Required citation:

Eiselen, B. and Fiedler, Y. 2020. Catalysing young agri-entrepreneurs’ investments and ensuring their sustainability – Strategic planning tool. Rome, FAO and HAFL. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1367en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-133554-3 [FAO]
E-ISBN 978-92-5-133820-9 (MOBI)
© FAO, 2020

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

CONTENTS

FOREWORD Robert Lehmann, HAFL

FOREWORD Michael Riggs, FAO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction and overview of the tool

1.1 Background of the strategic planning tool: It is essential to give a key role to young agrientrepreneurs in the strategies put in place to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals

1.2 A toolkit to assess capacities and support strategic planning aiming to increase investments by young agri-entrepreneurs and make them sustainable

2. Strategic planning tool: concept and implementation

2.1 Objectives, focus and scope of the analysis

2.2 Concept of the tool, estimated duration and suggested timeframe

2.3 Methodology

2.4 Broader challenges to watch out for

3. Detailed steps of the strategic planning tool implementation process

Step A.1: Preliminary study: identification of the value chains to be analysed

1. Defining “young people”

2. Types of funding available for investments by young people

3. Statistical analysis, description of main high potential agri-food chains and identification of target regions and agri-food chains

Step A.2: Analysis of the enabling environment and overall conditions for investments in the agricultural sector and food systems

Step B.1: Identification of economic actors operating in the agri-food chains

Step B.2: Characterisation of economic operators according to their contributions to investments by young people and mapping of stakeholders

First national workshop: What is an attractive agri-food sector for young people?

Step C: Summary

Second national workshop: validation workshop

Step D: Policy brief vii

REFERENCES

ANNEX 1: Experience and lessons learned from the implementation of the strategic analysis tool within the framework of the pilot project in Tunisia

FIGURES

Figure 1 | Overview of the concept of the strategic planning tool based on CNS-FAO recommendations

Figure 2 | Qualitative and participatory positioning of the strategic planning tool in the field of research

Figure 3 | Four levels of key standard analysis

Figure 4 | Identification of economic operators within the limits of the system, as previously identified in step A.1

Figure 5 | Level of importance of stakeholders and key operators (authors’ illustration based on Lombriser and Abplanalp, 2005, p. 95) (see explanations on page 29)

Figure 6 | Sample illustration of a “stakeholder map” (SDC, 2011) to be adjusted according to the country’s context

Figure 7 | Sample illustration of the system with interactions between actors (SDC, 2011), to be adjusted to the national context

Figure 8 | Initial calendar and deadlines for the project implemented in Tunisia between July 2019 and March 2020 – adjustments and details in the text

Figure 9 | Results of the problem tree drafted in the first national workshop in Tunisia

Figure 10 | Results of the solution tree drafted in the first national workshop in Tunisia

Figure 11 | Mind map drawn during the second national workshop to summarize the conclusions of four work groups (four colours), with the core topic in the middle

TABLES

Table 1 | Key elements to consider when deciding to use the strategic planning tool or the rapid capacity analysis tool (R-CAT)

Table 2 | Steps, objectives, methodology and expected outcomes

Table 3 | Level 1 – Institutional framework: organizations and entities involved in policy development and revision processes relating to investments in the agricultural sector and food systems

Table 4 | Level 1 – Institutional framework: mechanisms for coordination between organizations and entities identified in the previous table

Table 5 | Level 2 – Policies, strategies, laws (including international) and incentives relevant to investments in agriculture and food systems

Table 6 | Level 3 – Organizations and services supporting youth empowerment

Table 7 | Level 4 – Training and vocational training programmes to build capacities in the agricultural and agri-food sectors

Table 8 | Determination of economic actors operating in identified agri-food chains: agricultural holdings and businesses up- and down-stream in the production chain (at an aggregate level if necessary) (authors’ own illustration inspired by SDC, 2011)

Table 9 | Assessment criteria used to characterise stakeholders according to their level of power and influence (based on SDC, 2011)

Table 10 | Assessment criteria for actors identified in steps A.2 and B.1 with regard to their contribution to investment made by young people (based on the CFS RAI Principles)

Table 11 | Example of a summary table for the 1st topic “Value chain structure and attractiveness” for the sheep milk value chain in Tunisia

Table 12 | Example of table describing the solutions that where technically validated

FOREWORD

Getting access to financial services is one of the principlal challenges that youth face when investing in agriculture and food systems. From this perspective, the Comité national suisse de la FAO (CNS-FAO) received the first Rapid Capacity Assessment Tool (R-CAT) with great interest.

The R-CAT was developed by FAO with the twin goals of raising awareness among key stakeholders and carrying out an analysis of the main challenges of investment promotion along agricultural value chains. In order to shift its objective from awareness-raising to the establishment of broadly supported strategies and recommendations, CNS-FAO recommended developing this tool further. A series of questions and challenges have been established to ensure that this goal can be achieved with limited resources and within a relatively short timeframe. The questions are as follows:

• In a comprehensive manner, can existing statistical data, policy and legal frameworks, as well as market analyses be included in the assessment?

• What is considered, by young people, to be attractive business opportunities in agriculture and food sectors and how can their expectations be sufficiently and reliably assessed?

• Establish definitions for: Who is considered as “youth”? What is part of the agri-food system?

• How can we ensure that workshop participant assessments are supported as much as possible by facts and data?

• How can the Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (CFS RAI) be included in the assessment?

• How can we ensure that the tool is designed in a way that is flexible enough to allow for its deployment in different countries and contexts?

• How can we ensure that the assessment will result in the both the development and implementation of strategies?

This newly developed tool provides excellent responses to these questions.

The suggested process scientifically combines sound field studies and data analyses with broad multi-stakeholder discussions in two workshops.

Experts do not only analyze, discuss and assess for, but first and foremost with the youth, and engage them to jointly develop solutions. The entire process has a clear conceptual framework which is thoroughly structured and well presented in this publication. Clear objectives for each step support collaboration and division of roles and responsibilities among different actors. Detailed methodological guidance ensures that all the above-mentioned questions can be answered in various contexts.

The facilitator plays a key role in ensuring successful processes in the two national workshops. Not all results and assessments will be approved by everybody. Supporting the emergence of the broadest possible consensus for future strategies requires a lot of sensitivity and skills. In this regard, this tool also provides very concrete, methodological guidance on critical phases.

The outstanding feature of the tool is the way in which different stakeholders are encouraged to work together. Rather than supporting the development and transfer of knowledge, the tool supports a participatory and inclusive generation of knowledge. There is hardly any better precondition to ensure the implementation of strategies.

Robert Lehmann,
Professor of Training and Extension Methodology, BFH-HAFL, (former) member of CNS-FAO

FOREWORD

Empowering youth to invest in agriculture and food systems is key to achieve sustainable food security, enhance value addition, and combat unemployment and distress migration. However, we also know that many youth do not see a future for themselves in agriculture. They face significant barriers, including lack of access to finance, knowledge and land. Recognizing the need to empower youth in agriculture, a series of commitments have been made at the global and regional levels:

• 2014: The UN Committee on World Food Security adopts the Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems, including Principle 4 that specifically calls on us to “engage and empower youth” through investment.

