Engaging youth in agriculture: a task for agribusiness? : a study of agribusiness-based advisory services in Central and Rift Valley regions in Kenya

(1)

Engaging youth in agriculture: a task for

agribusinesses?

A study of agribusiness-based advisory services in Central and

Rift Valley regions in Kenya

Graduate School of Social Sciences

MSc in International Development Studies

Supervisor: Verena Bitzer, Royal Tropical Institute, KIT, Amsterdam

Second-reader: Nicky Pouw, University of Amsterdam

June 2018

Serena Collina

Student number: 11363118

@: serena.collina@hotmail.it

(2)

Dedication

I wish to dedicate this thesis to the people of Solai, to those who lost their lives and to those who survived the flood caused by the burst of the Patel dam on 9th_{May 2018.}

(6)

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Verena Bitzer, for her patient guidance and for encouraging me to challenge my thinking. Thank you also to Anne Rappoldt and Laurens van

Veldhuizen of KIT for their insightful suggestions and support in the first phases of my research. I would also like to acknowledge Nicky Pouw as the second reader of this thesis, thank you for guiding me into the unknown world of academic research back in September.

A big thank you to Courtney Vegelin and Eva van der Sleen at University of Amsterdam for believing in me and giving me the chance to do this Master’s programme.

This research would have not been possible without the support of the managers and the field officers of the agribusinesses I visited in Kenya. Thank you for driving me on motorbikes to farmers’s

shambas, thank you for taking care of my safety on matatus, thank you for introducing me to all the

wonderful people I interviewed. A special thank you to Carol, for her wisdom and energy.

My profound gratitude goes to my parents, who raised me to be curious about the world. Thank you Chiara, for listening to me and giving me your sincere advice when I was confused. Thanks to the rest of the family, who encouraged me to live my dream. Thank you all for being there when I needed comfort and olive oil from home!

Finally, thank you, my new friends in Amsterdam. These months have been a roller coaster of feelings, I’m so glad we were on board together!

(7)

Abstract

Stimulating rural youth employment in agriculture is critical for poverty reduction and food security. However, youth face several challenges in agriculture and struggle with limited access to advisory services. Agribusinesses, as major actors in Kenyan agricultural arena, increasingly incorporate service provision in their business models. However, little attention has been paid to investigate how agribusinesses deal with smallholders, who represent the majority of farmers in Kenya, and especially youth. This lack of attention to youth also applies to the literature on participatory extension approaches. Hence, this study firstly aims to acquire new understanding of the role of agribusiness-based advisory services in engaging youth in agriculture. Secondly, it explores how participatory approaches affect the development of youth inclusive advisory services.

This qualitative study is based on semi-structured interviews, focus groups and participant observation conducted during a two-month fieldwork in Central and Rift Valley regions in Kenya. I analysed eight cases of agribusiness-based advisory services targeting smallholders and I interviewed young farmers between 18 and 35 years old, as well as various actors along the service provision chain, including older adult farmers, field officers, managers of agribusinesses.

This study found that the observed advisory services and the adopted participatory approaches do not generally target youth as a distinct category. However, they seem to indirectly benefit youth and enhance inclusive services.

Results suggest that agribusiness-based advisory services (i) respond to youth challenges of limited agricultural knowledge and skills, (ii) create linkages with other stakeholders to enhance a supportive and inclusive network and (iii) offer technology and entrepreneurial-oriented services, which seem to make agriculture attractive to youth. Thus, agribusiness-based advisory services have the potential to facilitate youth engagement in agriculture.

The study calls for agribusinesses to rely on the cooperation with multiple stakeholders from public and private sectors to develop youth inclusive services, with a view to contributing to youth engagement in agriculture.

Key words: agribusiness-based advisory services, participatory approaches, smallholders, youth inclusive services, Kenya

(8)

List of figures, tables, maps and photos

Figure 1: Diversified strategies for service funding and delivery ... 8

Figure 2: Pluralistic service system ... 9

Figure 3: Conceptual scheme ... 19

Table 1: Overview of cases... 21

Table 2: Overview of data collection ... 25

Map 1: 47 Kenyan Counties (Source: Kenya Open Data Project, 2012) ... 22

Photo 1: Muhonet Avocado Farmer Field Day, February 13th 2018, Maragua, Murang 'a County ... i

Photo 2: Young woman selling kale to a neighbour, Kiambu County ... 41

Photo 3: A field officer in the store of Mumberes Farmer Cooperative ... 49

Photo 4: Kianjogu milk collection centre, MWDL, Nyeri County ... 53

(9)

List of abbreviations

ABAS: Agribusiness-based advisory services GAP: Good Agricultural Practices

GMO: Genetically modified organism GoK: Government of Kenya

GOVT: Government

ICT: Information and Communication Technology KES: Kenyan shilling

KeFAAS: Kenyan Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services PEA: Participatory extension approaches

SACCO: Savings and Credit Cooperative SAP: Structural Adjustment Programme SDG: Sustainable Development Goals YEDF: Youth Enterprise Development Fund

List of Swahili words

Boda boda: taxi service on motorbikes

Chama: a kind of informal social cooperative used to pool and lend money through table-banking Picky picky : motorbike

Shamba: a small plot of land Vijana: youth

(10)

1. Introduction

Sub-Saharan Africa has the youngest and fastest-growing population globally. By 2050, its rural population is estimated to increase by 63% and around 220 million rural youth will enter the working age in the next 15 years1_{. Therefore, the agricultural sector is considered to have a significant}

potential as a source of livelihood opportunities for rural youth. As farming populations are ageing, ensuring that rural youth stay in agriculture and have access to adequate training, inputs and financing is considered important, both in view of poverty reduction and food security objectives (Dalla Valle, n.d.; Umeh & Odom, 2011). Still, rural youth seem to struggle with lacking or poor access to agricultural advisory services2_{(FAO, CTA & IFAD, 2014), considered essential to support}

youth in overcoming the challenges limiting their engagement in agriculture (Adolph, 2011).

Kenya represents a relevant and interesting case to explore this topic, since it is an agrarian economy3_{, dominated by small-scale farming, which accounts for the majority of the agricultural}

production (World Bank, 2015). At the same time, the forecasts predict that Kenyan population will increase from the current 50,823,810 to 95,467,137 people in 20504_{. Kenya, as many other African}

countries, presents a youth bulge: youth aged 15-34 years old constitute 35% of the whole population and around 40% is formally occupied in the agricultural sector (KDHS, 2009 in Njonjo, 2010). These facts carry important implications for youth engagement in agriculture. Smallholder farmers and youth especially, as the farmers of tomorrow, need to adopt modern farming techniques, in order to increase productivity and ensure food security for a population which is going to double in the next few decades.

