Beyond the Aid Cliff: Dr. Julius Sindi on What Comes After the Donor Exit

The age of abundant Western aid is ending—and this time, no rebound is guaranteed. In this episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam speaks with Dr. Julius Kirimi Sindi, a systems innovator and director of the Gates Foundation–backed Catalyze Impact Initiative, about how global development must adapt before it unravels. Drawing from decades of leadership in African research and reform, Sindi argues that this funding shift isn’t just financial—it’s existential.

“We are seeing simultaneous crises,” he said. “Geopolitical tensions, climate shocks, and rising populism make aid less politically palatable.” Citing Executive Order 14169 in the U.S., UK aid cuts, and shrinking European budgets, he warned, “Unlike the past periods, today local institutions face digital competition and political issues they’ve never had to navigate before.”

Why did so few see it coming? “Old patterns are very difficult to change,” he explained. “There’s been a culture of dependence… many assumed the big donors would always be there.” Instead of preparing for blended finance and sustainability, “most defaulted to grant-writing marathons.”

Sindi believes the real test is organizational mindset. “In a VUCA world—volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous—five-year strategic plans are a suicide note,” he said. “Development organizations must decentralize, scenario-plan, and build feedback loops.” The challenge, he added, is cultural: “Most systems reward people who conform, not those who adapt.”

On alternative funding, he is both candid and cautious. Private foundations like Gates or Rockefeller “are great at providing seed funding,” he noted, “but when it comes to scaling up, they’re not good at that.” As for impact investors? “It’s a mismatch in language and mindset,” Sindi explained. “They want monetization, risk mitigation—nonprofits speak of activities and outputs, not unit costs and return on investment.”

One of his clearest lessons: financial credibility matters.

“Only 10% of donor money actually reaches local organizations,” he revealed. “We found the main problem is not visibility—it’s governance and systems. But when these organizations get certified, most reach gold or platinum level.”

His work has helped over 120 institutions earn Good Financial Grant Practice credentials.

Still, survival isn’t just about certifications. It’s also about narrative. “The biggest problem in the Global South is we do not know how to tell our stories,” he said. “When stories are told by others, there is miscommunication. There is loss in translation.”

For those feeling overwhelmed, he had one final piece of advice:

“Stop writing new proposals for 48 hours. Scan your governance, your impact, your visibility. Then build a brand that shows who you are, what you stand for—and why someone should invest in your dream.”

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

Transcript

Season 3. Episode 1: Beyond the Aid Cliff: Dr. Julius Sindi on What Comes After the Donor Exit  

This podcast is sponsored by developmentaid.org, your gateway to international tenders, grants, and the largest job database in the aid sector. Secure free registration and access funding opportunities, calls for partners, exclusive insights, and weekly News Digest. Become a member today to achieve your sustainable development goals. 

Hisham Allam: Hello everyone. You are listening to DevelopmentAid Dialogues, the podcast where we go straight to the people who are changing how aid and development work on the ground. I'm your host, Hisham Allam. Today we are asking a question that is no longer theoretical. What happens when aid runs out, when measured, donors pull back, and budgets are slashed? 

What is left for communities is still facing a daily crisis. My guest is Dr. Julius Sindi, a strategist, innovator, and outspoken voice on why the aid sector must change before it is too late. He has helped raise over 50 million for development, shared research institutions across Africa, and launched platforms that give African scholarship a stronger voice worldwide. 

His recent article, The Great Funding Shift: How to Thrive as Western Aid Dwindles, lays out a tough but practical case for what comes next. And today we are digging into what it actually means, not just for bigger institutions, but for local teams trying to stay afloat. Dr. Sindi, welcome. 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: Thank you so much Hisham Allam, and I'm happy also to be talking to you. 

Hisham Allam: Thank you. It's our pleasure. Doctor, you have described this funding drop as part of a long pattern similar to what we saw after the Cold War or during the IMF reforms of the1980, but what is different this time? What makes this moment harder to manage? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: I think I'll start by going back to some historical echo. 

After the World Cold War and during the 1980s IMF structured and structural adjustment programs, we saw a very sharp decline in aid to the third world countries or the Global South. But then there was some difference because at that particular time, there was multilateralism. Global collaboration bounded fairly quickly in a few years, but today there's a difference. 

