Futures to Action Worksheet

TOOL GUIDE VERSION 1.1 Futures to Action Worksheet Turn a desired future into a pathway you can question and revise. For strategy teams, businesses, public institutions and community groups. Allow 75-120 minutes, then review as evidence changes. The decision this helps you make A desired future condition, the milestones it would require, two uncertainty checks and a first action with an owner and a review trigger. 01 Describe a future worth working towards Agree a place, people, decision and future date. Describe what should become possible and how people would recognise progress. A desired future is an intention, not a prediction. 02 Work backwards through necessary conditions Begin at the future end of the pathway, then ask what would need to hold earlier. Distinguish conditions from activities; name dependencies and who can influence them. 03 Challenge the pathway with uncertainty Explore at least two plausible changes, including one that challenges the preferred solution. Record what stays useful, what must change and the signal that would prompt action. 04 Commit to a first step and a review Choose a bounded action for the next 90 days. Agree resources, evidence, a decision rule and an owner. Keep alternative views; reopen the pathway when a condition or assumption changes. A pathway is a hypothesis about change. Backcasting can reveal dependencies; it cannot guarantee that an activity will produce a future. Keep options open where evidence is weak, including an option that avoids the proposed infrastructure. Check whether current needs, capabilities and rights support the direction. Page 2 is the A3 landscape worksheet; page 4 shows the fictional irrigation pathway. Read the shared case on page 3 and review notes on page 5. Type brief notes or print at A3. Save and reopen to check entries; keep supporting evidence separately. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 1

FILLABLE FUTURES PATHWAY VERSION 1.1 Futures to Action Worksheet Turn a desired future into a pathway you can question and revise. Decision and scope Place and period People and date Desired future and evidence of progress What should become possible, for whom and by when? How would people recognise progress? WORK BACKWARDS FROM THE RIGHT / act from the left; describe conditions, dependencies and who can influence them. First 90 days What must we understand, compare or agree first? Before wider commitment Which conditions must hold before a larger investment? Who influences them? Desired future conditions What should hold at the future date? Which dependencies remain outside the team's control? Plausible change / assumption Effect on the pathway Keep, change or prepare Signal and evidence to watch First action / next 90 days Resources and decision rule Owner and dependencies Review date and triggers Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 2

SHARED FICTIONAL TEACHING CASE VERSION 1.1 Solar irrigation as a service What would need to hold for better farm livelihoods and soil-water care by 2030? A design exercise, not a reported project. A fictional teaching venture. All participants, prices, volumes, costs and test thresholds are invented. No field results or Refuture project are represented. The proposed venture Twenty neighbouring growers each cultivate a quarter-acre vegetable plot: five acres in total. The proposed service uses an existing shared water source in an unnamed Kenyan farming area. Access rights, available water and system capacity still need checking. Growers pay for metered supplementary irrigation delivered to their plots, rather than buying a pump. The proposed operator supplies the equipment, scheduling, operation and maintenance. Growers continue to choose and manage their crops, with agreed crop-water advice. The value and the design tension The commercial proposition is better crop quality, more reliable production and improved crop margins after fees. Stronger soil health and local capability are longer-term intentions that require deliberate practice and separate evidence. A fee for each cubic metre makes the service simple to explain, but can reward selling more water. A viable enterprise must work inside an agreed water budget. If the price or funding model requires over-pumping, redesign the model. Use this tool at this stage Use this worksheet to connect a future ambition with present choices. The worked pathway is deliberately conditional: water rights and source limits, customer value, operating capability and full costs must be examined before expansion. It retains a soil-water-care and scheduling option without new pumping. No milestone has been achieved. Water rights, source capacity, operating conditions, participation and finance are unconfirmed. A committee cannot grant statutory rights or override other users. No paid trial should start before the relevant conditions and responsibilities are agreed. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 3