• 2014: The African Union Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods commits member states to create job opportunities for at least 30% of youth in agricultural value chains.

• 2015: The sixth target of Sustainable Development Goal 8 (“Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all”) aims to “substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training” by 2020.

• 2018: The ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry adopt the ASEAN Guidelines on Promoting Responsible Investment in Food, Agriculture and Forestry. Guideline 3 states that investment should foster equality, engagement, and empowerment for young people.

While development activities and partnerships have a long history of focusing on youth, these recent commitments recognize the direct role of youth in identifying and addressing their own challenges, and thus determining their own future.

FAO has been working with its members, youth and other stakeholders to identify and develop the necessary enabling environments, institutional capacities and skills to enhance responsible investment by and for youth in agriculture. This work accelerated in 2017 when support from the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) enabled FAO to develop and apply a “Rapid Capacity Assessment Tool” (R-CAT) for this purpose. The successful use of R-CAT for assessments in six countries was reviewed by the Swiss National FAO Committee (CNS-FAO) in 2018, and it was determined that there was also a need for a more advanced strategic tool.

Responding to this, CNS-FAO, FAO, FOAG, the National Agricultural Research Institute of Tunisia and the Bern University of Applied Sciences worked together to develop and pilot this strategic planning tool in Tunisia. The tool supports the identification of a broad vision for youth in agriculture and food systems, as well as value chains and regions with underexploited potential for the youth, key gaps in terms of policies and services, and youth engagement in decision-making. Through doing so, its application results in the elaboration and validation of not just challenges, but concrete solutions to overcome the identified challenges.

Now this useful and practical tool is being made available to FAO’s members and other stakeholders to use as part of their own strategic planning processes to empower youth through responsible agricultural investment. FAO is committed to apply this tool in its own work and to supporting others in the use of the tool.

In conclusion, I wish to thank FOAG for their continued confidence and catalytic support, CNS-FAO for their engagement, the National Agricultural Research Institute of Tunisia for their enthusiasm and cooperation, and the Bern University of Applied Sciences for the excellent collaboration.

Michael Riggs
Responsible Agricultural Investment Team Leader
Responsible Investment, Parliamentarians and Advocacy Unit
Partnerships and UN Collaboration Division
FAO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The tool was developed by Barbara Eiselen (HAFL) and Yannick Fiedler (FAO) following a model proposed by the Swiss National FAO Committee (CNSFAO).

It was deployed in Tunisia in collaboration with the Rural Economy Laboratory of the National Agricultural Research Institute of Tunisia (INRAT) and the Agricultural Investment Promotion Agency (APIA). The authors express their gratitude to the following persons who have been involved in one way or another in the deployment of this tool: Mohamed Elloumi, Abdallah Ben Saad, Emna Ouertani and Ahmed Yangui of the Rural Economy Laboratory of INRAT; Philippe Ankers, Ahmed Bougacha, Arbia Labidi and Michael Riggs from FAO; Robert Lehmann from HAFL; and Abderrahman Chaffaï and Monia Ben Romdhane from APIA.

The authors would also like to thank the following persons and institutions which have reviewed the tool: the members of CNS-FAO; Madeleine Kaufmann from FOAG; Mohamed Elloumi, Abdallah Ben Saad, Emna Ouertani and Ahmed Yangui of the Rural Economy Laboratory of INRAT; as well as Arbia Labidi, Tony Nsanganira, Maud Oustry, Emma McGhie, Teresa Lamas-Menendez and Jana Herold from FAO. The authors also express their gratitude to Giulia Fanelli for the layout and graphic elements, Angeline Hadman for the translation of the tool from French to English, and Alice Lloyd for the editorial work.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) would like to thank the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) for its financial and technical support, as well as its collaboration throughout the development process of the tool.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BFH Bern University of Applied Sciences (Berner Fachhochschule)

CNS-FAO Swiss National FAO Committee: extra parliamentary advisory commission of the Federal Council to the Confederation, whose work is supported by the Federal Office for Agriculture.

CFS Committee on World Food Security

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FOAG Federal Office for Agriculture

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

HAFL School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (Hochschule für Agrar-, Forst-, und Lebensmittelwissenschaften)

INRAT National Agricultural Research Institute of Tunisia

LER Rural Economics Laboratory, INRAT, Tunisia

NGO Non-governmental organization

UN United Nations

WFP World Food Programme

GDP Gross domestic product

SME Small and medium-sized enterprises

RAI Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems

R-CAT Rapid capacity analysis tool

ICT Information and communication technologies

SFU Swiss Farmers’ Union

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This strategic planning tool can help propel investments by young agri-entrepreneurs at national or regional levels, and help ensure their sustainability. It analyses the current environment and overall conditions young investors face while offering practical solutions to overcome the main challenges identified. The strategic planning tool also helps ensure that decision-makers take ownership of the results through a participatory and inclusive process.

This tool uses features pertaining to applied research, combining desk research and expert interviews with field workshops and multi-stakeholder events. Using practical experiences in the field, for example, in agri-food chains along with the analyses of the current institutional, policy and legal framework help to form the basis for an inclusive and participatory development of a vision of the agri-food system’s attractiveness for young people. Based on these outcomes, the tool guides the development of practical measures to improve the system and facilitate investments by young people.

This analysis is multi-tiered. The first step, A.1, sets the stage and identifies which actions to prioritise (for example, promising agri-food chains; target areas and categories of young people with the potential to become successful agri-entrepreneurs and those in need of most help). The second stage, A.2, is a detailed analysis of the current enabling environment and overall conditions for investment. B.1 and B.2 steps analyse the selected agri-food chains and stakeholders. This is then followed by a first national workshop which develops a common vision of the attractiveness of the agri-food chain for young people and their needs. This vision is then compared with the results of steps A.1 through B.2 in order to provide potential practical solutions in stage C. These will then be approved during the second national workshop. A policy brief outlining the practical measures is then drafted.

The expected outcomes are detailed in an analysis of selected agri-food chains, the existing institutional, policy, legal and incentives frameworks, services and their accessibility for young people, and of the stakeholders involved. This analysis will lead to the development of a roadmap of practical, applicable and validated measures to help young agri-entrepreneurs engage in responsible and sustainable investments in agriculture and food systems. Moreover, the interviews and workshops organised during the implementation of the tool will help build political will.

The rapid capacity analysis tool (R-CAT) developed by FAO at an earlier stage can either be used on its own, following guidance available from FAO, or be integrated into this tool in step A.2. The choice of the tool used depends on the national context. The strategic planning tool outlined in this paper requires additional time and work and leads to a longer and more inclusive process with concrete results. A neutral and efficient research institute, as well as consistent and comprehensive data on socio-economic trends and indicators, are necessary.

This tool was piloted and validated in Tunisia in 2019/2020.

1 Introduction and overview of the tool

1.1 Background of the strategic planning tool: To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, young agri-entrepreneurs should be a key component of a sustainable development-centred investment promotion and mobilization strategy.

The achievement of the first two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – end poverty and hunger by 2030 – requires substantial investments. According to FAO, IFAD and WFP, USD 265 billions of additional investments are required per year, more than half of which should target the agricultural sector (FAO, IFAD, WFP, 2015).[1] To fully contribute to sustainable development, both public and private investments should be perfectly aligned with the SDGs.

