YPARD - Young Professionals' Platform for Agricultural Research for Development

First of all I would like to thank the FANRPAN to create such platform to make our voice heard...:)

As for the Mauritian Case Study, it has been clearly highlighted that youths are not consulted in any decision making process related to agriculture. As a result policy makers do not know what youths are really expecting in terms of schemes and projects that can be done for them.

It can also be observed that there is no really such agricultural schemes  that have been developed for youngsters to participate in. Consequently, youth are often discouraged and relunctant to enter the sector. policy makers should therefore develop incentives and interesting schemes for youths so that they are attracted in engaging themselves in agriculture.

Let me start by commending the detailed report from Mauritius. It's author exhibits a grasp of the issues. Perhaps, one of the reasons is that Mauritius, as a country and government, has a good record keeping habit, unlike is the case with many other countries in SSA. Or could it that the author's speciality and rigorousness in research influenced the high amount of empirical data? It could be due to all of the above. However, before I delve into the topic of this week, I would like to point out the surprising revelations from the report, which in summary, contradict findings from elsewhere in SSA. Such findings like (1) there is no clear-cut difference between urban and rural youths and that youths in rural areas are as successful as those in urban areas (2) That youths strongly disagreed that agriculture is not a field for residual youths (3) Neutrality in responses related to ease of agricultural jobs, agriculture being a low income generation sector, not much job prospects in agriculture, enthusiasm of youths to make a career in agriculture, many incentives provided for youths in agriculture (4) Agriculture is mainly practiced for leisure. For points 1, 2 and 4, I say to Mauritius congratulations as the better political leadership and attendant improved standard of living could have influenced these reponses. However, I am uncomfortable with the high level of indecisiveness recorded for issues listed in point 3 above. From my opinion, I think the framing of the questions and the options available for the respondents must have been faulty. The reason is that from the report, it is stated that the results from focus group discussion with students of agriculture as well as secondary data from govt and NGOs was used to craft the questionnaires. This could be the source of the problem. The level of understanding by youths studying agriculture is certainly different from those not studying agric. Since the majority of young respondents were not students, non student youths should equally have formed the basis for the FGD and target interviews whose results were used to darft the questionnaires. Also, the questinnaires should have been first tested on them before the final administration so as to discover this type of problem. However, it should be noted that neutrality may not necessarily mean that the respondents knew nothing about the questions posed. It could be that the respondent could be saying in his mind "it depends on what you mean as well as the context of the question!" and since more explanation is not offered in structured surveys they would not want to commit themselves to what they are not too sure. Therefore, they choose to be neutral. It shows that neutrality as an option should have been defined in the short introductory note to the questionnaire. In addition, it is not ideal to accept the second highest score as the predominant opinion. Neutral is still the highest and should be reported as such in order not to be biased in the analysis of the results.

Now to the issue for this week. From the report, especially in policies outside the youth policy, the mention of youths in agriculture is at best cursory and worst nil. However, opportunities exist for youths to tap from the available policies even if they were not specifically made for them. That is good observation. In addition, youths should be let to know that if they do not say here they are, nobody will know that there they are. Therefore, since the AYCs in Mauritius are strong, they could be made to take up the gaunlet for the inclusion of the youth's voice in policies during the drafting stage. This is because the drafting of policies is the beginning of the fight by youths to claim what is their right from the National, regional/state and local governments of our various countries. It means that governance and advocacy as integral parts of Youth in Agriculture should be taken more seriuosly by youths and their organizations and representatives. If that is done, then a good foundation for good and favourable Youth in Agriculture blueprint must have been laid. Also, civil society has to step in to give direction and support on this issue.

In addition, the weakness in collaboration among the government ministries concerned with youths (Agriculture & Youth Development) has somehow affected the imposition of youth agenda to policy. The youth organizations and civil society should also, with one voice and determination, work towards facilitating the linkage of these key and strategic ministries. In all, the situation where Youth in Agriculture policy is orphaned and left in the cold by the key policy ministries can only be rectified by the Ministries under the motivation by youth organizations and civil society. Thank you all for tolerating my long writing.

Thanks to you YPARD & Nawsheen for work you are doing in the field of mainstreaming youth development in the agrcultural sector. Please keep up the good work!

You may want to note that Review Results accross partcipating countries point to a harsh reality that youth seems to be neglected in policy making and implementation processes, and that where they are involved, it is often for satiesfying performance requirements than to inspire confidence hence almost all attempts fail to capture the aspirations and special needs for different categories of youth, leading to poor support (tangible & hand-holding mentorship), monitoring, evaluation, montoring and impact assessment. This is made worse by a culture of impunity in public service, in other words we observe that there are no immidiate consequences for officials who either fail to execute public mandate or divert public resources for personal gains i.e. crooks. However we see a renewed vigour and energy with which Africans are committing and ready to practice good governance and accountability through initiatives such as NEPAD and its sub-programme CAADP.  The 2012 8th CAAD Partnership Platform Meeting called for Youth Mainstreaming in agriculture: www.fanrpan.org/documents/d01323/ and ictsd.org/i/news/bridges-africa/132713/

The South African Report therefore highlights current policies and their limitations/gaps in mainstreaming youth across agricultural value chain. What is noteworthy about SA country case study is the enactment of National Youth Development Act which requires in the same way as the African Youth Charter does, that youth developmeent must be mainstreamed in all economic sectors. This remain an escaping reality despite constitutional and policy obligations to do so. Without a clear policy, strategy and programmes, it may be a bit difficult to change prevailing youth perceptions regarding agriculture in a coordinated manner. 

The point being made here is that understanding youth 's needs and aspirations a good ingredient for mainstreaming youth in the agricultural value chain and policy remain the best known driving tool for positive societal change such as youth being supported to grab opportunities across the value chain belt that Nawsheen touched on here above. We don't see specific policies and programmes encouraging youth to study agricultural engeenering for example and many exciting careers across value chain, instead we see decline in enrolment despite the fact that agriculture as a descipline is offered at an advanced variety levels of modern food science in South African Universities. For more refer SA Country Report in the provided link by YPARD.

By Obert Mathivha @Agripreneur

Please Find the Mauritius Case Study on this Link: Mauritius Case Study

Kindly go through page 39-48 for the Chapter on Youth and Agriculture under current National and other policies and initiatives assessed.

All current policies are described in detail.

The main observations are that there are no specific programmes or schemes that have been designed for “Youth in Agriculture”.  However, there are opportunities in Agriculture which they can grab (horticulture, fruit production, livestock production, cross-border initiatives, hydroponics, agro-processing, value-addition etc.) and they can also benefit from the incentives being provided through the Food Security Fund. In addition, opportunities for youth in Agriculture that are highlighted in the National Youth Policy are: setting up of Agri-business or Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), get involved in youth clubs and attend training on Agricultural production and entrepreneurship.

What are your views on these policies? Is the case similar in your country/region? Do you have comments or suggestions to make on the Mauritius case study?

Please share your opinions.