WORKED PATHWAY VERSION 1.1 Futures to Action Worksheet Fictional irrigation service / desired conditions, not a forecast or an achieved plan. Decision and scope Solar irrigation service / pre-trial decision Place and period 20 plots + shared source / confirm boundary People and date Proposed team / agree dates Desired future and evidence of progress Desired by 2030, not a forecast: growers can improve crop quality, reliable production and net crop margins, while local people can operate and adapt the service and care for soil-water functions. Judge progress through consented margin records, source conditions, soil measures, access and demonstrated capability over seasons. WORK BACKWARDS FROM THE RIGHT / act from the left; describe conditions, dependencies and who can influence them. First 90 days Source rights, seasonal limits, farmer priorities and current crop margins investigated. Compare irrigation with soil-water care and scheduling. Roles, pause authority and a costed learning trial agreed only if critical conditions can be met. Before wider commitment One complete crop-cycle test and next-cycle purchase decision reviewed. Customer-value rule, water and safety conditions met; full costs, finance and seasonal cash needs examined. Local operator demonstrates upkeep and escalation; no expansion on assumed demand alone. Desired conditions / 2030 Farmers influence service terms, source limits hold and the model funds reliable operation and replacement. Evidence shows whether crop margins, soil-water functions and local capability improve. Market terms, rainfall and upstream users remain wider dependencies. Plausible change / assumption Effect on the pathway Keep, change or prepare Signal and evidence to watch Seasonal source availability is lower or access conditions tighten The planned irrigation volume may be unavailable; a safe trial or service could be infeasible Retain local enquiry and soil-water care. Reduce or pause pumping; reconsider the offer and capital plan Agreed source monitoring, authority conditions and other users' access; act before a limit is breached Paid demand is 40% lower: 12 rather than 20 growers At assumed volume/price, four-week revenue KES 48,000; variable KES 12,000 + fixed KES 40,000 gives KES 4,000 shortfall before finance/tax/capital recovery Phase commitments; compare a capped offer and seasonal costs. Do not sell extra water to close the gap Actual paid use, repeat purchase, crop margins and full seasonal cash needs; demand assumption remains untested First action / next 90 days Agree source assessment, farmer enquiry and an options comparison before a paid trial. Resources and decision rule Confirm rights/limits, roles and a capped learning budget. Pre-agree customer-value and safety rules before testing. Owner and dependencies Proposed trial lead with growers, other users and advisers; relevant authority retains its mandate. Review date and triggers Within 90 days of an agreed start, and sooner if rights, source risk, demand or harm changes the pathway. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 4

REVIEW, EVIDENCE AND USE VERSION 1.1 What changes the decision? Keep evidence, uncertainty and responsibility visible. Use consistent units and time periods In this case, KES 50/m³ and 80 m³/grower per four weeks are invented budget assumptions. They are not a crop-water recommendation or a crop-cycle duration. The 20-grower model and a 10-grower learning trial answer different questions. Keep learning rules and futures distinct The illustrative crop-cycle trial tests at least 10% median paired crop-margin gain after all costs/fees AND 8/10 paying again, with water and safety limits met. Use positive comparison margins or pre-agree an absolute KES gain. Passing one trial does not demonstrate the desired 2030 future or long-term regeneration. Sources and attribution Futures methods UK Government Office for Science, Futures Toolkit and associated worksheets (2024): visioning, backcasting, stress-testing and roadmapping. Refuture uses original wording and layout. Original source online Research connection Isaac Jumba (2026), Designing for Regeneration: A Venture Studio Model to Build Regenerative Ventures in Africa, appendices I and X: potential, place and capability building over time. Irrigation context FAO (12 April 2018), Positive prospects for solar-powered irrigation systems. The sector guidance explains opportunities and risks, including unsustainable water withdrawal. It does not validate this invented case or its figures. Original source online Original Refuture Africa wording and layout. Use in projects and workshops with attribution; retain the version and source notes. Third-party works retain their own terms. Feedback: refutureafrica.com/resources. Imagine otherwise. Build differently. Refuture Africa | Version 1.1 | 20 October 2026 5