In this context, empowering youth to invest in their own farms and businesses along agricultural value chains should be a key component of a sustainable development-centred investment promotion and mobilization strategy for three reasons: the improvement of food security; the promotion of the added value of food products; and the improvement of employment and economic well-being.

Food security. The global population is expected to increase to 9.8 billion by 2050, of which 68 percent will live in urban areas. FAO estimates that global food production would have to increase by 60 percent by 2050 to satisfy additional demand generated by population (FAO, 2012).[2] Addressing the challenge of feeding a growing population, contributing to the achievement of their right to food in an increasingly globalised economy and responding to shifting market demands will require engaging youth in an agricultural sector marked by an ageing labour force and closing the generation gap. According to a recent FAO study, the ageing of the agricultural sector is not a phenomenon limited to developed countries. In Africa, the average age of farmers is about 60, although 60 percent of Africa’s population is under 24 years of age (FAO, 2014).

Added value. By harnessing their innovative potential, utilising new technologies and techniques and taking advantage of new opportunities in emerging value chains, young agri-entrepreneurs could create thriving businesses and tackle the challenge of feeding a growing population, whilst increasing the added value of their products and using techniques that contribute to the protection of the environment and sustainable development.

Employment and economic well-being. Conversely, attracting and retaining youth in agriculture is key to reducing unemployment and distress migration. Since the urban sector has only limited capacities to absorb burgeoning youth populations in many of today’s developing countries and regions, agriculture remains the main livelihood opportunity for many youth (FAO, 2016).

Policymakers and their advisers – universities, research institutes and technical and financial development partners – have a duty to identify the appropriate strategies and practical solutions to catalyse these investments. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) supports its members and non-state actors in these efforts through its umbrella programme “Supporting responsible investments in agriculture and food systems”. This programme promotes the application of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (CFS RAI), whose fourth principle is to “engage and empower youth”.

1.2 A toolkit to assess capacities and support strategic planning aiming to increase investments by young agri-entrepreneurs and make them sustainable

Acknowledging that rigorous and inclusive capacity analyses and strategic planning are key to ensure sustainable actions for young people, FAO developed a toolkit in partnership with the School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences of the Bern University of Applied Sciences (BFH-HAFL), with support from the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture.

This toolkit contains:

1. The Rapid capacity analysis tool (R-CAT);[3] and

2. The strategic planning tool.

R-CAT was developed by FAO between 2017 and 2018 to guide capacity analyses through three-day multi-stakeholder workshops. It is comprised of four main sections dealing with: 1) participation of youth in institutional frameworks; 2) existing policy and legal frameworks; 3) support services for young agri-entrepreneurs and capacities of youth organizations; 4) education and training programmes to help young people develop the skills they need. Presently, R-CAT has been used in workshops with 10 African countries and 4 countries from South-East Asia.

R-CAT’s main objectives are the following:

• raising awareness among stakeholders;

• identifying the overarching issues at the national level which hinder investments by young people as well as the necessary changes; and

• providing a space for multi-stakeholder dialogue.

The strategic planning tool was developed between 2019 and 2020 by BFHHAFL in collaboration with FAO, based on the recommendations of the Swiss National FAO Committee (CNS-FAO), whose work is supported by FOAG. Following FAO’s suggestions, CNS-FAO redesigned R-CAT to obtain more focused results and findings through a more complex methodology and a better mobilisation of stakeholders’ expertise and experience, leading to strategic planning at country or regional levels.

Specifically, the strategic planning tool aims to guide public and private decision-makers’ efforts towards an increase in investments by young agri-entrepreneurs in promising agri-food chains and to make them sustainable, by issuing practical recommendations based on a common vision shared by all stakeholders.

Following a request to FAO by the Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Fisheries of the Republic of Tunisia, and thanks to FOAG’s support, this tool was test piloted in Tunisia between June 2019 and March 2020. BFHHAFL and FAO expanded, completed and improved the tools thanks to the results of and lessons learned from this process (see annex).

These analytical tools differ not so much in their objectives, but in their methodology. The following features make it possible to distinguish the strategic planning tool from R-CAT:

- A comprehensive methodology combining research and consultations, differentiating between steps that aim at: 1) collecting facts and knowledge; and 2) exchanging, collating and evaluating experiences, practical knowledge, ideas and expectations, in order to integrate results and build political will. The questions in step 1 will be answered by desk research, expert interviews and field studies. The questions in step 2 will be discussed in national workshops attended by targeted and relevant stakeholders (see chapter 2.3 for a precise description of the methodology).

- Definitions and case studies: one or several value chains and/or regions used as “case studies” are identified by cross-referencing the available data on agri-food chains, youth unemployment rates by region and the targeting of different categories of young people.

- Development of a common vision: identification of priorities and of an optimal situation during the 1st national workshop (what are the characteristics of an attractive system for young people?).

- A holistic approach: the different levels of R-CAT (1. Institutional framework, 2. Policies, legal framework and incentives, 3. Organizations and services, 4. Individual capacities) are not processed separately, but through a holistic approach based, for example, on mappings or matrices.[4] This approach can highlight the interactions between stakeholders and the different levels.

The use of R-CAT or of the strategic planning tool depends on the intended outcome, current context-specific conditions and available resources (see Table 1).

2 Strategic planning tool: concept and implementation

2.1 Objectives, focus and scope of the analysis

The strategic planning tool aims to:

1. Identify which actions to prioritise (promising agri-food chains; target areas and groups of young people with the potential to become successful agri-entrepreneurs and who need help the most);

2. Analyse the current context, institutional, policy, legal and incentive frameworks as well as existing services which help young agri-entrepreneurs make sustainable investments in the agricultural sector and food systems;

3. Develop a common vision of the optimal situation for young agri-entrepreneurs investing in agri-food chains; and

4. Develop practical solutions to enhance sustainable and responsible investments by young agri-entrepreneurs.

The emergence of a new generation of entrepreneurs, specifically young agri-entrepreneurs, is the core of the diagnosis. As studies progress, other topics relating to rural development, such as gender, access to land or decent work, will arise as issues affecting young people or a specific group of young people. However, to maintain consistency, these aspects will always be considered bearing in mind the key subject covered by the study, i.e. young agri-entrepreneurs. Thus, for instance, the preliminary review might identify the need to give special support to young unemployed female graduates as a key priority. Hence, the analyses focus on investments made by young agri-entrepreneurs. Conversely, the creation of jobs for young people in large corporations remains outside the scope of the analysis.

The aim of this tool is to contribute to the enforcement of the CFS RAI Principles (see Table 10). As these principles are quite extensive and ambitious, it would probably be unrealistic to try to achieve them all simultaneously through a single investment. They should therefore be used as guidelines and assessment criteria rather than be considered as goals to be achieved simultaneously. The services, policies, laws and incentives promoting investments by young people contribute to the achievement of Principle no. 4, which is precisely the aim of this strategic planning tool, which also covers other related topics mentioned in the Principles (equal opportunities for young women and young men, young people’s land rights.).