As important stakeholders in the ever evolving agricultural sector, agribusinesses in the developing countries can contribute to improving the quality and the dissemination of agricultural information and technology provided to young small-scale farmers (Ward, 2011). The extension of company operations beyond their core business is a quite recent phenomenon and therefore still in search of sustainable and effective service delivery models. The challenge is to reach also smallholders and vulnerable farmer groups, such as youth, who are often left without access to the necessary services (IDH, 2016).

1_{FAO (2017), Mercandalli, S. & Losch, B., eds. 2017. Rural Africa in Motion. Dynamics and drivers of migration}

South of the Sahara. Rome, FAO and CIRAD, 60 p.

2_{The term “(rural) advisory services” is used here synonymously with agricultural extension services} 3_{FAO: http://www.fao.org/kenya/fao-in-kenya/kenya-at-a-glance/en/}

(11)

The literature on public extension has recently started to deal with youth’s challenges in agriculture and how advisory services can provide solutions to overcome them. However, the youth focus is still in its infancy and little attention has been paid to youth participation in agribusiness-based advisory services (often referred to as private for-profit extension) – despite the increasing proliferation of agribusinesses in service provision in many developing countries such as Kenya. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide insights into a scarcely explored research niche with direct practical relevance.

The literature on advisory services shows that participatory extension approaches (PEA) (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008) have emerged as an effective way to foreground and respond to farmers’ requests. Prior studies have shown that PEA increase youth participation in the service provision and, subsequently, contribute to developing youth inclusive advisory services (McNamara & Bohn, 2017; G-FRAS, 2017). To what extent are these approaches also being applied in ABAS? What benefits can youth – and the service providers themselves – derive from PEA?

These are some of the questions I address with the aim of examining to what extent the observed ABAS adopt PEA and how these contribute to youth inclusive extension strategies.

Although other actors and approaches may facilitate youth in accessing agricultural advisory services, I decided to focus on agribusinesses adopting participatory extension approaches. I believe that the combination of these elements can provide useful insights in the extension literature. The current Kenyan demographics suggest that youth will be determinant in ensuring food security in the future. Therefore, youth are central to achieve development goals, but they need to be absorbed in the labour market. Agriculture has enormous potential as the major employer and economic driver in Kenya. Given the evolving market dynamics, the private sector plays a primary role in agriculture also. Thus, it is relevant to consider whether engaging youth in agriculture is a task for agribusinesses.

1.1 Knowledge gap and research aim

The point of departure of this thesis is the literature on agricultural extension, including the role of private actors and participatory extension approaches (Benson & Jafry, 2013; Kidd, A.D. et al., 2000; Rivera & Qamar, 2003; Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008).

Previous studies recognise that advisory services have the potential to assist youth in the development of technical and managerial skills in agriculture, considered useful to overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities that this sector presents (FAO, CTA & IFAD, 2014; McNamara & Bohn, 2017). In the last few decades, the private for-profit sector has emerged as a relevant actor in the service provision alongside the “traditional” public extension (Zhou & Babu, 2015). Yet, private-sector providers have been criticised for being insufficiently accountable to farmers and for

(12)

delivering inequitable services, i.e. they tend to target commercial large-scale farmers, while neglecting vulnerable farmer categories, including youth (Feder et al., 2011). However, there is hardly any literature on the relationship between agribusinesses and smallholder farmers, nor on the incentives and benefits for the former to deliver inclusive services, notably for youth. This study addresses this knowledge gap.

Furthermore, drawing on the extension literature, I consider PEA as a demand-driven approach geared towards the empowerment of service recipients (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008). Just few studies focus on how participatory approaches benefit youth, by facilitating their involvement in the different stages of service provision (Highfill et al., 2017). Hence, this study aims to provide a new perspective on youth participation in private service provision.

All things considered, my research aims to (i) explore how ABAS respond to youth’s specific challenges and demands, (ii) how participatory extension approaches contribute to inclusive ABAS and (iii) how youth inclusive ABAS affect youth engagement in agriculture.

1.2 Thesis outline

This study is divided in eight chapters. In this first introductory chapter, I present the aim and the justification of this research and give an overview of the agricultural sector and advisory services in Kenya. The second chapter examines the current debates on the three main concepts of my research, i.e. agricultural advisory services, youth engagement in agriculture and youth participation in the extension process. The third chapter provides a description of the methods used to collect and analyse the data, as well as some ethical reflections and the limitations of the study.

The fourth, the fifth and the sixth chapters consist of an analysis of the empirical data collected during the fieldwork in Central and Rift Valley regions in Kenya. Chapter four examines the challenges and the opportunities in agriculture as perceived by the interviewed young farmers; these push and pull factors affect youth engagement in agriculture. Chapter five explores the responsiveness of the observed agribusiness-based advisory services to youth’s challenges and demands; chapter six takes participatory extension approaches in consideration as a way to pursue youth inclusive ABAS.

In the two final chapters I discuss the research questions and give suggestions for further research and recommendations.

1.3 Background

The following sections give some background information on the agricultural sector and the history of advisory services in Kenya.

(13)

1.3.1 The agricultural sector in Kenya

Kenya is considered as one of the most developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, as the World Bank classifies it as a lower to middle income economy5_{. Agriculture is the largest sector in the}

Kenyan economy, accounting for about 30% of total GDP. The agricultural sector has seen fluctuating progress in the past years: it grew rapidly in the first two decades after the independence in 1963, then it declined between the 1970s and the 1980s and finally grew steadily until reaching a peak in 2007, when growth rates plummeted due to the political unrest caused by the general elections. Agricultural growth resumed in 2010 (+6,3%), considerably benefitting the national economy (Mbata, 2013).

Horticulture, livestock and cereals are the major producing sectors within agriculture. Around 75% of Kenyans live in rural areas, where 18% of formal workers and 70% of informal workers are employed in agriculture (Osti et al., 2015). Small-scale farming, practiced by 16 million smallholders, is predominant in Kenya and it is concentrated in high-potential areas, such as the ones visited during the fieldwork. Smallholders practice farming mostly on a commercial basis, producing the bulk of food that is consumed nationally (63%) (Rapsomanikis, 2015).