We are seeing a simultaneous crisis. We are also seeing climate shock. We see geopolitical tensions and domestic austerities in donor countries. And then there's also, there's rising populism, which makes eight less politically palatable. For example, the US, which has been providing a very good part of global aid to the Global South. 

Foreign assistance is being cut because of the executive order, 14169, and the UK ODA has flunked from 0.7% to a lower 0.5%. And now I think there's a movement even to take it to 0.2 to 0.3%. If you look at the Dutch, they have reduced their spending on aid, although in most cases their aid is always attached to businesses. 

Scandinavian countries have also reduced; the Germans have reduced their aid by 1 billion euros. So, we find there's these challenges of geopolitical issues. And when you look at also the other countries like China, they do not give this type of aid. So, we cannot say that there's going to be changes. 

So we are only falling back into the foundations or the private sector. So, unlike the past periods. Today, local institutions face digital competition. They face political issues, which they have not been able to navigate in the past. So, without the flexibility of the old, we need to think carefully because this has changed. Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: But do you think that organizations missed the signs you have said, or did they just hope this storm would pass? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: Let me say that old patterns are very difficult to change. I mean, we say old habits, die hard. Yes, many saw the signs because the signs were there, especially post COVID. 

And I mean, the changing donor rhetoric and also few acted. There's been a culture of dependence and a fear of diversifying too fast, because if the money is available, usually in organizations, the group that wins and the group that makes a call is a group which wants to follow the pattern, which is known. They don't want to take risks. 

And if you have worked in the development world or international organization, if there's one thing international organization, fear most is risk. So, if you come up with new ideas and communicate how we should do new things, you are not almost need in that organization or even you are pushed out. 

Many assumed that the big donors will always be there. Instead of preparing for a world of blended finance and shifting values, so there was a missed opportunity. The post COVID movement should have triggered a fully alignment in state, most default to more grant writing marathons rather than the rethinking, strategic and sustainability. 

In some organization, like somewhere we're now based, we are thinking more a little bit about Blue Ocean and the systemic way of thinking so that we can be able to ride this type of a thing. And I think that is going to help. Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: Doctor, you have also talked about the need to adapt to a world that is volatile, uncertain, complex, and unpredictable. The kind of language used in business and security circles. Should developmental organizations change how they think and work at a basic level? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: Absolutely. The VUCA is not even new. That is Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity. It is a way of thinking, which requires agile and adaptive and decentralized way of thinking, which in most cases goes completely contrary to the way development organizations think, and in particular, the bigger the organization is, the more institutions it has and the processes. 

Usually, most organizations fall into creating a lot of great policies, great processes, which work when this everything is working. And because they have centralized a lot of things, a lot of the people who work in many of these organizations are not given even the opportunity to think it is a centralized way of doing things. 

You come, you fit. If you fit, you succeed. If you don't fit, you don't succeed, and in most cases, you find your way out. So, our development organizations, particularly the bigger, the bigger you are, we have created systems which are able to reward individuals and workers who conform workers, who understand systems, workers who are able to know policies, follow them to the letter. 

And make sure they can work within them. So, there isn't a scenario where you talk about what if there was volatility? You need to think outside the box. Know the organizations and the systems are not there for you to think they're there for you to follow. In terms of uncertainties, a lot of these organizations are not thought about. 

And because we also have what we call regular five-year plans. Strategic plans. Those are strategic plans, not strategically thinking about the current is thinking about five years. What if there's a volatility and changes and uncertainty is happening. How quickly can they be agile and look at these complex issues and change? 

And that's how you find, like now some of the organizations actually affected the international organization, in fact, the UN system. Because things are complex, things are policies. It is very difficult for them to be agile, adapt, and centralize thinking, because a lot of it is centralized thinking. 

So, organizations need scenario planning. They need a flexible budget. They need rapid feedback loops, and a locally crowded decision-making process. As well as rethinking this issue we have a five-year strategic plan. How can we make plans which are living, which can be changed depending on what is happening on the ground. 