It should also be noted that there are other tools available to analyse, for instance, gender issues, inclusive business models creating job opportunities for young people, etc.[5]

2.2 Concept of the tool, estimated duration and suggested timeframe

The concept of the strategic planning tool (Figure 1) is described in the following chapters and serves as guidance for the national research institute which implements the tool. Table 2 provides further clarifications on the objectives and expected results. It is important to note that the instructions and methods provided here do not, at this stage, go beyond the conceptual level. During the implementation phase, the local context will obviously lead to adjustments and clarifications. The experiments carried out in Tunisia are mentioned in footnotes throughout this paper, as well as in the annex.

The tool was designed to be applied independently by any country or region, but its implementation can also be steered or supported by partners such as international organizations (for example FAO) and/or research institutes from other countries (for example BFH-HAFL), as was the case in Tunisia.

The experiment carried out in Tunisia showed that the process should take at least 9 months. The work plan for the pilot project implemented in Tunisia is presented in the annex.

2.3 Methodology

The tool is based on a pragmatic and participatory approach aimed at building political will. Thus, while the first step involves a thorough analysis of socio-economic data, the following steps use an applied research approach (see Figure 2), which combines the analysis of primary and secondary sources with field studies. In order to build political will, the tool promotes a consensual approach to reach a common vision and validate solutions during multi-stakeholder workshops specifically involving young people.

Lesson learned from the implementation of the tool in Tunisia: The active engagement of local partners was vital during the implementation of the pilot project in Tunisia. A successful collaboration between the FAO subregional office in Tunis, the Rural Economics Laboratory (LER) of the National Agricultural Research Institute of Tunisia (INRAT) and the Agricultural Investment Promotion Agency (APIA) played a key role in the implementation and evaluation of the strategic planning tool. The presence of a research institute also provides a more neutral outlook and facilitates the creation of new ties between research, practice and policy, which can have positive impacts on the long term.

The most relevant aspects and goals of the different methods used throughout the study areas follows. The symbols help to identify their use in the present guide. The suggested methods should be adjusted and developed in accordance with the specific characteristics and context of the country or region in which the tool is applied.

Desk research

Desk research includes the review of literature, of existing statistics, and primary sources. We recommend starting the process with this type of research. The missing information will then be acquired through expert interviews.

Expert interviews

Interviews should be conducted when required to meet the targets of the different steps and to complement the desk research. To conduct targeted expert interviews efficiently, we recommend compiling the questions that arise at the different stages of the analysis into a single questionnaire per expert, if the timing allows it. The questionnaires should include specific questions to:

• collect specific information;

• obtain estimates for aspects which involve a degree of subjectivity, such as:

• the availability of some services for young people (step A.2);

• the participation of young people in some organizations (step A.2); and

• the assessment of economic operators and institutional stakeholders according to the criteria based on the RAI principles (step B.2).

but also, ask open ended questions to:

• seek opinions on the issues relating to investments by young people (which will then provide guidance during workshops and help complete the summary – step C).

Field study (mini workshops)

The field study differs from the expert interview inasmuch as it involves a different category of respondents. In this case, the respondents are economic operators, i.e. actors who are directly involved in the agri-food chains. The mini workshops should last approximately two to three hours in order to collect information on the stakeholders’ and value chains’ activities in the regions under review. These stakeholders are also asked to identify and verify aspects containing an element of subjectivity, such as:

• the availability of some services for young people (step A.2);

• the participation of young people in some organizations (step A.2); and

• the assessment of economic operators and institutional stakeholders according to the criteria based on the RAI principles (step B.2).

The SWOT approach (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, described in the summary – step C) can be used to identify the constraints and opportunities of each sector, which can later help to structure the debate. The SWOT analysis, planned as part of step C, should not be carried out at this stage, but will subsequently consider the points raised during the mini workshops.

Workshops

Workshops are participatory and inclusive processes (including, for example, discussions and group work), that bring together stakeholders – including economic actors operating in the agri-food chains. The participatory and inclusive character of workshops can lead to positive results - such as creating a political will and facilitating the endorsement of the process, as stakeholders are given a voice and involved in the research process.

Workshops are “safe” spaces, “labs” in which participants can express themselves freely. It is therefore important to maintain a confidential environment and to explain that reports and protocols will not mention any names. It is important to build trust among participants. For instance, in many cultures, and even with the best of intentions, older people often tend to speak on behalf of young people. Workshops involving young people create a safe space where they can express themselves, thus bringing interesting ideas to the table which reflect their actual needs.

Workshops pursue the following main objectives:

• collect and confront different viewpoints on a given subject to broaden the range of perspectives and gain an overall picture;

• create a political will by engaging stakeholders.

Workshops are not a series of lectures, but a space for dialogue where one or several presentations aim to encourage and guide the discussions that follow. These should be chosen with great care.

It is essential to have one or several competent facilitator(s) (moderators) to run the workshop. Their role is to conduct the workshop in an organised way, to manage time and to facilitate discussions, so that everyone can express their points of view and ideas. They are also responsible for building trust to ensure that everyone is able to express themselves as freely as possible. Facilitators do not dictate responses, and clearly outline the following elements:

a. all ideas are welcome – discussions and even disagreements can enhance the process and the final outcome;

b. no names will be mentioned in the final analytical report, and all contributions to the process will remain anonymous;

c. this evaluation marks the beginning of a wider process – it is neither a binding recommendation nor an official agreement, and it must not, under any circumstance, result in an obligation for any given stakeholder to take action.

While preparing a workshop and to ensure its smooth running, it is important:

• to carefully choose the participants (the choice of stakeholders should be as inclusive as possible to ensure that as many interests as possible are represented in the workshop). The detailed objectives and types of participants needed are laid out in the sections on the workshops;

• to invite them early enough to ensure wide participation;

• to structure the workshop in such a way that its objectives are met and to allow enough time for each segment in a pragmatic and realistic way;

• to prepare the required material;

• to train the facilitators.

Location of workshops: Two national workshops are planned as part of this tool. Ideally, the first national workshop should be attended by young people working in agri-food chains. To facilitate their participation, the workshop should be organised in each relevant region. The second workshop, which is more focused on decision-makers, should be organised in a location where they are based, which is often the country’s capital.

Timeframe: This guide provides the required and optimal timeframe, estimated in hours. The aim is first to choose the operational modality most suited to the national context, first to ensure the presence of the largest possible number of selected participants, then to achieve the stated objectives. The operational modality depends on the following factors in each country or region:

• Safety and security. Is it possible to move around freely after dark, for instance?

• Are the required resources and infrastructures available?

• Is there a budget available, under the project, e.g. for accommodation?

• Cultural and customary issues should not be overlooked. For example, prayer times must be considered in certain contexts.

For a workshop requiring 7 to 8 hours of effective work, for instance, two options are available:

• Workshop organised over one day, from 9 am to 6 pm, with an optional dinner in the evening. This option means people do not have to leave in the middle of the day. Remember to provide accommodation for participants travelling long distances.

• Workshop organised over two days (10 am to 4 pm on the first day, 10 am to 1 pm on the second). This option ensures in-depth work on the subject but carries the risk of participants dropping out after the first day. Remember to offer accommodation for participants who do not live locally.

2.4 Broader challenges to watch out for

Several challenges were identified during the implementation of the tool in Tunisia. They are mentioned in footnotes throughout this paper. The problem relating to the objectivity of analyses and the element of subjectivity is briefly described here.

