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.

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