https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2460-4151
Figures
Abstract
Youth face interconnected constraints: unemployment, inequality, limited access to resources and information, and a lack of training. These systemic challenges hinder their effective participation in agri-food systems. This study builds on previous studies, two scoping reviews, and stakeholder consultations, whose outputs were used to develop a Change Theory (CT) for youth inclusion and empowerment in agri-food systems in sub-Saharan Africa. A transformation in four interlinked change domains, namely (a) knowledge, awareness, attitude, and skills, (b) political will, (c) policies and (d) partnerships, is proposed. These change domains are mutually reinforcing and contribute to achieving Sustainable Development Goals 2, 8, 10, 13 and 17. Our proposed CT highlights that youth participation in agri-food systems necessitates a systematic, integrated, and context-specific strategy, fostered by collaboration and coordination among stakeholders across all aspects that affect youth well-being, development, and empowerment. It provides an initial starting point for developing a theory of change or contextualisation to guide the design of interventions, highlighting pathways for addressing challenges within institutional arrangements that affect the implementation, efficiency, and effectiveness of policies on the ground, enabling transformation.
Author summary
The youth dividend in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) offers a unique opportunity for economic development and growth in agribusiness and agri-food systems. However, young people continue to face significant challenges that impede their meaningful participation in these spaces. These challenges call for investments which combine technical skills, soft skills, and political inclusion. Moreover, it necessitates partnerships and broad policies among various stakeholders and sectors (e.g., education, health, social security, economic development, and agriculture) whose mandates support the foundation of youth well-being and development. By investing in youth’s growth, development, and empowerment, we can nurture their potential and create an enabling environment that unlocks their meaningful participation in the economy and society. This paper proposes a change theory grounded in four interlinked domains as a starting point for guiding the design of interventions and programs to address systematic barriers and foster youth leadership in agri-food systems across SSA.
Citation: Geza W, Ngidi MSC, Slotow R, Sobratee-Fajurally N, Mabhaudhi T (2026) Developing transformative pathways for youth inclusion and empowerment in agri-food systems: A change theory. PLOS Sustain Transform 5(6): e0000255. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255
Editor: Roberto Rivas Hermann, Nord University: Nord Universitet, NORWAY
Received: January 14, 2025; Accepted: May 28, 2026; Published: June 18, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Geza et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust through the Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS) Project (Grant number-205200/Z/16/Z). The SHEFS Programme supports WG, MN, RS and TM. The uMngeni Resilience Project, which is funded by the Adaptation Fund. This work is based on the research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Numbers 119409). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
People engage with the agri-food system through a wide range of activities and in various capacities, in domestic, institutional, small enterprise, or industrial settings [1]. These engagements with the agri-food system are linked to multidimensional objectives and interests, and are shaped by age, gender, marital status, culture, location, health, etc. Transforming agri-food systems in developing countries is crucial for promoting economic development, addressing inequalities, creating employment, reducing poverty, improving nutrition, health and sustainability, and supporting climate action [2]. Youth are widely recognised for their potential to positively contribute to driving the transformation of agri-food systems through innovation and concrete action [1,3,4,5,6]. As agriculture is a critical source of employment in Africa, food-related activities will continue to play a vital role in creating employment opportunities for the growing youth population [7, 8].
However, today’s younger generation faces unique and unprecedented risks and challenges related to the agri-food system [5]. Such challenges include constraints for youth to pursue agri-business-related careers, lack of access to productive resources and limited economic opportunities [9, 10]. These challenges vary by location and socio-economic environment. They affect youth differently based on their identity and attributes (e.g., gender, age, culture, and educational status) [5, 6]. These factors also define opportunities for youth to pursue agri-food system-related objectives and interests [1, 3]. Moreover, the interactions between policy, institutions, economic and social factors across all scales shape youths’ opportunity space as they mature and pursue career paths [11]. Prioritising youth inclusion in agri-food system transformation offers immense potential to improve food and nutrition security and stimulate economic growth, with agri-food systems projected to generate 87 million jobs specifically for unemployed youth and those not in education, employment, or training (NEET) [12].