Objectivity of the analysis and elements of subjectivity. Several outcomes contain an element of subjectivity, particularly the assessments of the availability of some services for young people (step A.2), of the participation of young people in some organizations (step A.2), and of economic operators and institutional stakeholders according to the criteria based on the RAI principles (step B.2). These subjective assessments can vary from stakeholder to stakeholder, as they often lack an objective foundation. A common understanding regarding these factors should be developed during the field studies (mini workshops). Any remaining discrepancies reflect an issue that will need to be addressed when formulating solutions (step C).

3 Detailed steps of the strategic planning tool implementation process

STEP A.1: Preliminary study: identification of the value chains to be analysed

It is necessary to carry out first a preliminary review to identify which agri-food chains and regions are relevant for the analysis.

1. Defining “young people”

It is important to first answer the question: “Who is considered as a ‘young person’ operating in the national agricultural sector and food systems?” Is there more than one official definition? If so, explain how they are used. If one definition is chosen over another, explain why (cultural, economic reasons, etc.). Different categories of young people are indeed faced with different challenges and need different responses.

It is generally considered that responsible investments should be made by young innovative, motivated and skilled people, and whether they are actually involved in the agri-food sector or have the potential to become involved.

2. Types of funding available for investments by young people

First, it is important to identify the various types of funding available for investments made by young people. There are several types of investments and financial services with different repayment cycles in the agri-food sector. The objective of this step is to adapt and complete the following list. The analysis will be carried out at a later stage.

• Current account credit in a bank for ongoing payments and for the short term.

• Short term loan for the purchase of seeds, fertiliser, etc. (pre-harvest input financing).

• Short term working capital loan to fund activities such as harvesting, sales, storage, exports, etc. (This depends on the terms of purchase for the buyer who handles the harvest but, for example, postpones payment for three months. This type of loan is more important for small enterprises than for producers).

• Medium- or long-term collateral funding for land or machinery (e.g. mortgage on land or buildings)

• Equity financing, such as venture capital, for young entrepreneurs.

• Special types of loans, such as equipment leasing or vendor loans (for equipment of input).

3. Statistical analysis, description of main high potential agri-food chains and identification of target regions and agri-food chains

To help target the response more efficiently, an analysis of the country’s socio-economic environment that describes agri-food chains should be executed first. This will be done by using databases and statistical reports, researching literature and if needed, by conducting expert interviews. This analysis is performed by producing a table with macro-economic figures and indicators that describe the agri-food chains. The results will then be cross-referenced to compare trends by drawing one or several geographical maps. With respect to the objectives of the planning assessment, these maps help identify the areas with the highest potential, both in terms of agri-food chains and listed figures.

First, start by disaggregating and breaking down the statistics to the desired level:

• What is the youth unemployment rate (disaggregated by sex, level of education and geographical area)?

• What is the agricultural and agri-food (post-harvest) sector’s share in gross domestic product (GDP) and in total employment (disaggregated by geographical area where possible)?

• What investments are made in the agricultural and agri-food sector? Identify the different existing types of investments: foreign direct investment, public investment, private domestic investment. Credit for agriculture can be used as an approximative value, but it will be better to have more differentiated data which will consider self-funding investments made with capital received through business loans. What is the percentage of the different types of agricultural investments in relation to investments in all sectors combined? Where possible, please also provide data on private investments made by young agri-entrepreneurs. Ideally, this data will be disaggregated by region.

Second, carry out an analysis of the agri-food chains:

• What are the country’s most important agri-food chains? How are they distributed over the geographical areas (grain-producing area, oil-producing area, animal husbandry area)?

• For each agri-food chain:

• How productive is it, and how can its productivity be improved?

• How much income should be expected from harvest? How can it be increased?

• What are the risks in terms of yield loss?

• What is the margin for producers?

• How profitable is the agri-food chain?

• To what extent can added value be improved along the agri-food chain?

• What business opportunities are there and how do sales channels work?

• What types of investments are needed?

• What is the potential and economic attractivity of this agri-food chain for young people?

Lastly, cross-reference the results in order to answer the following questions:

• Based on this data, which geographical area(s) and/or subgroup(s) should be targeted? We recommend selecting no more than two or three geographical areas, to ensure the feasibility of the analysis.

• If a geographical area is selected, which are the most important agri-food chains in the targeted regions?

The aim here is to reveal one or several agri-food chains in one or several designated geographical areas.[6] A chain operating across the country will thus be analysed only with the operators working in the relevant region. The selection of chains and regions to be analysed is made after the available data is reviewed[7] by the project group; the point here is to choose the case studies that will be carried out at a later stage. While justified, this choice is somewhat arbitrary. We will explain this hereafter.

STEP A.2: Analysis of the enabling environment and overall conditions for investments in the agricultural sector and food systems

This step involves the analysis of the enabling environment and overall conditions for investment by the youth in matrices. Economic operators will be identified in step B.1. Key factors of the enabling environment and investment conditions include institutions, organizations, coordination and consultation mechanisms, laws and incentives (and their implementation process), as well as organizations and services, and training programmes (see Figure 3). At this stage, the R-CAT tool questionnaire is replicated and adjusted.

Methodology

With a focus on the investments made by young people, the following tables will be completed by means of:

• desk research (literature and Internet resources); and

• expert interviews.

The assessment of young people’s participation in organizations and policy-making processes and the accessibility of services (see tables hereunder) is somewhat subjective and shall therefore need to be approved during the field studies (mini workshops). It is important to always cite the assessment sources, when available.

LEVEL 1 Institutional framework for agricultural investments

The institutional framework, its stakeholders and its coordination mechanisms are analysed here in step A.2, with a particular focus on the inclusion and participation of young agri-entrepreneur representatives. It is important, however, to inform the reader that another analysis of stakeholders will also be carried out in step B.1, focusing this time on the economic operators of the selected agri-food chains.[8]

Coordination mechanisms are bodies (councils, working groups, committees or discussion forums) where several institutions, organizations, entities and people meet to ensure the proper management of a specific sector (e.g. agriculture, mining, etc.) or issue (e.g. food security or investment). Coordination mechanisms can be multi-stakeholder policy dialogue forums. They can also be inter-ministerial working groups on food security or investment involving non-governmental stakeholders, such as the French Inter-ministerial Group on Food Security (GISA).

LEVEL 2 Policies, strategies and laws, including incentives relating to agricultural investment

The main policies, strategies, laws (including international ones) and incentives relevant to agricultural investments introduced in the country should be listed in Table 5.[12] These may include national investment plans, national large-scale programmes (e.g. to attract foreign investments), fiscal regimes and incentives to promote investments (including preferential tax treatment for specific investors or investments), or land acts. Add relevant examples in the suggested areas.

LEVEL 3 Organizations and services supporting youth empowerment

The services and activities offered by organizations can include the following (the list will need to be adjusted depending on the results of the preliminary study):

Access to inputs:

• Credits and loan schemes (specify type of credit according to the list drawn up in the preliminary review, step A.1), mentioning investors and credit providers (including international).

• Agricultural insurance.

• Saving schemes.

• Facilitation of access to water and land.

Training programmes and mentoring:

• Training programmes to improve skills in contract negotiation with buyers.

• Training programmes to improve business skills, including developing business plans.

• Training programme on the use of information and communication technology in the agricultural sector and agri-food industry.

• Extension services and agricultural skills development, including on mechanisation.

• Training programme/information on policy-making processes.

• Incubators.

• Accelerators.

Product marketing:

• Collective product marketing.

• Links between buyers and sellers of raw products.

• Value adding and processing of agricultural products.

• Certification schemes (including quality and sustainability standards).

Family support services:

• Day care/childcare.

Representation of young agri-entrepreneurs’ interests in negotiations with decision-makers and political bodies:

• Advocacy.

LEVEL 4 Education programmes

The existence of and access to education programmes on agriculture and the agri-food industry are essential for young people to become entrepreneurs in the agri-food business.

These education programmes can be complemented by training courses[15] and mentoring initiatives on social media, which have been evaluated in the previous section.

STEP B.1: Identification of economic actors operating in the agri-food chains

This step involves identifying the economic actors who operate in the target agri-food chains and regions identified in step A.1.

Introduction and goals

The goal is to now identify the economic actors who operate in the agri-food chains and regions identified in step A.1 (if necessary, at an aggregate level). If more than one agri-food chain should have been selected for the purpose of this strategic planning assessment, we recommend executing this study chain by chain. The economic operators can be represented using two concentric circles (Figure 5):

• Inner circle: in the centre, we place agricultural holdings which are generally mainly involved in the primary production. They may also carry out additional activities such as processing, storage, marketing, off-farm activities (e.g. agritourism) and other services.

• Outer circle: this circle incorporates all the economic actors operating up- or down-stream in the identified agri-food chains, i.e. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large corporations as well as start-ups and young entrepreneurs. These can be involved in processing, storage, marketing, distribution and sale in the domestic market, export, certification, production of equipment and inputs, information and communication technologies (ICT).

These economic operators will also be included in step B.2, for an assessment of their contributions to investments made by young people, and in a general map of all stakeholders.

Methodology

To obtain a comprehensive list, two approaches may be considered:

• Desk research and Internet resources.

• Expert interviews and mini workshops with relevant operators within the agri-food industry, including private sector and producer unions, as well as key ministries (e.g. agriculture or rural development).[16] During these interviews, it is important to validate the partly subjective assessments that were made during steps A.2 and B.2 (see also section 2.3).

The identification of actors operating in the chains should be conducted very carefully, especially if the actors play different roles. They should, therefore, be categorised in homogenous categories that are relevant for the economic and/or technical and socio-economic analysis: for instance, small family farms are placed in a separate group from large industrial plantations for socio-economic reasons and because of the different production techniques they use.

Expected results

The results of this research are presented in Table 8.

STEP B.2: Characterisation of economic operators according to their contributions to investments by young people and mapping of stakeholders

Introduction and goals

This step involves highlighting the interactions between the economic operators identified in step B.1 and the institutional actors identified in step A.2 (see Figure 7) by way of a map. This analysis is based on the tool developed by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC, 2011), and focuses on:

• Identifying the influence exerted by stakeholders on the reviewed system;

• Identifying the potential of companies, institutions and organizations to encourage young people to make responsible investments in agriculture;

• Identifying the quality of relationships among stakeholders and the links to be built in order to achieve the goals of the strategic planning tool.

Methodology and expected outcomes

The stakeholders identified in steps A.2 and B.1 will first be assessed individually (part 1 hereunder) and then mapped (parts 2 and 3 hereunder). Each chain requires its own separate analysis. To carry out this analysis, use desk research, expert interviews and field studies (mini workshops) for the characterisation of economic operators.

1. Part 1: Analysis of stakeholders’ and key operators’ importance

The analysis and characterisation of operators is a sensitive task but it is needed to identify existing issues. It must therefore be carried out by a neutral research institute (see section 1.2), whose findings will be presented at the 2nd national workshop.

Stakeholders are defined by two factors (“level of power and influence” and “level of interest in young people”). These will be used to represent them on a graph (Figure 5). This graph representation will help to understand the importance of stakeholders (key operators, operators that need to be satisfied, operators that need to be informed and operators needing minimum coverage) with respect to

• their capacity to influence the achievement of objectives (by facilitating investments by young people);

• the interest they express in strengthening – or not – the capacities and autonomy of young agri-entrepreneurs and farmers.

These results will be used in step C to define the potentials and risks related to these stakeholders and the measures to be implemented to promote investments by young people.

We recommend generating a separate matrix (Figure 5) for each of the following groups:

• Economic operators active in the selected agri-food chains (agricultural holdings, businesses operating in the agri-food chains).

• State / non-state organizations offering non-profit services.

• Civil society actors (producer organizations, trade unions, consumer associations, communities).

• Political entities (ministries).

• Actors working in cooperation and in technical and financial assistance.

The first factor, i.e. “level of power and influence” (y-axis in Figure 5) will be assessed using the criteria presented in Table 9. As the assessment still contains a degree of subjectivity, its results will have to be validated during the field studies (mini workshops). The assessment of state actors will be of a qualitative nature (because of their law-making and incentive-creating monopoly).

The second factor, “level of interest in young people” (x-axis in Figure 5) looks at the activities carried out to encourage investments by young people. Without going through them systematically, the filter suggested in Table 10 is based on the “Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems” endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security (CFS RAI).[17] The focus is on investment made by young people (4th CFS RAI Principle), but also it also factors other principles when applicable.[18] Whenever possible, this assessment is made at an aggregate level so as not to judge stakeholders separately. The criteria laid out in Table 10 are used to assess the stakeholders (in an aggregate manner, e.g. “large processing companies in the x sector”) and should be adapted to the national context and based on the results of the preliminary study. The contribution of each stakeholder or group of stakeholders to each of the criteria is assessed as follows:

• important contribution 1

• irrelevant contribution 0

• negative contribution -1

If a criterion cannot be evaluated as not applying to the reviewed stakeholder, it will be removed from the list of criteria for this particular stakeholder.

The information collected in both steps A.2 (organizations and political entities) and B.1 (economic actors operating in agri-food chains) are considered in this assessment, which still contains a degree of subjectivity, should therefore be validated during field studies (mini workshops).

Key operators are entities or, occasionally, private individuals whose voices, skills, knowledge or positions of power have a significant influence. Without their support and participation, the desired outcomes cannot be achieved. One category of key operators is identified as “veto players”, who have the power to prevent the completion of a project or activity (SDC, 2011).

2. Part 2: “Stakeholder mapping”

After the analysis conducted in Part 1, stakeholders are mapped into a “stakeholder map” (Figure 6: SDC, 2011). It is critical to include all the important actors without overloading the graph. Using colours will increase its readability. Distribution by sector (civil society, public or private sector) is not necessary, but can help to increase understanding. This distribution should be adjusted to accommodate the results achieved in the previous step, to attain maximum clarity.[19] Distribution could be made along these lines:

• Private sector

• State and governmental agencies

• Small producers and young agri-entrepreneurs

• Civil society

• International organizations

It is important to codify the representation of stakeholders using different shapes, colours and sizes. Figure 6 (SDC, 2011) is an example of visual representation, and should be adapted to the context. Use codes to differentiate the following operators:

• Key actors can be represented by circles. The circles containing the letters “VP” represent the veto players.

• Powerful and influential actors who take little part in the promotion of young people (operators that need to be satisfied) can be represented by rectangles.

• Actors illustrating the promotion of young people but who only have a limited influence (operators that need to be informed) can be represented by triangles.

• Finally, the bigger the circles, rectangles or triangles, the more influential the company, organization or institution.

3. Part 3: Analysis of interactions and potential conflicts

In the last section, we suggest representing the quality of interactions between actors, according to the method developed by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC, 2011) (Figure 7).[20] This part contains a strong element of subjectivity and should be validated during field studies (mini workshops). This exercise is optional but it can provide an interesting basis for discussion in the 2nd national workshop. For instance, areas of tension may be pointed out. The code used by SDC (2011) to describe relationships is the following:

Solid lines symbolise close relationships in terms of information exchange, frequency of contact, overlap of interests, coordination, and mutual trust.

Dotted lines symbolise weak or informal relationships. The question mark is added where the nature of the relationship is not yet clear.

Double lines symbolise coalitions, alliances and strong cooperation that are formalised contractually or institutionally.

Arrows symbolise the direction of dominant relationships. This may also apply to solid, dotted or double lines.

Lines crossed by a lightning bolt symbolise relationships marked by tension, conflicting interests or other forms of conflict.

Cross lines symbolise relationships that have been interrupted, damaged or broken.

This analysis and the resulting figures will be presented at the 2nd national workshop and used as a basis for discussions.

FIRST NATIONAL WORKSHOP: What is an attractive agri-food sector for young people?

This first workshop, which seeks to engage young innovative, motivated and skilled entrepreneurs already involved in the agri-food sector or who have the potential to become involved, has the following objectives:

• develop a common vision shared by young people and other stakeholders;

• give a voice to young people, who will represent a significant part of the participants, which is why the first national workshop should be held in the selected focus region(s);

• share practical examples of young people’s experiences in investing in the agri-food sector; and

• facilitate exchanges between young people operating in different agri-food chains.

Introduction and goals

Before formulating solutions, we must set the goals and raise the question of the attractiveness of agri-food chains for young people. In other words: “What is the ideal situation? What are the characteristics of an attractive agricultural and agri-food sector for young people?”. The answers to these questions can take the form of visions which break away from the current reality and context-specific conditions, in the sense that “we are the ones who shape reality”. The aim here is to define young people’s needs. Only by setting these objectives, visions and needs can we tie them to current realities (steps A and B) and devise suggestions for improvements. The following core questions should be adapted to the national context and carefully worded, in order to achieve meaningful results.

General introductory questions:

• How can agricultural entrepreneurship become sustainably attractive for young agri-entrepreneurs and young people wishing to work in the agricultural sector?

• What are the characteristics of an attractive agri-food sector for young people? What gives them prospects?

More detailed questions to adjust according to the results obtained in the previous steps and to the national context include:

• Agriculture: What makes agricultural entrepreneurship attractive to young people? What can make rural areas more attractive for young people?

• Agri-food chain businesses: What in the identified agri-food chains gives prospects to young people? Who are the key actors in this regard? How can we make the chains more attractive?

• Financing of agricultural investments: How can the profitability of agricultural holdings and income for stakeholders be secured in order to keep up the necessary investments and their financing in the long term? How can young people generate an adequate agricultural income enabling them to finance their investments? What are young people’s needs in terms of financial services and investment goals (see the classification made during the preliminary review, at step A.1)?

• Enabling environment and conditions that foster investments in the agricultural sector: What type of agricultural policy, what kind of national and international economic and political realities would promote and stimulate investment by young people? How can young people be encouraged to make investments through appropriate laws, incentives, services, training, etc.? What incentives should be put in place to stimulate agricultural investments by and with young people? Which economic and political actors could have the greatest impact in terms of support to young agri-entrepreneurs?

• Market: Which key market actors give prospects to young people? How could the access of young people to markets be further strengthened?

The details regarding the first national workshop held in Tunisia can be found in the annex.

Methodology

To achieve the workshop’s objectives, we recommend following a two-step process. The first step involves identifying two to three case studies of innovative investments made by young people to showcase concrete examples to inform the discussions held during the second step.

1st step: Identify two to three investment projects by young people[21] that are particularly innovative, and that fall within the scope of primary agriculture (one project) and of the industries up- and/or down-stream in the production chain (one to two projects). By means of an interview, assess what they (1) need to make their ideas come true (access to information, access to finance and external investment, etc.). In addition to these needs, it will be necessary to identify which factors within the current system are (2) encouraging and which present (3) barriers. This first step helps to pinpoint specific issues, which is a precondition to developing visions.

2nd step: Organise a workshop to identify the goals and visions of an attractive environment for investments by young people, and their needs. The organization of participatory workshops has proved successful in the past to define common goals and objectives. The presence of a skilled facilitator is key in this regard (see section 2.3).

Timeframe: 6-7 hours over one day (from approx. 09.30 hrs to 15.00 hrs) or two days (see pros and cons in section 2.3)

Role of the facilitators: it is absolutely vital to have a skilled facilitator who will conduct the workshop in a clear manner, manage time and create an environment in which all participants can express their viewpoints and ideas. The facilitator is also responsible for building trust to ensure that everyone is able to express themselves as freely as possible (see section 2.3). It is therefore useful to have several facilitators for the discussion groups (ideally, one per group).

Participants: approximately 30 experts and stakeholders (including young people) operating in different branches

• from the selected agri-food chains previously identified (in step B.1). If several agri-food chains were identified, it will be important to think about how to organise the groups.

• from outside the agri-food system’s boundaries (including students/ young graduates, for example), and in particular investors and donors, including from abroad (an external point of view is often very useful).

• from state institutions and the private sector, including representatives of funding institutions, agri-food businesses, academia, relevant ministries and state agencies.

Talking points: the five topics mentioned in the introduction as questions need to be very clearly formulated and displayed on five flipcharts spread around the room (together with tables and chairs if possible). Depending on the national context and interim results, you may wish to adapt and complement the talking points.

Equipment:

• five flipcharts displaying the five topics (see above) and a system to report results (ideal situation, visions, ideas to overcome current obstacles), in the form of a whiteboard, for example; and

• flipchart paper and markers.

Delivery: the suggestions provided here are inspired from the experience of the School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (HAFL) and the implementation of the tool in Tunisia and should be adapted to the national context. The adjustments and actual running of the workshop in Tunisia are described in the annex. The specified times are approximations that should also be adjusted to the actual activities planned for the day.

• Approximately 1 hour: start by introducing participants, the project’s objectives, the workshop’s goals and the day’s activities. In Tunisia, a Q&A session was organised to address concerns and clarify issues, which proved to be very useful.

• Approximately 1 hour: brief presentation of case studies (investment projects by young people): 2-3 particularly innovative young agri-entrepreneurs present (1) their needs, (2) encouraging factors and (3) barriers they had to face. A Q&A session should be organised after the presentations.

• Presentation of the five topics defined above.

• Creation of five groups (to match the five topics) based on interests or age, to help young people express themselves more freely. The groups should have approximately the same number of participants.

