1. Anne Rietveld, Sam Mpiira and Charles Staver
Targeting young adults/ young households in Central
Uganda: Where is the next generation of farmers?

2. Context
• Agriculture employs over 60% of Ugandan population
• Agricultural output mainly from smallholder farmers
• Banana are primary source for food and income:
average per capita consumption 256 kg/person/year

3. Problem statement
Case of Central Uganda:
Maintaining or expanding banana productivity is difficult
because of soil fertility decline and built up of pests and
diseases
Potential solution:
Could on-farm trees and shrubs be used as a source of
mulch for the bananas and fodder for zero-grazing livestock
to improve banana productivity?

4. Project
We proposed a focus on young households and youth
(18-35 years) as potential users of the proposed new
technology
• Maximum return to investment
• Alternative to out-migration and urban poverty
• Land-saving technology interesting for youth with
few resources
BUT Household heads in baseline have an average age
of 46.5 years

5. Where are the young adults and young
households in our pilot sites?
• Young households and young adults hidden in parents households
• Young households have livelihood strategies to accumulate capital off
farm before returning when inherited land becomes available or
resources are accumulated for land purchase and investment in
agriculture
• Young people are present in the pilot sites and possibly involved and
interested in agriculture-based livelihoods but we were not able to
reach them because of bias / partner interests or similar
• Young households and young adults are little interested in agriculture
and are working in local towns and larger urban areas

6. Methodology
• Three sites in Central Uganda selected (Nakaseke, Sembabule
and Kiboga)
• Baseline study
– survey farming households in pilot sites
– on age, land, labor, social capital, sources of income and use of trees,
shrubs, manure and mulch
– N = 203
• Tracking young adults
– surveying participants of farmer experimentation groups about their
adult children
– On residence, occupation, reasons for leaving or staying,
contributions to farm labor and future expectations
– N = 56

7. Hypothesis 1
1. Young households and young adults are hidden in
parents households
• 13% of all household members in baseline study is
between 20 and 35 years old whereas this is 22% on
national level
• Only 15% of adult children in study are living with
parents

8. Hypothesis 2
2. Young households have livelihood strategies to
accumulate capital off farm before returning when inherited
land becomes available or resources are accumulated for
land purchase and investment in agriculture
•75% of adult children work outside agriculture
•1/3 of adult children own land, independent of residence
•Many parents expect their children to return one day to
the village

9. Hypothesis 3
3. Young households are present in the pilot sites and are
involved in agriculture, but we were not able to reach them
• A significant bias is unlikely
• Even if a bias could (partly) explain for the high average
age of household heads in the baseline, most of the adult
children of these households heads have left the village and
are not working in agriculture

10. Hypothesis 4
4. Young households and young adults are little interested
in agriculture and are working in local towns and larger
urban areas instead
Residence adult children Percentage
Kampala-city 38.5%
Regional towns 24.7%
Parental village 21.8%
Compound parents 14.9%
• Only 27% employed by agriculture
• Out-migration of young people does not necessarily need
to rule out their participation in farm work

11. Discussion
• With average HH size of 10 and average land holdings of
5.3 acres children will not inherit sufficient land for viable
farming livelihoods
• Large differences between pilot sites with regards to out-
migration, land-ownership and parent’s expectations
regarding return
• The degree in which young people migrate seems to be
related to distance to urban centre(s) and economic
(farming) opportunity in the locality
• Often the driver for urbanization is not (only) the ‘quest
for economic opportunity’ but ‘a cultural preference’ for
urban life (Beuvink 2010)

12. Conclusion
Young rural people don’t have much interest in investing in
agriculture nor do they have the capacities and opportunities
to do so
Young people see more future in migrating to urban areas
Migration is not necessarily permanent, many young people
frequent their parents’ compound to help out with farming
activities, indicating that links with agriculture remain even
after out-migration