1.1. Youth engagement in agri-food systems transformation
Inclusivity in agri-food systems remains lacking in many parts of the world. It creates barriers to participation in modern value chains, especially for women, youth, rural poor, and smallholder farmers who often have limited access to education, resources, and capital [6, 13, 14]. Addressing agri-food system challenges is essential for reducing hunger and malnutrition, mitigating environmental degradation, and mitigating climate change [15]. Young people play a crucial part in the multidimensional challenges that global agri-food systems face [16]. It is equally a challenge and an opportunity for the worldwide community to capitalise on the growing youth population to achieve food security and energise economies [9, 17]. Policies and initiatives to strengthen youth engagement and employment in agri-food systems must be based on rights, equity, agency, and recognition [18]. Likewise, these policies and initiatives need to address the social, economic, political, and cultural aspects of youth aspirations and development, encouraging youth participation in society and strengthening platforms for youth participation in decision-making at all levels of government [4]. This is reflected in policies such as the African Youth Charter [19] and Agenda 2063 [20].
This study aims to map pathways for transformative change, i.e., systemic transformation, to promote youth engagement and empowerment in agri-food system activities in SSA, using the Change Theory (CT) approach. It develops a CT to propose transformative, systemic change that promotes youth engagement and empowerment in agri-food system activities across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The proposed CT serves as a foundation to support the development of a contextualised theory of change. It builds on the findings of a series of systematic reviews [21, 22] and South African case studies Metelerkamp et al. [23], Madende et al. [24] which collectively reveal that agricultural interventions targeting youth are predominantly production-centric and fail to reflect the diverse aspirations, capacities, and contexts of youth in South Africa and SSA. These studies underscore the importance of recognising youth heterogeneity; differences in livelihood assets, psychological capital, entrepreneurial traits, gender, location, and socio-economic background as central to designing effective interventions. They also highlight the need for inclusive, context-sensitive policies that support youth agency and career pathways beyond primary agriculture, such as agro-processing, logistics, and digital agriculture. While the CT is developed from data collected in South Africa, it intentionally adopts a generic structure to allow for further contextual adaptation across diverse SSA settings and commodity value chains. It proposes a theoretical framework as a starting point and highlights the critical areas that require change. This flexibility and critical areas highlighted reflect the shared challenges youth experience regionally as noted by other scholars [8, 21, 25], while also advancing previous research by translating fragmented insights into a coherent, strategic framework for inclusive and youth-centred transformation.
2. Methodology
This CT builds on previous work by the authors (see Fig 1), where the first scoping review was conducted at the Africa level [21], the second focused on South Africa [22] (see section 2.1), and the third body of work included primary data collection [26] outlined in sections 2.2 and 2.3. Therefore, this methods section provides a broad overview of the various stages. Data collection was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s Human and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee (protocol reference number: HSSREC/00002355/2021). Gatekeeper permission was obtained from the traditional council in each community, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants to record focus group discussions and to photograph the mapping exercise for data analysis. A stakeholder analysis was conducted in phase 3 (see section 2.4). The product of these three phases provided background and context to the CT problem statement and informed the vision, priorities, and change domains (see section 2.6).
2.1. Systematic reviews
Two comprehensive scoping reviews were conducted using methodological framework for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-P guidelines for conducting systematic reviews [27]. In the first scoping review, Geza et al. [21] assessed the opportunities and challenges for youth participation in agriculture and the food system in Africa. The specific objectives were (i) to identify the existing challenges and opportunities for youth in agriculture in Africa and (ii), based on the evidence, to propose an integrated agricultural-based approach for promoting youth participation and inclusivity in agriculture and the future food system. The second scoping review [22] investigated the challenges that youth in post-apartheid SA face in participating in the labour market, with a particular focus on youth in agriculture and rural development. The specific objectives were (i) to determine youth participation and empowerment in the agricultural sector in SA, and (ii) to assess government policies, strategies, and programmes related to youth participation and empowerment in agriculture in SA to ensure equality and inclusivity of youth in the sector.
2.2. Focus group discussions
Nine Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted to understand the youth’s awareness of value-chain opportunities and their perception of their value-chain role [26]. The FGDs were conducted in three communities in the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province, South Africa, between June and September 2021. The selected sites were Swayimane, Nhlazuka, and uMbumbulu communities. Three FGDs were conducted in two sites (Nhlazuka and uMbumbulu) with participants ranging from six to eight per group. Thematic saturation was reached, and only one FGD was conducted in Swayimane. These communities were selected because they reflect the various socio-economic contexts in which youth in SA are located. They have different social and environmental indicators and varying exposure to poverty, unemployment, and economic prospects. The FGD participants were selected purposively to align with the study’s objectives. They included youth who were members of local agricultural cooperatives, youth involved in family farms, and those interested in farming. While this approach provided rich insights into youth perceptions within rural agri-food contexts, it excluded urban and non-farming youth, which we acknowledge as a limitation. Gender diversity was considered during recruitment, and all groups had an almost equal representation of males and females.