Organizations need to think carefully, what works on the field, and also give opportunities for these thinkers. These flexible people. These people come with new brew ocean type of thing. In vocal world, a rigid five-year strategic plan is a note. What is needed is interactions, not perfections- is changes. 

It is things which have been given an opportunity even sometimes fail. In most organizations, failure is the death sentence of your career. So, model to learn, Africa Health's ministries that used community feedback looping during COVID managed vaccine. Better than rigid national campaigns. Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: Moving on from the point, let's talk about where the money is moving. You have mentioned that private foundations are stepping in as government pull out. Are they really covering the gap or just choosing safe, familiar projects? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: I think I want to put it to myself and I want to put it to anybody else that if this is a mixed picture, foundations like the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller, Welcome, they are great at providing what we call seed funding for ideas; things which other organizations like USAID and other like FCDO from UK would risk and put money into those type of areas where Rockefeller would put money, where Welcome would put money. But then when it comes to moving beyond that to scaling up, foundations are not good at that because first of all, the funding gap is so huge that their money is not enough, and they also prefer measurable. 

Actually mostly like biomedical health research because that is easy. It is big things. It is a big problem. Everybody can see it and if there's a solution to it can be seen and it can be attributable. Then they like tech-driven interventions. But some of these interventions, which are needed in the world currently. Are not that easy sometimes to pinpoint. They need scaling up of very small things, which are not very politically correct. Many avoid also political or capacity heavy work, like government reforms. Philanthropic giving to Africa still accounts for, by the way, less than 5% of all external development finance. 

So, there's no way government funding, which was coming through multilateral funding mechanisms is going to be covered by the private sector and foundation. Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: Doctor, here's where things got more complicated. The impact investors now move over a trillion dollars globally, but many nonprofits struggle to even get in the door. What are they getting wrong and what do these investors really want to hear? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: Thank you. That is an amazing, great question. And in fact for the research and development world, that is a million dollar, billion dollar equation or even maybe a trillion dollar equation. In my opinion , it is a mismatch of language and mindset. Investors want scale. They want revenue models. They want monetization. They want to monetize anything, any idea. And they also are very adverse risk, so they want risk mitigation. Many nonprofits will speak about impact. 

They'll speak about output, they'll speak about activities, and they're not going to talk about outcomes or return on investment. That's a language which is spoken by mainly the private sector. Increasingly, it's coming from the foundations. So, we need what we call a shift, thinking or proposal as a business case for impact. 

Show your unit cost, your user growth, your sustainability part, even if you are a rural education NGO. Also build financial dashboard impact dashboard. Basic revenue pilots, even if it is just consulting or digital training. Constant. Show you are thinking beyond grant  

Hisham Allam: Sorry for the interruption, but how, what is your advice, how to show this to the donors? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: So the first thing, you have to understand what the donors are thinking, what do they care about if they care about these things. Is that when you communicate to them, you have to start thinking about how do you communicate? I say we are moving to the point where we are going to be showing impact investment. Impact investment, showing you are going to gimme $1 and based on the activities we are going to do. We are going to have an outcome of $20, $10. That is the language they want to see. Then when you go to the website, on your website, what do you exactly show? 

Most NGOs and development will also show this. The bad cases of this is why we need your money, because there's this problem. Majority of those in impact investors, yes, they're interested in that, but they want to see, if I gave you a billion dollars, what are you going to do? I know this is a bad case, but I'll give an example. 

I think it was WFP, World Food Program was talking about the money, which is needed. In the last, I think three years ago, four years ago, they were talking about the money which they needed to raise to feed and to be able to assist the displaced under the many problem all over the world. 

And then one investor, this is Elon Musk said, show me what you have done with your 2 billion. With your 1 billion. And if I can see the impact, then I'll put my own 1 billion in it. And I think that conversation, we do not end. So that's where we are talking about we need to rethink on how do we communicate with the people who are based on, if I put money, I want to see if I put $1, I want to see $3 on the other side, over to you. 

Hisham Allam: From your experience, you have worked at all with over 120 institutions of financial certifications, right?  

Julius Kirimi Sindi: Yes, sir.  

Hisham Allam: How much does solid internal management decide whether you can access new forms of funding? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: Actually, why are we working with these organizations? Is that because we talked with the people who make decisions on where they put their money? 