Because of its weight in the national economy, agriculture is high on the agenda of the Government of Kenya (GoK). Indeed, Kenya Vision 2030, adopted in 2008 as a roadmap for Kenya’s development, prioritises the improvement of the agricultural sector. Rooted in the Strategy for Revitalising Agriculture (SRA, 2004-2014) and the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS, 2010-2020), Vision 2030 promotes, among other goals, (i) the increment of agricultural productivity and commercialisation, (ii) market access and trade, (iii) private sector involvement in all aspects of agricultural development and (iv) the improvement of agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption (FAO, n.d.).

These considerations suggest that Kenya is an interesting case to focus on, because it presents a dynamic agricultural sector, where agribusinesses may flourish and facilitate the development of commercial agriculture.

1.3.2 Advisory services in Kenya

Before the implementation of the structural adjustment programs (SAPs) advanced by the World Bank in the 1980s, the GoK, through the Ministry of Agriculture, was the main extension provider in the country. However, following SAPs’ demands to reduce state intervention in the national economy, the government extension budget decreased. At the same time, public extension faced criticisms, due to its top-down and one-size-fits-all approaches. Meanwhile, global markets saw the private sector emerging as a major actor in different economic fields, including agriculture. Given the

(14)

intense competition, agribusinesses started providing extension services, as part of their marketing strategies (Muyanga & Jayne, 2008). To respond to these new trends, in 2001, the GoK formulated a National Agricultural Extension Policy (NEAP), with the aim of renovating public extension services and involving other stakeholders, including the private sector (KeFAAS, n.d.). The privatised agricultural advisory services were then fully recognised as an essential contribution to development and growth goals. However, private extension is criticised for favouring areas with greater investment potential and better infrastructure, and for neglecting more marginalised areas (Muyanga & Jayne, 2008). Thus, the Kenyan Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (KeFAAS) points out that private extension is not a substitute for public extension, which should play an important coordinating and monitoring role.

(15)

2. Current debates on advisory services, youth engagement in agriculture

and participatory extension approaches

This chapter presents the current debates over advisory services, youth engagement in agriculture and participatory extension approaches. Departing from the historical evolution of extension models and approaches, I first analyse the role of private commercial service providers in an increasingly diverse and multi-stakeholder extension system. Then, I concentrate on the debates on youth engagement in agriculture, considering the factors limiting and encouraging it. Finally, I explore the concept of youth participation in the service delivery chain, how it can be pursued through participatory extension approaches and how it affects youth inclusive advisory services.

2.1 Agricultural advisory services

Agricultural advisory services or extension “play a crucial role in promoting agricultural productivity, increasing food security, improving rural livelihoods, and promoting agriculture as an engine of pro-poor economic growth” 6_.

Extension can be understood as a set of functions and as a system (Rivera & Qamar, 2003). Any institution disseminating information and advice with the aim of promoting knowledge, techniques and skills, in any field, but especially in agriculture, performs extension as a function. Combining different theories, methods, objectives and actors, extension carries out different functions, such as the transfer of technology for sustainable agricultural production, transformation and marketing; the mobilisation of farmer groups; the establishment of programmes aimed at poverty eradication and community development; the establishment of linkages among extension stakeholders.

As a system, extension is the set of public and private actors that offer advisory services.

Extension has always been the subject of heated debates. Researchers, government officials and operators in the agriculture sector have developed, assessed and called into question the different approaches and methods used in extension. Indeed, Rivera (1991) defined agricultural extension as an “evolving institution”, in that its approaches are continuously adapting to the changes in research, markets and agriculture.

2.1.1 The evolution of the advisory services: models and actors

Below, the evolution of the theories of advisory services is presented. This is necessary to understand the current extension situation and how agribusinesses fit into this context.

6_{Agricultural extension as defined by IFPRI, retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/topic/agricultural-extension,}

(16)

Although informal extension had existed before, in the 1950s it became officially institutionalised and attached to the ministries of agriculture in many developing countries (Benson & Jafry, 2013). The prevailing extension delivery models at the time were the “diffusion model” or “technology transfer model”, which were based on a unidirectional communication of technologies from extension workers to farmers. This model, neglecting the knowledge, the capabilities and the needs peculiar to the variety of farmers, resulted in low adoption rates.

The system was rethought and, in the 1970s, the model of Training and Visit (T&V) became popular. This model was based on the need to (i) train extension officers7_{as professionals, by enabling their}

constant update with agricultural technology and research, in order to overcome the issue of poor competence; (ii) pay regular visits to contact farmers who would disseminate the information to the members in their communities (Benor & Baxter, 1984; Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008). Besides being cost-intensive (Kidd et al., 2000), the system did not produce the desired results. The evaluation of the Kenyan T&V system in 1998 showed a lack of strategy in the organisation of the trainings and the selection of the farmers to be visited, ineffectiveness and farmers’ disapproval (Gautam, 2000).

The 1980s saw the continued use of T&V and the growth of farming systems research (FSR), which was characterised by an increasing attention to farmers’ participation in the assessment of their needs. At the same time, public extension faced criticism for being neither relevant nor effective (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008).

In the 1990s, extension became increasingly participatory, flexible and multi-stakeholder. Farmer Field Schools (FFS), the so-called “schools with no walls”, emerged to respond to the demand of more participatory approaches. In order to improve farmers’ knowledge and skills, FFS relied on field observations, season long research studies and hands-on activities (ibid).

In this period, public extension had to solve the problem of under-funded operations as well as inadequate extension staff. The pressure to reform this system was combined with the rise of non-governmental extension providers, which differed on the offered services and the incentive for delivering them (ibid). Hence, the extension system incorporated other actors, resulting in three main providers: the public sector, the private non-profit sector and the private for-profit sector. The experimentations of these years involve radical privatisations or privatisation reforms, whereby the functions of financing, procurement and delivery of services may be separated (CTA, 2016).

(17)

This reorganisation evolved into four main models of delivery systems, as shown in Figure 1: (i) public funding/public delivery, which is the traditional governmental extension; (ii) public delivery/private funding, where private organisations hire governmental extension staff; (iii) private delivery/private funding, as in the case of agribusiness-based advisory services; (iv) public funding/private delivery, which implies the government outsourcing the extension services to the private sector (Nambiro et al., 2005).

Hence, the reform of agricultural extension did not provide a single service provision model.

2.1.2 Private for-profit advisory services

Among the main groups of service providers, the private for-profit or commercial extension plays a central role. In this study, this kind of extension is referred to as agribusiness-based advisory services.