As per the requirements of the University’s ethics Committee, gatekeeper permission was obtained from the traditional council authority in each community before data collection, and informed consent was obtained from all study participants to partake in the study, record the FGDs and take images of the mapping exercise outcomes (see S1:Appendix A: focus group discussion methodology).
The FGDs were conducted and transcribed by two facilitators recruited as research assistants for data collection. However, the researcher was present as an assistant and observer during data collection. A mapping exercise guided by a series of questions related to the research objectives was conducted (see S1 Appendix, Fig A and Fig B in S1 Appendix). The data was analysed using QRS NVivo 12 software [28] using the framework analysis approach developed by Spencer et al. [29] for analysing qualitative data (see S1 Appendix). This approach follows a series of distinct but interconnected stages: familiarisation, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, mapping, and interpretation.
2.3. Online surveys
Building on outputs from the desktop research and the focus group discussion data, the structural barriers to youth-led enterprises across the value chain were evaluated, and a questionnaire was developed and administered online via Google Forms during February and March 2022. The target respondents for the survey were geographically located in various provinces in SA. An online survey was selected to limit personal contact and adhere to the COVID-19 regulations prevailing in SA at that time. The survey questions were formulated based on the emerging themes and knowledge gaps from the FGDs data (see S2 Appendix). This online survey was used to collect information from role-players in the SA agriculture sector. A list of stakeholders was requested from the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD). This list included 146 members, representing various provincial departments of agriculture, youth program coordinators, international and national organisations, structures and agencies, state-owned entities, industry bodies, the financial sector, provincial youth in agriculture committee representatives, and academia. However, the survey response rate was only 29,5% (n = 43). The survey was exploratory and not intended for statistical generalisation, but to triangulate qualitative findings and inform the ToC development. Quantitative analysis was conducted using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 27 (IBM Corp, 2020) and open-ended questions were analysed using QRS NVivo. The survey triangulated the information from the previous activities and provided initial external verification of the scoping review results [26].
2.4. Stakeholder engagement
The results from the scoping reviews and online surveys were then used to design and inform the programme for a stakeholders’ consultation workshop. The stakeholder workshop was co-convened in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, South Africa Office (FAO-ZA), in March 2022 in Pretoria, South Africa. The workshop was part of the process to develop South Africa’s Youth Empowerment Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development. The workshop’s purpose was to facilitate building a shared understanding of the dynamics of youth empowerment in agriculture, identify role players at various levels involved in finance and capacity development, identify fundamental mechanisms and interventions for addressing transformation challenges in the sector, and allow for co-designing the pathway of change. The workshop also validated the literature review outputs and obtained further input from stakeholders not included in the surveys. The workshop included transdisciplinary stakeholders from different organisations representing SA’s agriculture and rural development sectors, including government agencies accountable to DALRRD, academia and research institutions, youth activists, civil society, young agriprenuers and youth associations. Moreover, a provision was made for participants to join the workshop virtually.
At this stage, a rapid review was also conducted to identify other policies from the Global South and strategic international policy documents that can be relied on to inform best practice management (see S1 Table). In addition, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were considered to ensure that the draft ToC outcomes align with the SDGs Agenda. Further, the draft CT was tested against the SA Constitution, particularly the principles of equality, inclusion, and dignity, as well as the National Development Plan. This process ensured that global best practices informed the draft CT and the SDGs, and that they aligned with the national policy context and frameworks. S3 Appendix provides a narrative of the protocol used to develop the CT Map. However, a summarised version of this process is outlined in Table 1 below.
2.5. Rationale for change theory
The Theory of Change (ToC) is an approach to structure or articulate how and why a given intervention will lead to the desired change [30]. It is rooted in how people perceive or think about how change occurs. It is commonly used in the field of rural development and by civil society organisations, national non-governmental organisations and academia to explore and represent (social) change in a way that reflects a complex and systemic understanding of development [30,31]. The ToC serves many purposes, can be used in different ways, and serves as a framework for learning, adaptive management, and monitoring and evaluation throughout a program’s cycle [32,33]. It also enables organisations to explore programmes, reflect in depth on their work, and focus their resources and energies more effectively. In addition, a ToC improves accountability and supports ongoing learning and reflection [31,34].
