AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF YOUTH IN
AGRICULTURE IN GHANA: EVIDENCE
FROM 3 DISTRICTS
Victor Fred Ohene, Irene S. Egyir and John K. M. Kuwornu
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background of study
Research problem
Research objectives
Methodology
Results
Key findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
References
Background of the study
• Agriculture is one of the pillars of Ghana’s economic growth,
contributing an average of 28% to GDP from 2008 to 2012 (ISSER,
2011; MoFA, 2011; IOM, 2012).
• Agricultural activities usually represent the main source of
employment in the rural areas because most rural households are
farmers and their main source of food and income is from
agricultural activities (World Bank, 2010; Abdul-Hakim and CheMat, 2011; IOM, 2012).
• As such, the government of Ghana considers agricultural
production as an immediate source of employment for the youth,
especially those in the rural areas (MoFA, 2011).
3
Background continued
• The government of Ghana (GoG) established the National Youth
Employment Programme (NYEP) in 2006 to train and provide
employment opportunities for the youth (MoFA, 2011).
• In 2009, the GoG introduced the Youth in Agriculture Programme
(YIAP) as a module to buttress the efforts of the NYEP in
providing employment for the youth (MoFA, 2011).
• The YIAP serves to mobilize the youth to take up agricultural
related activities as a life time vocation (MoFA, 2011).
4
Background continued
The YIAP has 4 main components namely; crops/block farm,
livestock and poultry, fisheries/aquaculture, and agribusiness. Its
objectives include the following;
• To make the youth accept farming as a commercial business venture
• To generate appreciable income to meet farmers’ domestic and
personal needs
• To help the youth enhance their standard of living though improved
income
• To motivate the youth to stay in rural areas, as inputs will be delivered
at their farm gate on credit and interest-free basis
Background continued
• This study focuses on the crop/block farm system because crop
farmers have the highest incidence of poverty in Ghana (about
59%) (GSS, 2012)
• The inputs provided under the crop/block farm system included
land; tractor services for land preparation; irrigation and
mechanization facilities; quality planting materials (improved seed);
fertilizer subsidies; pesticides etc
•
The services provided include training; extension information,
technical support and marketing avenues (MoFA, 2009).
6
Research Problem
• Youth are young people between the ages of 15 and 35 years (MoFA,
2011); and over 50% of Ghana’s population is below 30 years (GSS,
2000; IOM, 2012).
• The estimated unemployment rate among the youth aged 15-24 years
in Ghana is 25.6%; twice that of the 25-44 age group, and thrice those
aged 45-64 years (GSS, 2008, IOM, 2012).
• Agriculture employs about 41.6% of the economically active
population aged 15 years or older (GSS, 2012). Of the 45.8% of
agricultural households in Ghana, 95.1% are engaged in crop farming
as compared to 40.5% in livestock rearing and 1.1% in tree growing
(GSS, 2012).
7
Research Problem continued
• However, the food crop farmers have the highest incidence of
poverty among the agricultural households, rising from 49% in 2008
to 59% (GSS, 2012).
• Several factors including lack of access to markets, high cost of
inputs and low levels of economic infrastructure account for this
outcome.
• The youth are less willing to engage in agriculture as their main
occupation because they perceive it as providing low income. They
also hold the perception that agriculture is meant for the rural poor,
the uneducated and unskilled persons (MoFA, 2011).
• The GoG provided incentives and it is expected that the youth will
respond positively and so, there will be high level of participation.8
Research questions
• The main problem of this study is whether or not the incentive
package (inputs and services) provided through the YIAP is
influencing participation of the youth in agriculture
• The specific questions that will help in answering the research
question include:
i.
What is the level of participation by different categories of young
farmers in the YIAP?
ii. What factors determine participation in the YIAP in the study area?
iii. What are the constraints that deter the youth from participating in the
YIAP?