Before presenting the debates about its strengths and weaknesses, it is important to highlight which actors are considered private commercial service providers. These can be: (i) input companies, which, by providing embedded (i.e. no extra fee is charged) services, ensure that famers use their inputs correctly and remain loyal to their brand. Common extension methods include demonstration plots and farmer field days; (ii) agro-marketing and processing firms (off-takers or intermediate bulkers), which buy commodities from farmers and carry out value addition (drying, packaging, processing, marketing). The purpose of these services is ensuring the consistency and quality of the produce they collect. Common extension methods are GAP (Good Agriculutral Practices) training and farmer clustering for product aggregation; (iii) private consultants such as financial institutions and commercial consulting firms, which may offer the advisory services either directly for a fee, or embedded within other service provision; (iv) farmer group operated enterprises (including cooperatives); (v) trade associations (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008; Rabatski & Krause, 2017). Private for-profit extension are often described as market-oriented (Benson & Jafry, 2013) and demand-driven models (Bitzer et al., 2016), which can fill the gap of information delivery and encourage competition with the aim of improving the services (Kidd et al., 2000). Moreover, the agribusinesses have a wide global network and can offer linkage between farmers and companies.

Figure 1: Diversified strategies for service funding and delivery (Source: Rivera & Qamar, 2003)

(18)

Although agribusinesses incur multiple costs, e.g. personnel, transport, training material, service provision is complementary to marketing strategies and extension officers are motivated to develop long-standing relationships with farmers, with the aim of increasing the sales of inputs and services (Rabatski & Krause, 2017). Therefore, service provision can be only justified as a cost of doing business. Low performances or sales are not sustainable for the ABAS model.

Private extension is criticised for selecting regions with significant commercial potential where results can be quicker and more profitable (Zhou & Babu, 2015), as well as for targeting areas with good infrastructural facilities to minimise product distribution and extension costs (Muyanga & Jayne, 2008). Thus, it seems that they often give priority to cash crop production and large-scale farming. Finally, the interventions of the agribusinesses are often considered uncoordinated, due to the competition with other companies for clients (Rabatski & Krause, 2017). Whereas competing interests can produce ambiguous policies as well as a waste of energy and money, coordination can enhance the improvement of extension strategies to reach small-scale farmers and better address their priorities (Bitzer et al., 2016). This is valid not only in the private commercial extension model, but also in the multi-agency approach typical of the pluralistic model. Some authors tend to explain this coordination as a division of roles, whereby the agribusinesses operate in areas with stronger incentives and the government focuses on more marginal regions (Muyanga & Jayne, 2008). Others, envisage the coordination as a real cooperation based on a constant communication. This approach is further explained below.

2.1.3 Recent theories and models

The debate over extension models and methods is on-going and new approaches constantly emerge to improve the advisory services. The latest

theories particularly draw the attention to the coexistence of different actors in service provision and research, which results in pluralistic service systems (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008; Zhou & Babu, 2015). Services are coproduced by multiple extension providers closely working with farmers, researchers, companies and local governments, as shown in Figure 2. The diversity of service providers and of funding sources, as well

as the decentralised structure, enhancing the incorporation of actors at the local level, show the

GOV

Figure 2: Pluralistic service system (Source: Adapted from Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008)

(19)

potential of pluralistic extension approaches to make advisory services more inclusive, that is responsive to the peculiar challenges and demands of different farmer groups, including smallholders (Birner et al., 2006). Yet, these efforts require coordination between the different service providers, in order to ensure the efficacy and the sustainability of the actions. As public advisory services are underfunded and gradually declining, NGOs, the private for-profit sector and producer organisations (e.g. cooperatives) intervene to fill a gap. However, these alternatives also have weaknesses. Although NGOs mostly focus on smallholders, their activities are often short-term and limited in outreach. The private sector, instead, has difficulties in using cost-recovery methods with low-income smallholders. Finally, cooperatives seem to target smallholders with relevant services and to enhance downward accountability, yet they struggle with little extension budget and manipulation of power by wealthier male farmers (Bitzer et al., 2016). It is clear that individual attempts to reach smallholders are not sustainable for service recipients nor for providers, hence the call to share responsibilities and enhance coordinated pluralistic service systems (ibid).

2.1.4 Understanding how farmers learn

The extension process is significantly determined also by how farmers learn and retain the information provided.

Recent decades have seen a gradual shift to bottom-up and participatory approaches, which seem to stimulate the co-creation of knowledge and to increase the relevance of the services, hence farmers’ adoption of the recommendations (Franz et al., 2010). Indeed, it seems that farmers’ learning success is enhanced by a two-way communication style between farmers and extension providers (Sewell et al., 2017). Furthermore, much of the learning process happens at the community level, with farmers learning from each other and local input dealers, imitating behaviours of well-respected lead farmers and exchanging traditional knowledge (Janvry et al., 2016). Finally, farmers, especially younger generations, increasingly rely on ICTs (e.g. phones, online social medias and blogs) to access agricultural information.

All in all, farmers are more likely to adopt the recommendations when they are context-specific, co-created and saving them time and money (Franz et al., 2010). The benefits of participatory approaches for enhancing learning are further explored in section 2.3.

2.1.5 Concluding remarks

In conclusion, it seems that the current prevailing theories favour agricultural extension systems which are able to provide a broad range of services (advisory, technology transfer, training and information) on a wide variety of actions (agriculture, marketing and social organisation) and with the involvement of an array of actors, who cooperate to design and implement advisory services

(20)

(Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008). The further sections address advisory services as a tool to enhance youth engagement in agriculture, as well as the contribution of participatory extension approaches to youth inclusive advisory services.

2.2 Youth engagement in agriculture

The previous subchapter analysed the advisory services from a historical and theoretical perspective. Besides being a broad topic of research, advisory services are primarily a concrete tool to improve rural livelihoods. Ensuring that young farmers stay in agriculture is considered important, both in view of poverty reduction and food security objectives (Dalla Valle, n.d.; Umeh & Odom, 2011). It seems that the cooperation between the public and private sectors is required to support youth to overcome their challenges and to make opportunities in agriculture more visible (Gitau & Goris, 2016).

Before considering the current debates on youth engagement in agriculture, I deem important to explain what the category “youth” implies.

2.2.1 Definition of youth

There is no universally accepted definition of youth. For statistical purposes, the UN defines it as people between the ages of 15 and 24, but acknowledges that the age range varies among different countries8_{. For this study, I refer to the Youth Enterprise Development Fund (YEDF, 2006), a body}

established by the Government of Kenya, which defines youth as people between 18 and 35 years old.

In general terms, youth is defined as the period of life between the end of childhood and entry into adulthood, when an individual has reached the age of maturity, but she or he has not gained yet the full rights and duties of adult life, such as marriage or financial independency (Umeh & Odom, 2011). It is clear then, that youth is not a biologically fixed concept, but it is rather socially constructed (White, 2011). Currently, youth gets prolonged as young people remain longer in education, marry and start to work later than they used to in the past (White, 2012). Still, pushing the limits of youth upwards may serve to “juvenilise” young adults “to exclude them from mainstream social, economic and political processes as something less than full members of society, less than full citizens” (White, 2011). That is why youth is sometimes also defined as “waithood”, i.e. a phase between childhood and adulthood, where access to the latter is delayed or denied (Honwana, 2014).

Understanding that youth is not a monolithic notion is essential when designing policy and training specifically targeting youth in agriculture (Afande et al., 2015). Indeed, among youth there are

(21)

diverse farmer categories, which differ in terms of capital and land availability, crops, gender, level of commercialisation and market aspirations. According to the latter categorisation, smallholders are divided in (i) commercially-oriented farmers, who have access to land, capital and markets; (ii) semi-commercial farmers, who have access to land, but have limited capital and links to value chains; (iii) subsistence-oriented farmers, who use traditional farming methods to produce food for household consumption. (Bitzer et al., 2016).

All these variables result in specific challenges and demands which are explained in the next sections.

2.2.2 “The future of youth lies in agriculture”

Evidences from the World Bank suggest that Kenya would be able to achieve poverty reduction goals set in Vision 2030 by stimulating the agricultural sector. Indeed, people living in poverty concentrate in rural areas (68%) (FAO, 2013) and Kenya has got essentially an agrarian economy (World Bank, 2013). At the same time, 55% of youth are unemployed9_{. The combination of these factors seems to}

lead to an obvious conclusion. By involving youth in agriculture, Kenya and many other countries with similar characteristics, would not only reduce youth unemployment, but also pursue some of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including ending extreme poverty, zero hunger and gender equality (Nyasimi & Kosgey, 2017). Thus, youth find themselves with a considerable weight on their shoulders. Construed as a “sizeable and growing demographic [with] significant untapped potential”, youth seem to have to play a “pivotal role in ensuring a food-secure future for themselves, and for future generations” (FAO, CTA & IFAD, 2014). Hence, the words of 2017 World Food Prize laureate, Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, President of the African Development Bank ( AfDB), stating that the “future of African youth lies in agriculture”.

2.2.3 Challenges to youth engagement in agriculture

All these enthusiastic considerations (pull factors) face nonetheless the hard reality. Indeed, youth face multiple exogenous and endogenous challenges determining their involvement in agriculture (push factors).

The access to productive land is often limited. The transgenerational transfer of land (Hivos, 2014; Bennell, 2007) creates “tensions between the desires of the older generation to retain control of family or community resources, and the desire of young people to receive their share of these resources” (White, 2012). Youth may work on their parents’ land, but as unpaid family labour (Dalla

9_{Survey conducted on a national level, including youth between 18-35, The Kenya Youth Survey Report, The}

Aga Khan University, Awiti, A.O. and Scott, B., January 18, 2016, retrieved from

(22)

Valle, n.d.). The access to land is particularly limited to young women, who suffer the most in contexts of rural patriarchy (AGRA, 2015). Indeed, gender inequalities at household and community level persist (Bitzer et al., 2016) and parents usually partition the land in as many plots as the number of sons10_.

Youth face also the issue of capital, which they need to cover the costs of inputs and farm processes, as well as to invest in their activity. Yet, financial service providers (FSPs) often fail to offer youth credit and financial instruments in agriculture, such as insurance schemes and low interest rates loans (FAO, CTA & IFAD, 2014). Again, young women struggle the most, because their labour is often not paid and even if so, they are often not in control of their income (AGRA, 2015). Furthermore, young women usually marry and have children at an early age (mother’s mean age at first birth is 20,3 years11_{). Therefore, they have fewer chances than young men to find a temporary job and save}

money.

Another major challenge for youth is the limited access to markets, which refers to the ability to receive farm inputs and farm services, and the capacity to sell their agricultural produce (IFAD, 2010a). Access to market also depends on the grown crops. Young men and especially young women with few assets, who tend to be subsistence or semi-commercial farmers, may opt for local markets. Regional or international markets generate considerable demand, however they have more complex procurement systems and require certain quality and safety standards that are difficult to meet for small-scale farmers. Furthermore, bigger markets involve numerous intermediaries and for young farmers with little experience and scarce negotiating power, the profits may be minimal (White, 2011).

Finally, another factor which negatively influences youth participation in agriculture is insufficient or inadequate education and vocational training (Dalla Valle, n.d.). In many rural areas, agricultural knowledge and skills are still passed on on an informal basis from parents to children (FAO, CTA & IFAD, 2014). Formal education curricula often neglect agricultural skills and therefore youth do not develop an interest in agriculture (White, 2011). Vocational training and advisory services have the potential to fill this gap, by reaching out to rural youth. Nonetheless, these often fail to transmit relevant information and skills, such as market information and business management (FAO, CTA & IFAD, 2014).

Moreover, research has shown that farmers have unequal access to advisory services depending on their level of commercialisation and market aspiration. Indeed, semi-commercial and subsistence-oriented smallholders have the least access to advisory services, because service providers tend to

10_{This is still the norm although gender discrimination in land inheritance was ended in 2010 (Article 60f of the}

(23)

concentrate on commercially-oriented farmers. This significantly concerns young farmers, since they often have limited access to capital and land, and thus mainly belong to the more marginalised categories (Bitzer et al., 2016).

All these constraints may be tackled with the support of diverse actors, such as the government, the private sector and international organisations, by favouring, among others: (i) land policies benefitting the youth, (ii) youth-dedicated financial products, (iii) primary and secondary school agricultural education, (iv) youth specific advisory services (Nyasimi & Kosgey, 2017; Schoonhoven-Speijer & Heemskerk, n.d.).

Finally, in rural areas, youth with higher education level and higher socio-economic status tend to have other aspirations, rather than working in agriculture, which is negatively perceived due to low and insecure incomes, the rural setting, “drudgery and low societal standing” (Umeh & Odom, 2011; Proctor & Lucchesi, 2012). Furthermore, food production and preparation are gendered activities, mainly considered as duties of a housewife (Doss, 2017).

This perception limits youth engagement in agriculture. Yet, studies do not thoroughly investigate how the perceptions vary among different youth groups.

It seems that attempts to engage youth in agriculture have to consider not only “feed the world” agendas, but also youth’s aspirations to have remunerative and high status jobs. Hence, the development of new narratives to present agriculture as “profitable, competitive and dynamic” (Brooks et al., 2013), which are further explained in the next section.

2.2.4 Opportunities for youth in agriculture

The current debates regarding youth involvement in agriculture tend to rebrand smallholder farming as “farming-as-a-business” (Noorani, 2015). It seems that rural youth unemployment and food security are increasingly tackled with “agricoolture” strategies (GFRAS, 2018) and agripreneural rhetoric.

The term agripreneurship describes “the adaptive and dynamic process of business development within the agricultural sector that brings innovation and value addition, accelerates value creation, and provides for sustainable systems that support equitable social impact” (Ferris et al., 2017). This approach assumes that youth are dynamic and ambitious business people, who want to set up their own business and improve their livelihoods. Despite the possible benefits of such a narrative and deriving strategies, some warn against the “fetishisation around entrepreneurship in Africa” (Okolloh in Anyangwe, 2017) and the impression that “everything […] can be fixed with the entrepreneurial mindset” (African Business Magazine, 2017). The fear is that entrepreneurship is

(24)

used as a substitute for the development of concrete policies tackling the basic constraints to youth involvement in agriculture.

Entrepreneurship is not the only discourse trying to change the perspective of farming. Current studies emphasise the use of agricultural technologies and ICTs (Information and Communication Technology) to extend the opportunities, motivations and capacities of youth in farming. Indeed, ICTs make the access to production information and the communication with other farmers easier. Apparently, youth associate ICTs with the possibility of increased profitability. This may lead youth to invest their time, effort and financial resources in agriculture (IICD, 2013). Yet, their accessibility and affordability needs to be taken into account to have an impact besides the rhetoric.

All in all, the new opportunities offered by the rise of agripreneurship and the diffusion of ICTs are likely to involve more youth in the agri-food sector, not only in farming, but also in production, post-harvest handling, distribution and marketing of agricultural products (Nyasimi & Kosgey, 2017). In order to make agriculture attractive to youth, these activities seem to require more visibility (Osti et

al., 2015).

This section aimed to present the ongoing debates on youth engagement in agriculture. On one side, I analysed the discourses of food security, rural development and agripreneurship (pull factors), on the other side, I examined the endogenous and exogenous constraints limiting youth access to agriculture (push factors). Both these aspect are necessary to understand the context into which agribusiness-based advisory services fit. The latter are at the same time influenced by and influencing the current narrative of youth involvement in agriculture.

2.3 Youth participation in the extension delivery chain

The overview provided in sections 2.1 and 2.2 presented the current debates on advisory services and youth engagement in agriculture. This section serves as a bridge between the previous considerations. The crucial question is how youth’s challenges and demands can be prioritised so as to deliver youth inclusive ABAS. First, I briefly explain how the term “inclusive” is understood in this study. Then, I proceed to examine participatory extension approaches as a potential strategy to makes services more inclusive.

2.3.1 Definition of inclusion

In this study, inclusion refers to the design and the implementation of youth responsive strategies, with the aim of engaging youth in agriculture.

(25)

The inclusiveness of the services is determined by how the users are defined – services for whom? – and by how they are delivered – which extension approach is appropriate to enhance inclusiveness? Including youth means incorporating their needs, priorities and aspirations in the development of policies and practices concerning agricultural advisory services.

To define approaches and actions as youth inclusive, some factors may be evaluated: are youth included in the target group? Are there youth specific objectives and results? Is there a minimum quota of participating youth? Is there a unit working just for youth? (Procasur, 2015).

Moreover, advisory services are youth inclusive when they are tailored to the capacities of the recipients and they are developed thanks to the continuous dialogue and bilateral learning between farmers and extension providers (Bitzer et al., 2016).

Besides from an increased responsiveness of the services to their challenges and demands, youth seem to benefit from inclusive approaches by gaining confidence and self-determination, which are key to "play an active role as agents of change” (Pyburn, 2015). In other words, youth inclusive services aim to unleash youth potential, by giving them the opportunity to express their requests and influence the service delivery chain.

This study analyses how participatory extension approaches affect the inclusion of youth in the advisory services.

2.3.2 Participatory extension approaches

Advisory services are regarded as a powerful tool to improve rural youth livelihoods. Then, how can advisory services contribute to empower youth to occupy an active role in agricultural development? The answer to this questions is not straightforward. The literature on youth inclusive advisory services is not vast, much less if focusing on those provided by agribusinesses. This demonstrates that youth are rarely considered a cross-cutting theme in the services and that in most cases they are unintentionally or superficially targeted as generic smallholders (O’Planick, 2016; Pyburn, 2015). Yet, advisory services have the potential to be the practical means by which inclusion is implemented, for instance by adopting participatory extension approaches (PEA). PEA, together with demand-driven and context-specific approaches, are usually regarded as a way to include farmers in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the services, in order to increase their responsiveness and relevance(Mur et al., 2016; Feder et al., 2010).

Indeed, PEA promote: (i) farmer-centred strategies, (ii) farmer leaders with local background, (iii) increased providers’ accountability to farmers, (iv) communication between farmers and providers, (v) a two-way development based on the exchange of ideas and skills between farmers and extension actors, (vi) a facilitator rather than a teacher role for the extension worker, (vii) research based on farmers’ needs (Anandajayasekeram et al., 2008). These aspects seem to be essential to

(26)

create inclusive services. Nonetheless, PEA, per se, are not specifically youth inclusive. In fact, PEA can be manipulated by influential farmers or extension workers and used to serve personal interests (Hagmann et al., 1999; Okoboi et al., 2013).

There are few examples of PEA targeting youth applied on the field, as the projects run by USAID in Malawi (SANE Youth in Agriculture) and by 4-H Foundation in Kenya. These show that the most effective way to use PEA is to work with existing youth groups, who can support sustainability and inclusion objectives (McNamara & Bohn, 2017). Furthermore, the examples show that PEA are usually adopted in projects run by multiple stakeholders, often including a development organisation. These cases illustrate that PEA seem to be suitable to include youth in the service delivery chain, by involving them in the design, implementation and evaluation of the services.

The agricultural development debates concentrate on the potential of youth in agriculture to ensure food security and meet sustainable development goals. Advisory services are an important tool to support youth in facing, among others, knowledge, capability, financial and market challenges. Despite this, little has been done to update the advisory services towards youth inclusive approaches. Is it the task of agribusinesses to involve youth in agriculture? Are participatory approaches suitable to the private sector service model? These are some of the questions that are addressed in my analysis.

(27)

3. Research methodology

3.1 Research questions

The main research question is:

“How do agribusiness-based advisory services in Kenya affect youth engagement in agricultural activities and how does youth participation in the service delivery chain contribute to youth inclusive services?”

To answer this question, the following sub-questions will be addressed: 1) What are the drivers and the obstacles to youth engagement in agricultural activities?

2) What kind of advisory services do agribusinesses specifically offer to youth and how do they promote youth engagement in agriculture?

3) To what extent do the studied agribusinesses adopt participatory extension approaches and how do these contribute to youth inclusive agricultural advisory services?

4) How does the cooperation between agribusinesses and other stakeholders affect youth engagement in agriculture?

(28)

3.2 Operationalisation of concepts

The concepts examined in Chapter 2 have led my research on the field and the analysis of the collected data. The operationalisation table shows the concepts divided in dimensions and indicators (See Annex I).

3.3 Conceptual scheme

Figure 3: Conceptual scheme, Collina, 2018

The conceptual scheme illustrates the major concepts guiding the research. In the circle on the left side, I illustrate the concept of youth engagement in agriculture. This is determined by the challenges faced by youth, but also by the opportunities that this sector offers them. On the right side of the scheme, I highlight the correlation between three concepts. Indeed, I examine to what extent agribusiness-based advisory services adopt participatory extension approaches and how these contribute to youth inclusive advisory services. In the bottom part of the scheme, youth inclusive services are defined as those services responding to youth’s challenges and promoting opportunities in agriculture. Hence, the top part of the scheme delineates the main research question, that is how inclusive agribusiness-based advisory services affect youth engagement in agriculture.

(29)

3.4 Unit of analysis

The advisory services and their level of responsiveness to youth’s challenges and demands are the main unit of analysis. Particularly, I focus on the services offered by eight agribusinesses operating in Kenya, which were selected within the framework of a project on agribusiness-based advisory services run by the Royal Tropical Institute of Amsterdam and other partners.

The agribusinesses were selected because they all provide advisory services to smallholders and range from input-suppliers (Real IPM and Kenya Highland Seed), agro-marketing and processing companies (Merugreens, Farming Solutions and Agrisoko), to farmer cooperatives (Mukurwe-Ini Wakulima Dairy Ltd. and BAMSCOS) and agribusiness consultants (Vijana Reloaded). For the purpose of this study, it was interesting to investigate how advisory services fit within diverse business models. Indeed, the service provision differs from case to case, depending on (i) the services that the agribusiness offers (e.g. agricultural trainings, financial products, community development mentorship, collection and transport), (ii) their delivery modes (e.g. individual and group trainings, demonstration days), (iii) budget and resources allocated to the service delivery, (iv) the objective of the services, (v) targeted farmers groups and (vi) their geographical reach. From this variety of cases I expected to gain an overview of the actions taken by agribusinesses to respond to youth’s challenges and to promote the opportunities in agriculture, as well as how these affect youth engagement in the sector. More details on the agribusinesses providing the observed ABAS are in the table below.

(30)

NAME OF COMPANY

LOCATION SINCE KIND OF

AGRIBUSINESS SECTOR EXTENSION STRUCTURE SERVICES REAL IPM (Now part of BIOBEST GROUP) Thika, Kiambu County (but active in seven regions in Kenya and Ethiopia, Ghana,Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa)

2003 Input-supplier Biopesticide One field officer for each key region, for a total of seven +one extension department manager -Training -Contract Research -Consultancy -Scouting MUKURWE-INI WAKULIMA DAIRY LIMITED Mukurwe-Ini, Nyeri County (also active in Kirinyaga County)

1990 Farmer

cooperative Dairy sector (processing and

marketing)

- six field officers + one non-qualified trainer - one veterinary doctor + three veterinary assistants - _{Processing plant} - _SACCO - _{Feeds factory} - _Store - _{Veterinary service} KENYAN HIGHLAND SEEDS Nairobi (active in 6 regions in Kenya, a branch in Tanzania as well as agents in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi) 1998 Input-supplier Certified

hybrid seeds -No formalised extension department -Sales officers and three agronomists act as extension officers

Importation, processing and distribution of certified seeds

MERU GREENS

Meru, Meru County (active in 12 Kenyan regions) 1996 Agro-marketing and processing company Contract farming for fruit and vegetable

- _{One agronomist for} each county; - _{in each county}

several clusters - _{In each cluster, a}

field assistant and a centre clerk - _{Technical assistants}

supervising 4/5 centres each

-Integrated supply chain from growers to markets

-Collection centres

-Processing plant in Athi River

BAMSCOS Eldama Ravine, Baringo County (19 affiliate

cooperatives)

2012 Farmer

cooperative Dairy sector (marketing) Three officers (in addition to extension possible extension staff of the single affiliate cooperative)

-Aggregation and marketing of milk -Advisory services

-Veterinary services -Lobbying and advocacy

AGRISOKO Nakuru, Nakuru

County 2001 Agro-marketing company/ Private agricultural consultants Horticultural, dairy and cereal sectors

Bulking agents, who act as extension officers

- Consultancy

- Collection and marketing of cereals

FARMING SOLUTIONS Nakuru, Nakuru County (processing plant), active in Eastern Africa 2011 Agro-marketing and processing company Dairy sector (for milk ATMs) External private extension providers (fees on the farmers)

- _{Collection and processing of milk} - _{Marketing of milk through milk}

dispensers (milk ATMs)

- _{Import and distribution of milk} dispensers

VIJANA

RELOADED12 Nakuru, _County Nakuru 2013 Private _consultants Service _provision

(cooperation with SoilCare company)

Relies on government

extension officers - Business incubators - Trainings in ICTs and entrepreneurship

Table 1: Overview of cases

12_{Vijana Reloaded is considered here as an agribusinesses, although its business model differs from the others}

examined in this analysis. Vijana Reloaded is a social enterprise developed by ProPortion Foundation, a team of business strategists and design-thinkers based in Amsterdam. It is not yet an officially registered company in Kenya (it will be as of next year), however I decided to include this case because of its relevance to my study. Indeed, Vijana Reloaded is an entrepreneurship training platform and their programme Agrivijana aims to

(31)

3.5 The study area

The study was conducted in six counties in the Central and Rift Valley regions in Kenya: Nairobi, Kiambu, Nyeri, Meru, Nakuru and Baringo (marked in red in Map 1).

Since 2013, after suppressing the system of provinces, Kenya has been divided in 47 counties. This administrative reorganisation brought to the devolution of the legislative and the executive power to the new born county governments13_.