Unlike a theory of change, a change theory presents theoretical and empirically substantiated knowledge about how change occurs and is applicable beyond any one project or context. It offers more flexibility and can also serve as the foundation for a theory of change, as it contains many of the same components [35]. It is not prescriptive but offers a starting point for informing change and further research, and provides a valuable framework for understanding and interpreting social phenomena by highlighting the various components critical to change. In addition, the proposed change can also focus on different levels of change across scales, e.g., individual, organisational or network [36]. Developing transformative pathways for youth inclusion and empowerment in agri-food systems requires understanding how interactions among the physical, economic, social, environmental, and institutional factors shape youths’ ability to participate in agri-food systems. The process involved in developing a change theory is similar to the process of developing a theory of change as it unpacks the connections between the cause-and-effect sequence of activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact while outlining the associated assumptions about how the desired change will occur [30,37,38]. Additionally, it includes identifying other key actors and defining their roles or contributions toward the desired change [38].
The challenges affecting youth participation in agri-food systems are complex and cross-sectoral. The process of unlocking economic opportunities for youth is a long-term commitment that requires multiple levels of action to create a supportive environment in which young people can thrive. Change theories are useful for providing insight and initial direction for change agents and researchers, particularly in complex scenarios involving multiple stakeholders to drive systemic change. In addition, they can be used to guide the development of a theory of change at the project level, inform work across contexts with shared characteristics, and inform the design of programs and interventions [36].
2.6. Process for developing the change theory
As this change theory is intended to provide the foundation for developing a contextualised theory of change, it was created using the theory of change approach using guidelines from Vogel et al. [39] and [40]. See Table 1 for a summary of the key steps and processes used to develop the change theory. The process of developing a change theory and a theory of change is similar and follows a structured approach, typically involving problem definition and articulating key activities, outputs, outcomes, assumptions, and external factors to map a path from activities to impacts within a framework [41]. The process included six steps outlined in detail in S3 Appendix, S1 to S6 Tables. Each step involved answering a set of guiding questions, breaking the problem down, and analysing it from different angles. This process led to the development of the change theory framework, as shown in Fig 2. The CT framework is a living document which is continually revised and updated.
The steps needed to move from the current situation to the desired change are mapped from left to right in different colours to separate the four change domains. The enablers guiding the theory of change are displayed in pictograms between the outputs and outcomes. The impacts are represented in circles to show the relationships among the different impact areas and their linkages to the Sustainable Development Goal targets. The inputs, outputs, enablers, and outcomes outlined in this change theory framework are not specific to any agricultural commodity or value chain. It is intended to provide a starting point for developing a theory of change at the project level and context-specific interventions for youth participation and empowerment in chosen agri-food system activities. It represents the broad-spectrum key areas where transformation is required to enable a conducive environment that promotes youth livelihoods and well-being through effective participation in agri-food systems (Source: developed by the authors).
3. Results and discussion
This section presents the change theory framework developed to guide youth inclusion and empowerment in agri-food systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It outlines four interlinked domains of change, namely: knowledge and skills, political will, policy, and partnerships, alongside enabling conditions and stakeholder roles. Its components are adaptable to diverse contexts and commodity value chains across SSA. It provides a foundational basis for further alteration and contextualisation for project or intervention development. The CT addresses systemic barriers: policy, institutional, technological, and capacity-related, which hinder youth participation in agri-food systems across SSA. These barriers are common across developing regions and require coordinated interventions. The CT map progresses from inputs to vision, illustrating how targeted interventions across the four domains contribute to inclusive, sustainable, and equitable agri-food systems. The desired change is to empower young people to engage in inclusive, sustainable, and equitable agri-food systems (see Fig 2). The domains of change chosen for this CT represent areas where transformative change is most needed, and interventions in these areas would offer the best chance of achieving the desired impact (see Table 2).
3.1. Change in knowledge, awareness, attitude and skills
Empowering youth with relevant knowledge and skills is foundational to their participation in agri-food systems. This domain emphasises capacity development, enabling youth to engage as employees, entrepreneurs, and innovators. Literacy is a core competency for future agri-food careers, including the incorporation of digital tools and technologies essential for youth access to markets, climate-smart practices, and innovation [42]. Enhanced human capital not only improves employment prospects but also strengthens climate resilience and contributes to SDGs 2 (Zero Hunger), 8 (Decent Work), and 13 (Climate Action). Youth often perceive agriculture negatively due to its poor image and limited visibility as a viable career path [43, 44]. Moreover, access to agricultural information remains a challenge [25]. Intentional education and awareness campaigns are essential to shift perceptions and equip youth with the tools to navigate the evolving agri-food landscape [45, 46]. Intentional education shapes aspirations and must be matched with tangible opportunities to ensure meaningful engagement and participation [43].
