PPWNov13- Day 2 am- M.Mapila- IFPRI

  • 113 views
Uploaded on

Day 2- am session: “Agricultural policy processes and the youth in Southern Africa – the case of Malawi,” Mariam Mapila, IFPRI-Malawi …

Day 2- am session: “Agricultural policy processes and the youth in Southern Africa – the case of Malawi,” Mariam Mapila, IFPRI-Malawi

Workshop on Approaches and Methods for Policy Process Research, co-sponsored by the CGIAR Research Programs on Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM) and Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) at IFPRI-Washington DC, November 18-20, 2013.

More in: Spiritual , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
113
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Agricultural policy processes and the youth in Southern Africa – the case of Malawi Mariam A.T.J. Mapila Malawi Strategy Support program PIM Policy Processes Workshop, 19th November, 2013 INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • 2. Introduction Countries with youngest population % of population <15 years 2011 2013 Niger 48.9 Niger 50 Uganda 48.3 Uganda 49 Mali 47.6 Chad 49 Angola 47.3 Mali 48 Zambia 45.5 Somalia 48 Burundi 46.3 Angola 48 DR Congo 46.0 Zambia 47 Mozambique 45.3 Burkina Faso 46 Burkina Faso 45.2 Malawi/Gambia 46 Malawi (2011) – 45% of population below 15 years of age. Source: Population Reference Bureau – World Population Fact Sheets (2011, 2013)
  • 3. Introduction (Con’t)  65 % of the total population in the region being employed in agricultural sector.  Youth will thus spend most of their lives in the agriculture sector.  Evidence of youth disillusionment with and disinterest in agricultural-based livelihoods raises concern for the future of the sector.
  • 4. Study objectives  To develop a contextual understanding of the level of engagement of youth in agriculture using Malawi as a case study: i) Analyze the barriers and enabling factors that determine youth engagement in agricultural policy processes from both the supply and demand side. ii) Assess the nature of networking and interactions between youth and agricultural policy makers.
  • 5. Study conceptual framework Government Government Youth Youth Policy Information Consultation Partnership Source: Adapted from OECD (2001) Youth Government
  • 6. Tools and methods  Primary data • Factors hindering youth engagement in agricultural policy processes. • The level and depth of interactions between youth advocates and policy makers.  Secondary data - community-level involvement of youth in policy processes.  Nationally representative 2010/11 Integrated Household Survey (IHS-3) data for Malawi.
  • 7. Tools and methods (con’t)  Social Network Analysis - depth and direction of interactions between youth advocates and agricultural policy makers.  Policymakers – Agricultural and Youth sector (national & local), National Youth Council.  Youth organizations – national & local level • Registered with and recognized by government • Mandated to work towards promoting the needs of the youth in agriculture.
  • 8. Study findings INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • 9. Network analysis Reach BetweenPairs Density Efficiency Broker ness Size Ties Ministry of Youth, Sports, and Culture 12 44 132 33.33 17.24 44.00 17.50 Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security 10 30 90 33.33 20.27 30.00 32.67 3 3 6 50.00 52.17 1.50 0.50 12 46 132 34.55 17.24 43.00 17.50 Farmers Forum for Trade and Social Justice 9 25 72 34.72 22.06 23.50 33.17 Foundation for Irrigation and Sustainable Development 5 12 20 60.00 27.66 4.00 1.50 Youth Empowerment and Civic Education 7 19 42 45.24 22.03 11.50 12.00 Organization for Sustainable Socio-Economic Development Initiative 3 4 6 66.67 38.24 1.00 0.00 Youth Watch Society 5 10 20 50.00 27.91 5.00 0.00 Network for Youth Development 6 18 30 60.00 25.86 6.00 5.00 Lilongwe Youth Urban Network 6 18 30 60.00 25.86 6.00 9.17 Center for Youth and Children Affairs 6 16 30 53.33 23.21 7.00 9.33 Counseling of Adolescents and Youth Organization Other organizations 8 27 56 48.21 21.74 14.50 4.42 10 39 90 43.33 18.52 25.50 6.33 Trade Line Corporation 2 2 2 100.00 81.82 0.00 0.00 Community Finance 2 2 2 100.00 81.82 0.00 0.00 Government ministries/departments Ministry of Irrigation Lilongwe District Youth Office Youth organizations National Youth Council of Malawi Source: author calculations generated from UCINET – a software package used for Social Network Analysis. • District Youth office - stronger ties with primary contacts compared to Min. of Youth. • National Youth Council - stronger ties to primary connections compared to MoAFS. • Both the District Youth Office and the Ministry of Youth have very high broker measures – hence key in the exchange of information and knowledge with the youth
  • 10. Network analysis (con’t)  The Ministries sampled have relatively perceived weaker ties when compared to the district level youth office and the National Youth Council.  General consensus - bureaucracy and hierarchical systems limit youth interactions with the government departments.  National level government systems create bottlenecks that hinder access by youth to information, other resources & personnel.
  • 11. Factors hindering youth networking  Lack of awareness of policy processes.  Lack of appropriate support mechanisms and government initiatives to engage the youth.  Inability of the youth to articulate their ideas and inadequate financial resources to participate.  Negative youth attitudes towards farming.  Culture of ‘respect by silence’.
  • 12. Depth of interactions • Very few direct connections between youth organizations. • Existing indirect connections are weak with long ‘distances’ between youth organizations.
  • 13. Depth of interactions (con’t)  Lack of direct connectedness between youth leads to: • Lack of knowledge of other youth (initiatives) in the sector. • Inability of the youth to organize themselves to advocate as a single entity – hence advocacy efforts are weak. • Mistrust and secretiveness due to competition for scarce resources from a limited pool of public and private funds.
  • 14. Finally…  Youth remain on the periphery of the agricultural policy making network.  Youth’s role in shaping policy dialogue is negligible.  This is due to: • Lack of deliberate efforts by policymakers to engage youth in agricultural policy process. • Lack of a tangible policy or program for youth engagement within the agricultural sector. • Lack of a unified youth platform for lobbying and advocacy.
  • 15. To improve youth engagement…  Need for a deliberate agricultural sector policy to engage the youth in policy processes.  Utilize existing local government systems and structures that already act as hubs for social services and information.  Improved networking among the youth for improved information sharing.  Need for youth in farming and agriculture to create a vibrant joint platform for engaging with policy makers.
  • 16. Future areas of research  Assess effectiveness of local government structures and traditional systems as channels to improve the engagement of the youth in agricultural policy processes.  Comparative studies of different countries in the Southern African region would go far to enhance knowledge and to facilitate change.
  • 17. Thank you INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE