As Tanzania strives to achieve its sustainable development and climate adaptation goals, its efforts are undermined by a persistent challenge: siloism. This fragmentation between sectors, stakeholders, and policies creates inefficiencies and limits the country’s ability to tackle systemic challenges such as waste management, resource scarcity, and climate change. Despite global and regional commitments, Tanzania’s circular economy and climate adaptation efforts remain fragmented, falling short of their transformative potential. Siloism means the tendency of institutions, organizations, sectors, or stakeholders operating in isolation, without sufficient integration or collaboration. In Tanzania, this manifests as weak linkages between various stakeholders including government agencies, the private sector, development organizations, and community initiatives. The lack of coordination leads to duplication of] efforts, inefficient resource allocation, and the absence of a cohesive strategy. For example, while the Ministry of Environment under the Office of the Vice President champions policies on sustainability, climate resilience, and now circular economy (read waste management), the Ministry of Agriculture focuses on irrigation and climate-resilient farming. The Ministry of Energy emphasizes increasing the renewable energy share in the national energy mix, but these agendas have limited integration under a unified framework. As a result, circular economy opportunities for cross-sectoral synergies—such as converting agricultural waste into bioenergy or integrating water hyacinth removal (from Lake Victoria and L. Tanganyika) with energy generation—are often missed. Circular Economy: A Fragmented Approach Tanzania has significant potential for a thriving circular economy, but siloism has constrained its progress. First and foremost, agricultural waste is limitedly utilized. The country produces an estimated 18 million tons of crop residues annually, much of which is burned or left to decompose, releasing methane and contributing to air pollution (GHG emissions). Initiatives to turn this waste into compost or bioenergy remain small-scale and localized. The missing middle lies in the absence of policies and infrastructure to connect agricultural cooperatives with energy developers and markets for organic fertilizers. Secondly, there are erratic plastic waste management efforts. Despite Tanzania generating approximately 315,000 tons of plastic waste annually, only 12% is recycled. While NGOs like Nipe Fagio and startups like Green WastePro, Ecoact, Arena Recycling, and Zaidi Recyclers have pioneered recycling initiatives, their impact is limited by weak integration with municipal waste management systems and the lack of strong extended producer responsibility (EPR) frameworks. Thirdly, there is limited removal and reuse of water hyacinths. Lake Victoria and Lake Tanganyika face significant challenges from water hyacinth infestations, which harm biodiversity and fisheries. Efforts to harvest and repurpose the plant into bioenergy or compost are largely uncoordinated, with minimal private sector involvement due to unclear regulatory and financial incentives. Climate Adaptation: Missing the Systems Approach Tanzania’s vulnerability to climate change is evident, with extreme weather events like prolonged droughts and floods threatening food security, water availability, and livelihoods. While various climate adaptation initiatives greatly led by INGOs exist, they often operate in silos, reducing their effectiveness. For instance, a systems approach would integrate agriculture and water resources management. The agricultural sector employs over 65% of the population and contributes about 26% of the country’s GDP. However, only 1.6% of arable land is irrigated. Projects that promote climate-smart agriculture often fail to integrate with water resource management efforts, resulting in limited access to irrigation infrastructure. For example, while climate-resilient seed programs have been promoted by the Tanzania Agricultural Research Institute (TARI), they are not paired with investments in water storage or irrigation networks, leaving farmers exposed to rainfall variability. Furthermore, despite the government's commitment to expanding renewable energy, particularly for cooking, Tanzania’s electrification rate in rural areas remains below 60%. Biomass constitutes over 85% of the cooking and lighting energy mix (even in big cities like Dar Es Salaam), largely from unsustainable wood fuel. Circular economy principles could bridge this gap by converting agricultural and municipal waste into clean energy, but siloed policies and insufficient private sector engagement hinder the scaling of such initiatives. Lastly, like the proverbial gift that keeps on giving, Tanzania has poor urban resilience and informal settlements. Over 70% of urban Tanzanians live in informal settlements that are particularly vulnerable to climate impacts like flooding. Climate adaptation funds often focus on infrastructure development without integrating community-based resilience efforts or addressing waste management challenges in these areas. Major Gaps  Resource Waste: Tanzania generates over 12 million tonnes of solid waste annually, with collection rates in urban areas below 40%. Without effective waste recovery systems, this waste represents a lost economic opportunity of over $150 million annually in materials and energy potential.  Agricultural Productivity: Climate change has reduced maize yields by 26% in some regions due to drought and erratic rainfall, yet less than 5% of farmers use climate-smart practices such as agroforestry or organic composting.  Funding Gaps: Tanzania requires $500 million annually for climate adaptation but has accessed only $150 million through international funds since 2020, largely due to weak inter-agency coordination and fragmented proposals. Overcoming Siloism: A Path Forward To address siloism and unlock the full potential of circular economy and climate adaptation efforts, Tanzania must prioritize systemic approaches like integrating policy frameworks. This can be done by establishing cross-sectoral committees and task forces to align efforts across ministries and stakeholders. For example, a joint initiative between the Ministry of Agriculture, Energy, and Environment could foster bioenergy projects that utilize agricultural residues. Secondly, the government in partnership with other actors can develop blended financing models for collaboration that incentivize cross-sectoral projects. Climate funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) could be leveraged to support integrated initiatives, such as linking sustainable agriculture with renewable energy and waste recovery. This would scale the efforts of other stakeholders like CRDB Bank that have already accessed GCF financing. Siloism can also be overcome by promoting partnerships between the government, private sector, and NGOs to scale innovative circular economy models. For example, water hyacinth removal could be commercialized by engaging private companies in bioenergy production or plastic recycling could be incentivized, and municipals partner with private companies to map plastic generation streams, collections, and hotspots and identify drivers and barriers. This would make plastic waste data readily available at municipal levels thereby enhancing waste management efforts. Also, establishing centralized platforms for data sharing to improve coordination and track progress would greatly reduce siloism. The current practice is that every agency or stakeholder feels that data is theirs to keep and should remain private. Integrated databases could connect waste generators with informal waste pickers, and recyclers or map climate risks across sectors to optimize interventions. Lastly, NGOs, government, and other stakeholders should prioritize community-centric solutions by ensuring that grassroots actors, including cooperatives and informal waste collectors, are included in decision-making processes. Empowering local communities with financial and technical resources can foster ownership and sustainability. As I conclude, Tanzania’s circular economy and climate adaptation efforts are held back by the lack of integration across sectors and stakeholders. Breaking down silos and adopting systemic approaches are essential to realizing the full potential of these initiatives. By fostering collaboration, scaling innovative solutions, and aligning policies, Tanzania can overcome the “missing middle” and build a resilient, inclusive, and sustainable future.