3.2. Change in political will
Political commitment is critical to institutionalising youth participation in policy processes. This domain seeks to empower youth to influence and co-create policies reflecting their needs and aspirations, fostering active citizenship and reducing inequalities (SDG 10). Youth-related issues are cross-sectoral and require integrated responses. Strategic partnerships among government, civil society, and private actors are necessary to deepen collaboration and implement youth-focused initiatives. Without political will, youth remain excluded from decision-making, perpetuating systemic barriers to empowerment.
Transformative policies must be inclusive, context-specific, and responsive to youth diversity across urban-rural and gender divides. This domain advocates for integrated policy design and multi-stakeholder partnerships to drive innovation, competitiveness, and sustainable development (SDG 17). Current policy frameworks often lack effective youth engagement platforms and exhibit urban bias [47, 48]. Rural youth, in particular, face limited representation and support. Addressing these gaps requires coordinated efforts to build youth capacity, connect them to socio-political structures, and embed youth priorities into sectoral plans [49]. For example, the UNFSS+4 Youth Declaration amplifies youth voices in global food governance, calling for urgent action to integrate youth perspectives and priorities into national and international food system transformation strategies. This is underpinned by three pillars: advocacy, action, and empowerment [50]. Transformative policies are crucial as they influence food system actors and interactions, providing the foundation for enabling environments [51, 52]. Moreover, they stimulate structural shifts in governance, practices, and values to unlock opportunities for employment, social justice, and climate resilience [53, 54].
3.3. Change in partnerships
Effective partnerships are crucial to address the multifaceted challenges faced by youth in agri-food systems. This domain emphasises the importance of collaboration across public, private, and civil society sectors to enhance institutional coherence and support youth development. This necessitates a shared understanding of youth issues, governance structures, and bottom-up approaches for building inclusive empowerment trajectories. Coordinated efforts, such as those led by institutions like South Africa’s National Youth Development Agency (NYDA), can harmonise youth strategies and reduce duplication (see S3 Appendix). A ‘shared understanding’ of the contextual youth issues, anticipated agendas, governance structures, and institutional awareness from bottom-up approaches is needed to establish an emerging alternative empowerment trajectory for the SSA youth. As illustrated in Fig 3, integrated partnerships also support systemic impact assessment through embedded Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) components. Such mechanisms ensure adaptive learning and maximise positive feedback loops across youth empowerment pathways.
However, to maximise the effectiveness of partnerships, institutions must be adequately resourced to facilitate cross-sectoral implementation and feedback (see S3 Appendix). Agricultural systems are deeply embedded in societal structures and governance. This emphasises the importance of innovation in governance structures as a catalyst for systemic transformation of the food system [UNEP, 2023]. In addition, coordinated action across communities, sectors and governance levels [50, 55]. Integrated policies and partnerships are essential for guiding innovation and investment strategies, particularly those that support multidimensional outcomes. Without functional partnerships and strategic coordination, youth empowerment in agri-food systems will remain elusive [51, 53].
4. Limitations and future directions
While the change theory presented in this study offers an evidence-based framework for youth empowerment in agri-food systems, its applicability is constrained by contextual factors that provide opportunities for further refinement and contextualisation. The strength of this change theory lies in its flexibility, adaptability and responsiveness to diverse socio-economic and agro-ecological settings; however, its current formulation is primarily informed by data from South Africa, which may not fully capture the nuances of youth experiences across Sub-Saharan Africa. It presents a valuable opportunity for future research to adapt and test the framework in varied regional contexts, incorporating broader youth demographics, including urban and non-farming youth. For instance, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana, Mali, Zambia, and Zimbabwe share similarities; however, each has unique additional challenges and diverse strengths. This offers diversity in settings to pilot interventions that promote youth agency, entrepreneurship, agri-tech innovation, and inclusive food system transformation. Additionally, while the CT integrates stakeholder perspectives and systemic analysis, the complexity of institutional dynamics and external influences may have been simplified. Embracing these limitations as areas for growth, future studies can deepen the CT’s inclusivity through intersectional analysis, longitudinal evaluation, and participatory approaches that further enhance its relevance and impact across diverse youth populations and food system landscapes.
5. Policy implications related to the conditions underpinning the transformative change
The assumptions underpinning this change theory highlight critical areas where policy action is needed to enable youth empowerment in agri-food systems. It provides an initial starting point for further research and refinement for researchers and practitioners working in the youth development and empowerment space within agri-food systems, guiding and theoretically grounding future ToCs. The conditions that connect the change theory components and shape the desired change outlined in the four change domains are summarised in the assumptions column of Table 2. The assumptions highlight cross-cutting conditions that must be in place to operationalise the CT framework, while providing an overview of elements that may need to be further adapted to suit the needs of each project or context. Our recommendations, therefore, are based on the preconditions for realising the long-term vision of the change effort. The underlying CT preconditions have the following policy implications:
- a) Enhance youth awareness and perception of agriculture.