And if you go traditionally. The amount of money allocated to Global South, and I'll give an example of Africa. The amount of money, which is I'm being allocated to Africa for various type of research and development is a humongous amount of money. But if you ask yourself how much of that money actually is given to local organizations or organizations with roots in those countries. 

Our research shows is usually less than 10%, and that is across the board, the former Gate Foundation. We talk about USAID, which is now, we don't know where it's going to go. Most of them is less than 10%. So then we talked with the people, make this decision that I asked them, why don't you give money to F to institutions in these countries? 

And when we look at the organizations which get money, there are only a few countries. So the situation is 90% of the money, which is supposed to be given to the organizations in the Global South, is given to organizations in the Global West. And then this organization in the Global West, 90% then have to work with this organization in the Global South. 

Usually 50% of it rarely ever goes there. So we are talking about if the out of 90%, 50%, 45% does not even come there. So we are then talking about the 45% and that 45% is what pay salaries and everything else. So you can see the actual amount of money, which comes to the Global South is very little. So we asked them, why don't you give money to these organization? 

The main problem was, first we do not even know what they do. Second, they don't have systems and processes in place to be able to manage big amount of money. And let me tell you, after working in more than 17 African countries and all over many other places, I'll tell you that is true. 

So we even Global South organizations needs to be tooled and to our processes and to show that they have the capacity to also manage the finances they are given. That's why a lot of the money goes to the Global North and then these Global North organizations works. So that is what we are trying to do. 

But the good part of it is that it is a question also perception because when we have worked with. Over 120 organizations and actually nine. We have a roster of six, 6,000 organizations whom we are trying to work with for what we call good financial grant practices. Majority of them will get certified. 

They get certified at Platinum at go. As there are four levels. There's blondes, there's silver, there's gold and platinum. Most of them are getting platinum and gold. That tells you they have the capacity, but then there is no systems to signal that their capacity or to assist them, reorganize themselves to be, to show clearly they have the capacity to adopt. 

So that lays the problem. So we train them. We also figure out a way, how do we communicate that to the main funders so that the funders can say, hey, these organizations have the capacity to do research. They have the capacity to do development, and there's somebody at that party who has looked at their systems, who have looked at their processes and can ascertain that it is true. Yes, they have that capacity. Thank you.  

Hisham Allam: Don't you think that there is always this kind of pressure to write proposals and reports in the donor's voice. How can smaller local organizations stay true to their way of working without losing credibility with the outside funders? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: That's a very good question because the revenue models of organizations to work in research and development is from donors. That's a revenue model. If you have money as a donor, whether it's government, private sector, or a foundation or whatever, whatever organization it is, you need to be sure the collaborator you are collaborating with as the mechanism and as a plan to spend any money you give it to them. So, there is no two ways that there will always be proposal writing because that is a way proposal writing is a way of that organization communicating to whoever is financing them to, I call them investor, to the investor that I have great ideas. These great ideas, I'm going to show you this type of result. 

That is the out, that is the activities. These activities will show these outcome and these outcome is going to show these impact at the end of the day. So that will always be the there is that it. So a proposal is a way of communicating the investor says, I have an interest in this area. And whoever writes the proposal says, oh, I have great ideas. I have the connection, I have the network, I have the context knowledge, and I will be able to give, if you invest in me, this is what you are going to get in done. But I think we also need to ask ourselves, do we only need the proposals where we, we are given money for a particular thing, or we also need to rethink? Do we also need money, which we call core funding, that you go to an organization and in that organization you tell them, I see you are able to do a good thing, and instead of me telling you what exactly you should do. I want to invest you with a hundred million US dollars. 

I put it into you. Think carefully on how you can also be sustainable, because that's the biggest problem. Proposal is not sustainable 'cause it's a, is what we call a trend mill where everybody has to be writing a proposal. So even if you are a researcher that already, or a development, your life is about writing the next proposal. 