9
Objectives
• The main objective of the study is to determine the effect of incentive
packages on the youth’s participation in the YIAP
• The specific objectives are:
i. To estimate the level of participation by different categories of young
farmers
ii. To identify the constraints that deter the youth from participating in
the YIAP
iii. To estimate the factors that determine participation in the YIAP in
the study area
10
Method of Data Analysis
Objective i: Level of participation by different categories of youth
farmers
- Descriptive statistics was used
Objective ii: Constraints that deter the youth from participating in the
YIAP
- Graphical representation was employed
Objective iii: Factors that determine participation in the YIAP in the
study area
- Logit model was used to analyze the relationship between selected
socio-economic, institutional and technical factors
11
Variable Description and Measurement
VARIABLE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
EXPECTED
SIGN
AGE
Age of respondent
Years
AGE 1
Age between 15-25
Dummy (if b/n 15-25 =1; else = 0)
+/-
AGE 2
Age between 26-35
Dummy (if b/n 26-35 = 1; else = 0)
+
AGE 3
Age between 36-49
Dummy (if b/n 36-49 = 1; else = 0)
+/-
GEN
Gender
Dummy (male = 1; else = 0)
+/-
EDU
Education
Years
+
MARI
Marital status
Dummy (married = 1; else = 0)
+/-
HHSIZE
Household size
Actual number
+
FAMHD
Family head
Dummy (head=1; else = 0)
+
DEPST
Dependence status
Dummy (independent =1; else = 0)
+/-
POCCU
Parent’s occupation
(farmer)
Dummy (at least one =1; else = 0)
+
+
12
Variable Description and Measurement continued
EXPECTED
SIGN
VARIABLE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
DLAND
Difficulty in acquiring land
Dummy (If yes =1; else = 0)
-
FSIZE
Farm size
Acres
+
DYIAP
Distance to YIAP site/farm
km
-
LOCEFF
Effect of Location
Dummy (If near govt land=1; else= 0)
+
FEXP
Farming experience
Years
-
FINCOM
Farm income
GHC
+
CREDASS
Access to credit
Dummy (If yes =1; else = 0)
+
OTHLIHD
Other sources of livelihood
Dummy (If yes =1; else = 0)
-
ADVERT
Effect of advertisement
Dummy (If yes =1; else = 0)
+/-
MIGR
Decision to migrate to Accra Dummy (If yes =1; else = 0)
-
FBO
Membership of an FBO
Dummy (If yes =1; else = 0)
+
PERC
Perception about farming
Dummy (If neg. =1; else = 0)
-
Data and Sampling Procedure
• Primary data was used in this study. This was collected through a field
survey across 3 districts in the Eastern region
• A multi-stage sampling technique was used in this study
– three districts purposively selected for the study
– the next stage involved identifying communities where any of the
YIAP activities were being implemented
– the final stage involved randomly selecting 152 farmers from the
identified communities
14
Map of Study Area
Socio-economic characteristics
Characteristic
Frequency
Percentage
Age
15 - 25years
26-35years
36-49 years
Total
14
97
41
152
9.0
64.0
27.0
100.0
Gender
Male
Female
Total
128
24
152
84.2
15.8
100.0
Marital status
Single
Married
Divorced
Widow(er)
Total
56
91
4
1
152
36.8
59.9
2.6
0.7
100.0
16
Socio-economic Characteristics continued
Characteristic
Frequency
Percentage
Level of education
No education
Primary education
JHS/MSLC
SHS
Tertiary
Technical/Vocational
Total
7
6
93
30
8
8
152
4.7
3.9
61.2
19.7
5.3
5.3
100.0
Family head
Yes
No
Total
97
55
152
63.8
36.2
100.0
Household size
Small (< 5 members)
Large ( ≥ 5 members)
Total
51
101
152
33.6
66.4
100.0
17
Summary Statistics of Continuous Variable
Variable
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Age
20
49
32.38
Age of participants
20
48
32.48
Age of nonparticipants
21
49
32.23
Household size
1
12
5.49
Farm size (acres)
1
15
5.49
Farm income (GH₵) (annual)
520.00
5, 000.00
2, 010.55
Farm income (participants)
1, 050
5, 000.00
2, 357.58
Farm income (non-participants)
520.00
3, 500.00
1, 478.42
18
Level of participation in the YIAP
Characteristics
Participation in the YIAP
Yes
No
Total
Participation by Age
AGE1 (15-25)
AGE2 (26-35)
AGE3 (36-49)
Total
Participation by Gender
Male
Female
Total
Mode of participation
Individual
Group
Block farm
Total
Frequency
Percentage
92
60
152
60.5
39.5
100.0
8
54
30
92
5.3
35.5
19.7
60.5
76
16
92
82.6
17.4
100.0
55
16
21
92
36.2
10.5
13.8
60.5
19
Constraints to Participation in the YIAP
35
30
30
26
Percentage
25
20
17
15
10
10
8
5
5
4
0
Constraints to participation
Difficulty in acquiring land for farming
The small size of land for blockfarm
The small quantities of inputs supplied
The late arrival of inputs and services
Difficulty in acquiring credit/loan
Low level of income derived
Long distance to YIAP site/land
20
Logit model estimates for determinants of
participation in YIAP
Variable
Age of respondent