This can be achieved by integrating food systems education into school curricula and by promoting food systems career guidance and mentorship through formal (e.g., traditional media such as radio and newspapers) and informal platforms (e.g., social media, community centres, sporting events). Social media and other outreach events can be used to showcase food system careers as viable and rewarding career paths. It can also raise awareness of the variety of career options outside primary agriculture.
- b) Strengthen youth skills and access to resources.
Youth skills can be strengthened through investing in vocational training, ICT skills, and entrepreneurship programs tailored to agri-food systems. Moreover, supporting school-to-work transitions through internships, volunteering, and job matching. This also needs to be supplemented by improved age-appropriate access to finance, land, technology, and advisory services.
- c) Promote youth participation in policy processes.
Youth participation in policy processes can be supported by recognising youth as active change agents and ensuring their representation across governance levels. Their engagement in various policy processes (e.g., agenda setting, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation) should be institutionalised to ensure that policy is designed in ways that reflect youth diversity and context-specific needs.
- d) Develop integrated policies and foster strategic partnerships.
Youth development, well-being and empowerment in agrifood systems cut across multiple sectors. This calls for restructuring and designing cross-sectoral strategies that align youth development with agriculture, education, and employment. It requires the dissolution of sectoral and institutional silos to promote coordinated planning across government departments. Moreover, building multi-level partnerships among government, private sector, academia, civil society and other stakeholders who work on issues that intersect with youth well-being. Collaboration and partnerships across sectors and departments will ensure continuity and coherence in youth-focused programs, while also aligning training and employment initiatives with market demands and emerging sectors. This will reduce duplication and improve service delivery.
6. Conclusion
This study proposes a change theory of pathways for youth inclusion and empowerment in agri-food systems across SSA. This CT presents an initial starting point for further development into a theory of change. Achieving inclusive, sustainable, and equitable agri-food systems requires systemic transformation across four key domains: (i) changes in knowledge and skills, (ii) changes in political will, (iii) changes in policy, and (iv) changes in partnerships. Collectively, these changes highlight the need to strengthen youth capacity for a range of careers in agrifood systems, while also promoting their participation in policy processes to deliver responsive policy interventions that reflect youth aspirations and socio-economic realities. Additionally, fostering strategic, multi-stakeholder partnerships that support youth inclusion and empowerment.
Empowering youth to participate in inclusive, sustainable agri-food systems is essential for driving innovation and resilience. By aligning interventions with SDG targets and national policies, stakeholders can contextualise interventions and collaboratively co-create enabling environments for youth to thrive and lead transformative change. The proposed CT offers an adaptable, scalable strategic framework for addressing systemic barriers and fostering youth leadership in agri-food systems across scales and regions in SSA. As a living framework, the CT supports ongoing learning, adaptation, contextualisation and collaboration to ensure youth are central to agri-food system transformation. Moreover, future research and practice should adapt, contextualise and expand this CT across diverse regions and socio-political, economic, and agro-ecological contexts to refine its inclusivity and effectiveness across SSA.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Focus group discussion methodology.
Fig A: An example map from the first mapping exercise of value-chain activities developed by the FGDs participants in the uMbumbulu Community. Fig B: An example map of the second mapping exercise of employment opportunities in the agricultural value chain as defined by the FGDs participants in uMbumbulu community.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255.s001
(DOCX)
S3 Appendix. Protocol for developing the change theory.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255.s003
(DOCX)
S1 Table. Policies and institutional arrangements related to youth participation in agriculture and rural development.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255.s004
(DOCX)
S2 Table. A summary of the different systems affecting and shaping the current situation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255.s005
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Cause and effect relationships occurring in the current situation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255.s006
(DOCX)
S4 Table. Roles and responsibilities of key national departments, institutions and organisations in the agriculture and rural development sector in SA (adapted from www.gov.za).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255.s007
(DOCX)
S5 Table. Domains of change and strategic priorities.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255.s008
(DOCX)
S6 Table. Challenges and opportunities related to institutional arrangements.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000255.s009
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Glover D, Sumberg J. Youth and Food Systems Transformation. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4.
- 2.
Mcdermott J, De brauw A. National food systems: Inclusive transformation for healthier diets. IFPRI book chapters. 2020. p. 202054–65.