Because if you don't get funded, you have no job. Then if we have this money, which is called co-funding, is given to some of these organizations, and I would say most of these organizations, they can actually ask themselves what is the biggest problem in the area I am interested in? And when they think of what is the biggest problem, then now they can design program, systems and things, which I'm going to alleviate those problems and not necessarily only react to what a donor said. This is my priority. This is what I want to work on. Please now tell me how you can work in this area and you can get this result. Now, this organization then can also now work and actually that is what might be the solution to the perpetual problem of 40 years working, or 40, 50, 60, 70 years working in the Global South, and a lot of organizations can't show results. It is because these organizations at the ground do not work on contextual problems, contextual issues. They do not even have an opportunity to co-create the solutions. 

Their proposal call is called – the donor has already thought of an investor donor, whatever it is, has already thought what they want. They have already thought that is what they needed, and then they ask somebody, now, can you respond to this? And of course, if I'm a proposal writer, I try to get into your mind. I try to understand what you need, and I tell you I can do it because I need money to keep on running. 

Hisham Allam: Yes. But many of the new players, the CSR programs, social investors, they want quick results and big numbers. Does that pressure nonprofits to look like tech startups rather than stick to deep long-term work? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: Yes. That is the issue. In English says whoever pays the piper calls the tunes. So if investors, would want quick results because they have a board or a government or somebody who is going to tell, we gave you these finances. 

What did you do with them? What result? Unfortunately, development is not quick. Congress is not quick. It's slow. It's doing the slow, but important things which get the result. And that's why we also have some nice models. We have some nice models. Which actually started in Kenya. 

We have an organization raised funds, has been going to rural areas. You mean Kiva? Yes, it is. That's they take money to rural areas. They identify a place, and they just give money. And research has shown very clearly when you give money to these household, great things happen because now you are giving them urgently. You are telling them - you have problems. I give you money. And you make your priorities, you solve your priorities. 

In fact, in research before. Theoretically, the hypothesis was that when you give money to some of these households, they will use them in things like beer or other things which are not as useful. But I think research is showing it's completely different that when you give these families, once you start solving the core problems of agency, they start having the freedom to think and freedom to solve their own problem that is at household level. 

Now, that can also be carried on back into institutions, whether they're big organizations or small organizations or local organizations. You give them an opportunity for them to ask what really matters? What are we here for? How can we use the resources to solve this problem, but also to create some sustainability so that we move out of these, what we call trend mill. 

Of always writing the next proposal, always writing the next proposal without asking ourselves, and actually in my life at the moment, because I have enough experience to say, a lot of the projects are two year, one year, two year, three year project, very few actually even go back to fund the same thing twice or three times to find sustainability. 

By the time you start solving the problem you utilize all the lessons you learned to now implement that. So you need maybe another three years or another five years, for you actually to show result. 

But very few money at the moment ever comes with that type of time horizon. So organizations have become like politics. We are politician then as five years or four years, or maximum seven years, and they have to show by the time they land, the politics time is up and they need another election. So how are they going to have a show result? 

That's the same thing with projects and programs in the Global South. By the time you are about to show result, you have to write a report, and you have to fundraise for the next one. Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: This is a nice metaphor. On a related note, I'd like to ask you about crowdfunding platforms like Kiva and global giving that sounds promising, but in places without a strong digital access, is it realistic or are these tools still geared towards the peer connected groups? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: I think that's a very good question in the current times. What I'll say actually is that the connectivity in the land world is better than people in who live in the first world ever think of the Global South. 

So, there is a lot of connectivity going on, so that's not a problem. So digital inequality is not real as you think. But also, there's some reality in knowledge, actually more is about knowledge. So, we can then talk about hybrid models, actually managing where local campaigns are boasted through some diabo led fundraising work as well. 

So I'll give K case in point in total in Global South. The global transfer of money from the first world, which is called limit is bigger than all the funding, whichever goes to these Global South. So because these people work in the Global North, are able to transform huge sums of money to their Global South countries. 

So the models are there. Now the question is, the inequality comes in information. Who has what information about what opportunity. And apparently that one sometimes is mainly people who come from the global north, who work in the Global South are the ones who have the networks and the connectivity and the knowledge, and also the trust to be able to utilize some of these platform. 

Because even if you utilize platform, nothing changed connections, nothing changed networks, money flows to individuals and to networks people trust. Not necessarily even to ideas. So all these things are great, but we need also to remove that ceiling if funding has to come, it normally goes to individuals who come from the Global North, who work in the Global South. 