Coefficient
Std. error
P-Value
Marginal Effect
-0.3933**
0.1989
0.048
-0.0438
Age 2
1.7522
2.1370
0.412
Age 3
4.9835
3.7219
0.181
Education
0.7298**
0.2870
0.011
0.0812
Household size
0.9767**
0.4883
0.045
0.1087
Parents’ occupation
-0.4956
1.5546
0.750
Farm size
1.4622**
0.6458
0.024
0.1627
Effect of location
3.2107**
1.5800
0.042
0.5537
Distance from residence to YIAP site
-1.3277**
0.5207
0.011
-0.1477
Difficulty in acquiring land
-2.5499
1.7717
0.150
F arm income
0.0022**
0.0010
0.023
0.0002
21
Logit Model Estimates continued
Variable
Coefficient
Std. error
P-Value
Access to credit
6.3542***
2.0490
0.002
Other sources of income
-1.5342
1.2228
0.210
Membership of an FBO
2.5481*
1.3615
0.061
Perception
-0.4400
1.5389
0.775
Decision to migrate to Accra
2.3824
1.6091
0.139
6.9947
0.055
Constant
-13.4106
Marginal Effect
0.8973
0.2324
-
Log likelihood = -18.9509; Number of obs = 152; LR chi2(16) = 166.03
Prob > chi2= 0.0000; Pseudo R2= 0.8141
***, **, and * denote 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels respectively
22
Key findings
• About 60.5% of respondents participated in the YIAP
• About 35.5% of participants were aged between 26-35 years and
only 5.3% of participants were between 15 - 25 years
• About 82.6% of participants were males while 17.4% were females.
• About 36.2% of participants participated on individual basis, 10.5%
participated in groups and 13.8% participated in block farms
• Education, household size, farm size, farm income, location, access
to credit and membership of an FBO positively affect participation,
while age and distance from farmers’ residence, negatively affect
participation in the YIAP
23
Conclusions
• There is moderate level of youth farmers’ participation in the Youthin-Agriculture programme in the study area
• There is low level of participation for females and farmers between
15-25 years
• Most youth farmers participated on individual basis rather than in
groups and block farm system
• Age, education, household size, farm size, membership of an FBO,
farm income, access to credit, location and distance from the farmers’
residence to YIAP site/farm, were the determinants of participation in
the YIAP.
24
Recommendations
• MoFA, District Agricultural Development Units (DADU) and YIAP
coordinators should sensitise the youth on the incentive package
and the benefits to be derived from participating in the YIAP to
induce participation among the youth
• Government, MoFA and YIAP coordinators in the various districts
should develop strategies to target;
– improving the literacy levels of farmers and the youth through
workshops, seminars and other training programmes
– increasing the farm size of farmers in areas where the
youth/young farmers farm on government acquired lands by
giving participants larger plots. A farmer requires about 2.5
Ha/10acres of land to be able to able to make decent
income/living from farming.
25
Recommendations continued
• Government and other stakeholders must also:
– encourage farmers to join FBOs/farmer groups
– increase access to credit facilities such as quantities of farm
inputs supplied to participants and training the youth on how to
reduce post harvest losses or store and market their produce in
order to improve their farm income
– acquire more lands for the YIAP from traditional rulers, chiefs
and other individual land owners and as close as possible to
farmers’ communities.
26
References
Abdul-Hakim and Che-Mat (2011).Determinants of Farmer’s Participation in Off-Farm
Employment: A Case Study in Kedah Darul-Aman, Malaysia, Asian Journal of
Agricultural and rural Development,1 (2), 27-37
GSS. (2000). Population and Housing Census: Summary Report of Final
Results.Accra:Ghana Statistical Service
GSS. (2008). Ghana Living Strandards Survey, Reports of the ifth Round, 1-5.Accra:
Ghana Statistical Service
GSS (2012). 2010 Population & Housing Census: Summary Report of Final
Results.Accra: Ghana Statistical Service
International Organization for Migration (2012, October). Country Fact Sheet, Ghana.
Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research [ISSER], (2011).The State of the
Ghanaian Economy in 2010.Legon: University of Ghana
MoFA (2009). Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II).Accra:
Ministry of Food and Agriculture
MoFA.(2011). Youth in Agriculture Programme: Policy, Strategy and Sustainability.
Accra:MoFA.
World Bank. (2010). Governemnet's Role in Attracting Viable Agricultural Investment:
Experience from Ghana, Accra. The World Bank Annunal Bank Conference on 27
Land
Policy and Administration. Washington DC: World Bank
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR
ATTENTION
28