- 3. Ripoll S, Andersson J, Badstue L, Büttner M, Chamberlin J, Erenstein O, et al. Rural transformation, cereals and youth in Africa: What role for international agricultural research?. Outlook Agric. 2017;46(3):168–77.
- 4.
United Nations. World Youth Report: Youth and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations. 2018.
- 5.
Kafle K, Paliwal N, Benfica R. IFAD Research Series No. 36 - Who Works in Agriculture? Exploring the Dynamics of Youth Involvement in the Agri-Food Systems of Tanzania and Malawi. 2019.
- 6.
Wittman H, Arulingam I, Cano J, Mungai C, Huambachano M, Korzenszky A, et al. Promoting Youth Engagement and Employment in Agriculture and Food Systems. 2021.
- 7. Christiaensen L, Rutledge Z, Taylor JE. Viewpoint: The future of work in agri-food. Food Policy. 2021;99:101963. pmid:33071436
- 8. Boye M, Ghafoor A, Wudil A, Usman M, Prus P, Fehér A, et al. Youth Engagement in Agribusiness: Perception, Constraints, and Skill Training Interventions in Africa: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2024;16(3):1096.
- 9. Jayne TS, Holtzman JS, Yeboah FK, Anderson JR, Oehmke JF. Agri-Food Systems and Youth Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa. Gates Open Res. 2019;3:664.
- 10.
Boyd S, Mostert RHN, Van assendelf Y, Brouwer H, Schaap M, Li C, et al. Toolkit on youth in food systems. Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation. 2021.
- 11. Elias M, Mudege NN, Lopez DE, Najjar D, Kandiwa V, Luis JS, et al. Gendered aspirations and occupations among rural youth, in agriculture and beyond: A cross-regional perspective. J. Gender, Agric. Food secu. 2018;3(1):82–107.
- 12.
FAO. The status of youth in agrifood systems. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2025.
- 13. Visser J, Wangu J. Women’s dual centrality in food security solutions: The need for a stronger gender lens in food systems’ transformation. Curr Res Environ Sustain. 2021;3:100094. pmid:36570859
- 14. Woodhill J, Kishore A, Njuki J, Jones K, Hasnain S. Food systems and rural wellbeing: challenges and opportunities. Food Security. 2022.
- 15. Stefanovic L, Freytag-Leyer B, Kahl J. Food System Outcomes: An Overview and the Contribution to Food Systems Transformation. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4.
- 16. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
- 17.
Mueller V, Rosenbach G, Thurlow J. Youth: Including Africa’s young people in food systems. IFPRI book chapters. 2020. 28–35.
- 18.
Hlpe. Promoting youth engagement and employment in agriculture and food systems. 16. Rome: High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. 2021.
- 19.
African Union. African Youth Charter. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2006.
- 20.
African Union. Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: African Union Commission. 2015.
- 21. Geza W, Ngidi M, Ojo T, Adetoro AA, Slotow R, Mabhaudhi T. Youth Participation in Agriculture: A Scoping Review. Sustainability. 2021;13(16):9120. pmid:37701534
- 22. Geza W, Ngidi MSC, Slotow R, Mabhaudhi T. The Dynamics of Youth Employment and Empowerment in Agriculture and Rural Development in South Africa: A Scoping Review. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5041. pmid:37691717
- 23. Metelerkamp L, Drimie S, Biggs R. We’re ready, the system’s not – youth perspectives on agricultural careers in South Africa. Agrekon. 2019;58(2):154–79.
- 24. Madende P, Henning JIF, Jordaan H. Accounting for Heterogeneity among Youth: A Missing Link in Enhancing Youth Participation in Agriculture—A South African Case Study. Sustainability. 2023;15(6):4981.
- 25. Asare-Nuamah P, Botchway E, Dick-Sagoe C, Oteng Asamoah J, Kabanda U, Anane-Aboagye M. Agricultural knowledge and youth participation in agriculture and agribusiness in an African context. Development in Practice. 2024;35(1):39–59.
- 26. Geza W, Ngidi MSC, Mudhara M, Slotow R, Mabhaudhi T. “Is there value for us in agriculture?” A case study of youth participation in agricultural value chains in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Cogent Food Agric. 2023;9(2):2280365. pmid:39005879
- 27. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. PRISMA-P Group. 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1.
- 28. Lumivero. NVivo 12 Pro. https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/ 2018.
- 29. Spencer L, Ritchie J, O’connor W. 2003. Analysis: practices, principles and processes. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 199, 218.
- 30. Deutsch L, Belcher B, Claus R, Hoffmann S. Leading inter- and transdisciplinary research: Lessons from applying theories of change to a strategic research program. Environmental Science & Policy. 2021;120:29–41.