Hisham Allam: Speaking about impact, do you believe that the future of aid is moving toward business style models where survival depends on having both impact and revenue plan? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: I don't believe that, unfortunately. Because a lot of the things which need impact, which have social impact at the beginning, always have a long lack in terms of investing without actually seeing real results and seeing real impact. 

I'll give you very quickly an example of education. If you have to invest in education or even in health sector. You cannot say that I want to see result immediately. That takes a lot of years of investing in education or in health policies, in health issues. Then 10 years, 20 years after years, you see the result of the investment. 

So, the model we are talking about, like business cannot be realistic if we are to talk about redevelopment and we have case studies. If you go to Singapore. If you go to even China, then development we see today is a process of a lot of training, a lot of education, which has been done over the last 30 years. 

But now as we see the result, that is where the problem is. So there is will not be a place for impact investing. There's a place for private sector, but there's also a place for these long lack investment, which are needed, which you cannot see impact at the beginning. So we need both, and that's why government investment from the Global North also have to be sure that they cannot ask for the same result that a private sector is going to ask. 

But I will put a line there. The countries also in the Global South have something to do because a lot of the money spent by these countries in the Global South, they spend on things which are completely not necessary and they disregard what they should be spending on their own population, on their own long-term goal and long-term benefit. 

And it is because they have always thought and knew we will get funding from the Global North. Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: Dr. Sindy, you have helped introduce nearly 30 climate resilient crops across Africa. Have non-government funders shown more patients and interest in packing long-term ideas like this. 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: Thank you. That's really a good question, and I think it's a great segue or a great movement from what we are talking about. If you talk about development of a product, like agricultural product, like plants, food crops, if you have to develop a product in the past, a case like banana, and it takes 20 years and above to produce one variety. 

It takes 15 years for cassava. These things have a long term, so a lot of the government, yes, they spend money. Let me say this. Whenever you see results, whether it is a product like an agricultural variety of bean variety, maize variety, wheat variety, it takes investment from donors who can be different donors, like one of the donor actually want to say has done an amazing job in the Global South. 

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation because in the nineties when everybody stopped funding that area, they took it up and revitalized the funding of local varieties for local condition. Before the model was, do somewhere, some research somewhere in the North Carolina or whatever it is, and bring those varieties never worked. 

So now there was investment by these donors. Who would invest in the same GIR system and other national research institutions, and then they would collaborate a lot of the research would be done by the CGIR. This CGIR would then partner with a local national research systems and these local national research system then would take the technology which has been developed by the CGIR and then they would localize it and then are able to get varieties of products, which are for specific need. The greatest part of it is that also now we have new technologies. We have biomarkers. These are new breeding systems which have changed, which make now something which used to take 10 years to breed. 

Now you can bring something in five years, which is amazing, and now when the AI is coming. AI might actually even solve that problem that maybe you can be able, instead of taking even the five years, which the gene marker assisted breeding is solving now we, we bring the AI, maybe we might even shorten it to another two years, but then the whole process, bureaucracy of testing and all that also must change to ensure that we get product to the local. So government invests. Whether actually they're doing any, they're doing much knowing that they're investing because we have all these government funded research institutions and they're scientists, workers, everybody farms, and anything which are always funded by the government. 

So let me say Global South also invest a lot in this area. So even when I worked and assisted in the release of more than 30 varieties, which is a lot for anybody to do. It means that there was a lot of systems in place, both from funders, USAID, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that time, and others, even UK at that time brought together a lot of finances, a lot of systems in place to ensure these works. 

And also, the governments in these countries assisted. Now, I think the kicker is, this is where the problem is. We have a lot of new products in Africa, whether it's a particular agricultural product, sitting in shelves or in greenhouses in the African Research Institute, which are not taken to the market or taken to the next users who are the farmers, and that means they cannot help the farmers because the system was not set for scaling up. 