The agricultural sector fully decentralised the function of the service provision to the local governments. Hence, government agricultural advisory services also are provided by local officers (FAO, n.d.). The major urban centres in the area are the metropolitan city of Nairobi, Nakuru, Eldoret, Kikuyu, Nyeri, Meru and Thika, which are also among the principal cities in Kenya. The vicinity to urban centres is crucial to access better markets, infrastructure and job opportunities. These aspects need to be considered when exploring the push and the pull factors of youth engagement in these areas.

Ethnically, Kenya is a very rich country. The major ethnic groups in the study area are Kikuyu, which is also the principal in Kenya (22%) and the one the current Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta belongs to. Other ethnic groups in the region are Luo, Kamba, Kalengin and Meru14_.

The two official languages in Kenya are English, mainly used in formal contexts, at school, in the institutional setting and with foreigners, and Swahili, used as a lingua franca in formal and informal settings. Moreover, there are 68 other languages, which are spoken locally. The major in the study area are Kikuyu, Kamba, Kalengin and Meru.

13_{Kenyan Constitution, 2010 (Kenya Law: http://kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=3979)}

14_{CIA_The World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html}

(32)

The aforementioned counties figure among the wealthiest at the national level15_{, contributing the}

most to the national GDP. Moreover, this area presents ample investment opportunities in the horticultural sector16_{. Indeed, the population of these areas is predominantly engaged in the}

agricultural sector, notably cash crops (tea, coffee and cotton), horticulture, dairy and subsistence farming (e.g. maize, beans, kale).

The study area has two rainy seasons, a long one from March to June and a short one, in November. Due to poor infrastructure in rural areas, the rains often cause floods and people experience difficulties in accessing transport. Most people in these areas do not owe private transportion, but rely on matatus (minibuses) and picky picky or boda boda (motorbikes), which connect rural areas with minor and major urban centres.

This brief overview suggests that the agricultural private sector, given the considerable investment opportunities and the proximity to urban centres in the study area, finds a favourable environment to their business.

3.6 Theoretical paradigm

To carry out my research, I use an interpretivist/constructivist paradigm, in that I rely upon the “participants’ views of the situation being studied” (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). This paradigm recognises the diverse economic, social, cultural and personal circumstances of the respondents. Moreover, it stresses the desire to let youth express their impressions regarding agriculture and advisory services.

The interpretivist paradigm is usually associated with a qualitative approach as a research strategy. A qualitative approach is indeed the most appropriate for my research, as its functions are (Ritchie & Lewis, 2014):

- _{exploratory: it explores how ABAS affect youth engagement in agriculture and how youth}

participate in their provision;

- evaluative: it appraises current activities and services offered to farmers in general and specifically

to young ones;

- generative: it contributes to developing a new understanding of youth inclusive ABAS.

The qualitative approach helped me to look through the eyes of the participants, as well as putting the emphasis on the local context. Furthermore, it ensured flexibility, which was important to adapt to unexpected situations, e.g. heavy rains or improvised interviews.

15_{Bundervoet, T., Maiyo, L. And Sanghi, A. (2015), Bright Lights, Big Cities_ Measuring National and}

Subnational Economic Growth in Africa from Outer Space, with an Application to Kenya and Rwanda, Policy Research Working Paper 7461, World Bank Group

(33)

3.7 Sampling methods

Concerning the unit of analysis, i.e. the agribusiness-based advisory services, KIT selected six cases which were suitable for their project and my research (purposive sampling). Furthermore, while I was on the field, the extension staff and agribusinesses’ managers gave me access to relevant stakeholders (bank institutions, agrovets) and put me in contact with other service providers (snowballing). The cases were selected because of their commitment to smallholder farmers, the diversity of provided services (technical, advisory, marketing and financial) and their willingness to share their experience in service provision.

Concerning the unit of observation, i.e. the youth between 18 and 35 years, I recruited participants for the interviews and the focus groups among the farmers that the agribusinesses introduced to me during the individual and group trainings (purposive sampling). In line with the qualitative approach of my research, I sampled also via snowballing. Indeed, some farmers introduced me to their neighbours and members of the same local groups. In order to avoid that snowball sampling led to a superficial and narrow representation of the unit of observation, I tried as much as possible to have a diverse range of interviewees, who varied in gender, age and socio-economic background.

3.8 Data collection methods

I use a comparative design as a framework for the collection and analysis of data, in that it allows me to compare and contrast the cases and explore common and different aspects. Still, I also give relevance to the specific characteristics of the cases, in order to avoid that the research is limited to a mere contrast.

As far as data collection is concerned, I rely on primary data collected during the fieldwork. Therefore, I mostly used obtrusive methods and solicited data, gained through interviews and small focus groups. Yet, unobtrusive methods such as observation at a distance (as on farmer field days), as well as unsolicited data (notes, minutes) contributed to my understanding of the daily routines and the group dynamics. The triangulation of sources and methods ensures the quality and the integration of the data. Below, table 4 presents an overview of data collection per case.

(34)

3.8.1 Participant observation

My research benefitted considerably from participant observation. Thanks to the arrangements made via e-mail and the helpfulness of the agribusinesses’ reference people, I accompanied field officers to key locations, such as farmers’ shambas, demonstration plots, agrovets (stores selling products for horticultural and dairy farming), feeds factories, wholesalers, processing plants and SACCOs (Savings and Credit Cooperatives). In these situations, I could observe the routines and the activities of the actors of service provision. Furthermore, this helped me to comprehend the local networks, the distances between a farm and a milk collection point, as well as the relationship between the field officer and the farmers. By traveling to some remote farms, I realised the hardships that the farmers endure due to bad infrastructure, especially during the rainy seasons. These first-person observations contributed to gain a general understanding of the context and to study people operating in familiar environments. Furthermore, participant observation eased my role as a researcher. Indeed, as a “white visitor”, I was often put under the spotlight and people might have behaved differently than usual due to my presence. Especially during field days, I could instead use participant observation to take part to the activities from a distance. I usually sat at the back of the venue, so that the participants would not be distracted from my presence. Through participant observation, I gained insight about the attitudes, the dynamics and the ”rhetoric” of the trainings.

3.8.2 Semi-structured interviews

I conducted semi-structured interviews, in order to collect private, direct and spontaneous opinions. I carried out most of the interviews with farmers in the form of walking interviews (Jones et al., 2008). I had not envisaged using this research method, but the circumstances of the visits made it

Engaging youth in agriculture: a task for agribusiness? : a study of agribusiness-based advisory services in Central and Rift Valley regions in Kenya