do political movements and instability threaten long-term visions for fostering tech entrepreneurship? Political will and continuity are vital for sustaining efforts to support startups amid shifting political landscapes.

Pipeline: Does the country produce enough skilled engineers and entrepreneurs capable of driving innovation? If not, what steps can be taken to attract foreign talent and leverage the diaspora community?

Research & Labs: How vibrant is the country’s research ecosystem? Are research findings being translated into practical solutions and commercialized? Investment in research and innovation is crucial for fueling startup growth.

Economic Weave (Private Sector): What is the landscape of the private sector, and how actively are big corporations engaging with startups? Collaboration between established players and startups is essential for ecosystem maturity.

Entrepreneurship Culture: Is there a culture of entrepreneurship, or are traditional sectors dominating the economy? Cultivating a mindset conducive to innovation is essential for nurturing a vibrant startup ecosystem.

Answering these questions requires more than a simple yes or no; it demands a comprehensive assessment and a commitment to addressing gaps and challenges. While every country may aspire to become a digital hub, the reality is that many emerging markets lack the political vision and economic infrastructure necessary to support such ambitions.

Building a startup nation requires more than just rhetoric and promises; it demands tangible action and investment in the right assets: technical infrastructure, political stability, administrative efficiency, and talent development. Only then can countries truly harness the potential of their digital-native population and emerge as global leaders in innovation and entrepreneurship.

In conclusion, the journey towards building a startup nation is fraught with challenges and complexities that cannot be solved through legislative measures alone. Passing laws without concurrently investing in infrastructure and addressing systemic issues may lead to disillusionment among entrepreneurs and the public alike. Furthermore, such actions could undermine future initiatives aimed at fostering an entrepreneurial ecosystem, perpetuating a cycle of unmet promises and missed opportunities. Therefore, policymakers must prioritize a holistic approach that encompasses infrastructure development, administrative efficiency, talent cultivation, and a supportive regulatory environment. Only then can countries truly achieve their aspirations of becoming global players in innovation and entrepreneurship.