So, we need now systems and government and funders to be able to fund what is the next step? Africa Development Bank brought another program called TAT and that TAT was something which was supposed to bridge that gap. How do we get these products and a bundle of interventions to make sure that we have an impact particularly in Africa? But I don't think it has done as well as it should, but it's a great way forward. And that is also what the CGI are doing at the moment, so I can say true. There's a lot of things being done. There's a lot of credibility, but I think the part which is missing at the moment is the connection between all that great work with the private sector who can scale up, and also the government who have also the means to scale up. Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: The crucial question that comes in my mind now is about the small teams working in tough places, underfunded, maybe off the radar. How can they even get started in this new funding world without being drone-out? 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: I really like your idea. That's a great idea. How can small teams without a lot of resources, also get it done. Actually, my answer is that we are in a golden opportunity. 

In the old times you needn't for you to be known for your work to be seen. You needn't funding. And after funding, that will give you the budget to do the work. And after doing that work, you needed also a very big team of communication. People who can showcase your work, communicate to donors, and write. Yes, that needs a whole big mechanism, which only big organization could do. 

But in today's life, we have social media. Everybody has a computer almost in the group of south. Everybody has access to social media, YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn, Facebook. So what is required is these small groups to have a mechanism to tap into trainings on how do you write a good proposal. 

How do you communicate your work and your innovations and your impact to who needs to listen so that they can give you the funds to continue making the great impact you are making on the ground, so they have more opportunity to do that than they aren't before. 'cause they are the technology. When we also go to what we call the AI time now, which is coming, it means even communicating, being able to craft great communication, great output and tailor it to the various donors or the various stakeholder is much easier than before. 

Because in the old time, researchers who do their work as researchers. Create what they need to do, but for them to communicate, they wrote their peer reviewed journals. They wrote their articles on the peer reviewed journals, and then with the hope that somebody is going to read that article today, that model changed. 

Even now when you are a researcher, you are a great scientist. After writing your great paper, you need to figure a way how do you turn that paper into things which can be communicated on YouTube, on LinkedIn and the various models for the stakeholders to see. Now we are getting to a point where almost everybody's at that level. 

You can leverage the technology and be able to communicate almost at par with an expert communicator, expert policy engagement, and a communicator in a big organization. The question is, do they have the knowledge on how to utilize these tools? Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: Finally. If someone is listening today, running an organization and panicking about next year's budget, was it the first real step they should take after hearing this conversation. 

Julius Kirimi Sindi: I'll tell you the first thing I'll say, stop writing new proposal for the next 48 hours or the next week two. Readiness can. Is your governance clear? Is your mission sharp? Is your financial tracking working? Are you having results and are your result visible? Then ask themselves, who are your stakeholders? 

Whom do you want to communicate? Who do you want to know what you're doing? Do a scan on that area also and ask yourself, do you want to play always in the red ocean? Or you also want to figure out about the blue ocean if you want to survive. You may need to mix some red ocean. That is a area where everybody's swimming and fighting and cutthroat to the areas where you think you can also be innovative. 

Then figure out how do you reach out? How do you join a consortium? Because the days of working alone as organizations and as individuals, as scientists is over. Then how do you showcase your impact, your services? How do you engage all the stakeholders? How do you engage your alumni diaspora, the old partners and the new coming partners? 

How do you leverage what you already have before even chasing what is very far the last one? What do people know about you? What is your blood? Can you be able to ask yourself, what do I stand for? And once you do that, then you can create and craft a blood which communicate about what you are, and then you are going to attract investors and the partners who are willing to invest on your dream. 

On what you stand for and be able to showcase that. Because the biggest problem in the Global South is we do not know how to tell our stories. So our stories are told by others, and when stories are told by others, there could be some miscommunication. There also could be some laws in translation. Learn to showcase, learn to tell your stories. Thank you. 

Hisham Allam: Your perspective is inspiring, sharp, timely, and clear. You have made one thing obvious. This is not just about budgets, it's about mindset. It's about changing the way we look at value, partnership, and the future of aid itself. For our listeners, the traditional aid structure is shifting fast. 

Waiting for the old ways to return is not a strategy. Whether you are running a nonprofit, a social enterprise, or a community program, this is the moment to think differently. I'm Hisham Allam signing off, and this is DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Join me next time for another real-world conversation with the people behind the headlines and the future they are trying to build. 

If you think this conversation matters, spread it within your circle. Stay engaged. Stay tuned. Goodbye.