- 31. Belcher BM, Bonaiuti E, Thiele G. Applying Theory of Change in research program planning: Lessons from CGIAR. Environmental Science & Policy. 2024;160:103850.
- 32. Rajala E, Vogel I, Sundin A, Kongmanila D, Nassuna-Musoke MG, Musundire R, et al. How can agricultural research translation projects targeting smallholder production systems be strengthened by using Theory of Change?. Global Food Security. 2021;28:100475.
- 33. Leisher C, Bugan R, Ngo S. Improving theories of change in conservation projects. Conservat Sci and Prac. 2024;6(11).
- 34.
Cieslik K, Leeuwis C. Theorising theories of change in international development: What counts as evidence?. Routledge. 2021.
- 35. Reinholz DL, Andrews TC. Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference anyway?. IJ STEM Ed. 2020;7(1).
- 36. Reinholz DL, Andrews TC. Change as a Scientific Enterprise: Practical Suggestions about Using Change Theory. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2024;23(1):es1. pmid:38166019
- 37. Prinsen G, Nijhof S. Between logframes and theory of change: reviewing debates and a practical experience. Development in Practice. 2015;25(2):234–46.
- 38. Dhillon L, Vaca S. Refining Theories of Change. J Multidiscip Eval. 2018;14(30):64–87.
- 39.
Vogel I, Guijt I, Vanes M. Hivos ToC Guidelines: Theory of Change Thinking in Practice, A Stepwise Approach. Netherlands: Hivos. 2015. https://www.openupcontracting.org/assets/2017/09/Hivos-ToC-guidelines-2015.pdf
- 40. Evelo J. How to work with a theory of change. https://www.youthdoit.org/assets/Uploads/ToC-Guidelines.pdf 2023. 2022 October 7.
- 41. Reinholz DL, White I, Andrews T. Change theory in STEM higher education: a systematic review. IJ STEM Ed. 2021;8(1).
- 42.
FAO, WFF. Digital technologies for multidimensional youth engagement in agrifood systems transformation. Rome, Italy: FAO. 2024.
- 43. Ogunjimi O, Daum T, Kariuki J. The Farming Question: Intergenerational Linkages, Gender and Youth Aspirations in Rural Zambia☆. Rural Sociology. 2022;88(1):71–107.
- 44. Kansiime MK, Aliamo C, Alokit C, Rware H, Murungi D, Kamulegeya P, et al. Pathways and business models for sustainable youth employment in agriculture: A review of research and practice in Africa. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience. 2025.
- 45. Cosby A, Manning J, Power D, Harreveld B. New Decade, Same Concerns: A Systematic Review of Agricultural Literacy of School Students. Education Sciences. 2022;12(4):235.
- 46. Hassen JY, Endris GS, Wordofa MG, Aweke CS, Hussein JW, Kasa L. Taking youth aspirations in agriculture seriously: implications for livelihood programming in a fragile ecosystem. Cogent Social Sciences. 2025;11(1).
- 47. Trivelli C, Morel J. Rural Youth Inclusion, Empowerment, and Participation. The Journal of Development Studies. 2020;57(4):635–49.
- 48. Barnason S, Li CJ, Hall DM, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Schulz JH. Environmental Action Programs Using Positive Youth Development May Increase Civic Engagement. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6781.
- 49.
Arslan A, Tschirley DL, Di nucci C, Winters P. Youth inclusion in rural transformation. Taylor & Francis. 2021.
- 50.
World Foof Forum. The UNFSS 4 Youth Declaration on Food Systems Transformation. Addis Ababa: Ethiopia.
- 51. Leeuwis C, Boogaard BK, Atta-krah K. How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes. Food Security. 2021;13:761–80.
- 52.
Parsons K, Barling D. Food Systems Transformation: What’s in the Policy Toolbox. Food Systems and Policy Research Group, University of Hertfordshire. 2021.
- 53. van Bers C, Delaney A, Eakin H, Cramer L, Purdon M, Oberlack C, et al. Advancing the research agenda on food systems governance and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2019;39:94–102.
- 54. Stefanovic L, Freytag-Leyer B, Kahl J. Food System Outcomes: An Overview and the Contribution to Food Systems Transformation. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4.
- 55. Wopereis TM, Dijkstra C, Wierda JJ, Rongen FC, Poelman MP. Systems thinking for local food environments: a participatory approach identifying leverage points and actions for healthy and sustainable transformations. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024;22(1):101. pmid:39135050