• Each flipchart (topic) is managed by one facilitator who drafts the cards corresponding to the topics and pins them in the matching columns (potentials, risks) on the flipchart. If the discussion moves on to other topics or if a person monopolises speaking time, the facilitator should intervene and redirect the discussion. The facilitator does not dictate responses or make suggestions.

• Discussion time around the flipchart: approximately. 1.5 hours

• (Optional: You may wish to have rotating groups as per the World Café method, where groups of participants move to the next topic (determine in advance whether to rotate clockwise or anticlockwise). Facilitators remain with their initial topic. Discussion: 20 to 30 minutes

• Pause

• Summary: the 5 facilitators give a brief account of the discussions – 3 to 5 minutes per topic. In Tunisia, the methods used to report the outcomes were ‘the problem tree’ and ‘the solution tree’ (see annex).

• Approx. 30 to 40 minutes: plenary discussion, where participants are invited to give their opinions on the issues addressed, give additional information and debate.

• Prioritisation of results: make sure everyone can express their views without generating endless discussions. The aim is not to come to a decision but to provide a broad picture of the different options.

Expected outcome: Brief summary of the workshop collecting ideas and visions in a structured manner (structure to be defined according to the results). Scenarios might emerge at this stage, which will need to be addressed in the summary (step C).

STEP C: Summary

Introduction and goals

Step C compares the outcomes of the analyses above in order to prepare the ground for the 2nd national workshop.

The goal is therefore:

• first to summarize the current issues analysed at the different levels, confront the current situation with young people’s needs and visions (1st national workshop) and draw conclusions from this comparison,

• second to devise solutions to help facilitate young people’s access to investments in the agri-food sector. These solutions should be as explicit as possible and will need to be technically validated. They will be used as a basis for further discussions and will be presented, reviewed and endorsed at the 2nd national workshop.

Methodology and expected outcomes

The goal is to initially identify current issues by summarizing the outcomes of steps A.1, A.2, B.1 and B.2 and of the 1st national workshop. The outcomes of the situational analyses are compared with the vision agreed upon during the first workshop.

We would suggest defining strengths (and opportunities) and weaknesses (and threats)[22] separately for (see Table 11):

• lo private individuals: young agri-entrepreneurs operating in agricultural production (inner circle), as well as up- and down-stream in the agri-food chains (outer circle);

• civil society stakeholders: organizations, etc.;

• public players (state and governmental agencies) and context-specific conditions (laws and incentives).

This step will help to identify areas of tension and issues, as appropriate, in a systematic way. Results will either be based on specific chains and/or identified regions, or on the whole country and agri-food system. Whenever possible, it should be stated that a result applies to a specific agri-food chain or to the entire country.

The following examples of generic questions will help to guide the ‘problem identification phase', as well as the specific topical questions mentioned below. These topics, which emerged from the 1st national workshop organised in Tunisia, provide guidance but might need to be complemented as needed.

• Who is experiencing difficulties?

• Which of the young people’s needs are not being met?

• What are the targeting problems regarding investment?

• Where are the bottlenecks?

Selected topics in Tunisia:[23]

Topic 1: “Agri-food chain structure and attractiveness”

How economically attractive are the proposed markets and agri-food chains to young people, especially those living in rural areas? How high is the potential? How accessible are the markets? What makes entrepreneurship attractive for young people, especially in the selected agri-food chains? Who are the key market actors giving prospects to young people?

Complementary topic: other services: Do young people have access to agricultural holdings/land? Do young people belong to organizations operating in the agricultural and agri-food sectors? What other services and organizations affect young people’s ability to make investments? How?

Topic 2: “Funding of agricultural investments and context-specific conditions facilitating investments in agriculture”

What type of funding is necessary? Why? Which laws and incentives support young people, and which should be adjusted? What essential investments are lacking? Do young people have enough income to fund their own investments? Are young people investing their own capital? Does the financial sector take on the role of financier? How accessible is finance for young people? Under what conditions? How should targets be established to (better) reach young people? Do financial institutions offer the types of financial services that farmers need?

Complementary theme: insurance. Farmers and young agri-entrepreneurs from disadvantaged regions are often routinely denied access to loans (even though these could enhance productivity and income), as crop income is too insecure (weather-related risks, etc.). Insurance is a way to give banks more protection when granting credits. How available and accessible are these insurance services? How can insurance be improved to help foster investment by young farmers and young agri-entrepreneurs?

Laws and incentives: How do young people take part in decision-making? How do existing laws and incentives consider and/or explicitly promote their specific needs?

Topic 3: “Access to information and mentoring”

Do young people have access to training? Do young people have access to information and forms of mentoring (e.g. coaching)? What should be promoted in terms of improving their access to training, information and mentoring? How could information communication be improved?

Second, following the in-depth analysis of strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities (see SWOT analysis above) and the development of potential strategies, devise solutions by cross-referencing the results and answering the following questions:

• What strengths need to be developed?

• What strengths should be used to seize opportunities?

• What weaknesses and threats need to be addressed?

These results will be reviewed and compared with the solutions formulated during the first national workshop.

The suggested solutions should be refined and technically validated through expert interviews and desk research. Interviews should be conducted with decision-makers before the second national workshop. The goal of these interviews is to raise awareness among these decision-makers and make sure they take ownership of the process and solutions, which will in turn boost their political will.

For each solution, as much information as possible needs to be provided by identifying the necessary resources, key actors and estimated time needed for their implementation (see Table 12). These solutions will need to be categorised according to topics (see above) and scope (national or regional).

Expected result - summary report

The outcomes of this summary analysis will need to be drafted in a report and be adequately presented to facilitate the 2nd national workshop. At this stage, a summary report will be drafted, showing all the results of steps A to C, including the 1st national workshop. It should be concise and made as visual as possible to prepare for the 2nd national workshop.

SECOND NATIONAL WORKSHOP: Validation workshop

The second national workshop should be organised and finalised after completion of steps A to C and after the first national workshop and be based on the summary report. It differs from the first workshop in the following ways:

• The solutions identified in step C (summary), including the solutions developed during the first national workshop, are to be validated, completed and prioritised at this stage.

• The objective is to build a political will among top decision-makers.

Introduction and goals

The second national workshop aims to:

• present and validate the findings of the situation analysis, while highlighting the challenges faced by young people when investing in their businesses and making them sustainable; and

• suggest, complement, refine and endorse measures that promote and sustain investment by young people in agri-food chains.

In addition, the second national workshop aims to build a common understanding, a collaborative momentum and a political will.

The experience and lessons learned from Tunisia are presented in the annex.

Timeframe: 7-8 hours over one day (from approx. 09.30 to 19.00 hrs, dinner and on-site accommodation) or two days (see pros and cons in section 2.3)

Location: the workshop is ideally held in a location close to decision-makers, i.e. usually the capital city. Accommodation should be provided for participants travelling long distances.

Participants: it is important to bring together the following participants for this final validation workshop:

• people with decision-making and political and economic power,

• financiers, investors and donors,

• players operating in the selected agri-food chains, especially young agri-entrepreneurs.

Ideally, the workshop would bring together 40 to 60 participants, including representatives of financial institutions, agri-food businesses, agricultural holdings or organizations representing them, academia, and relevant ministries and state agencies. Ideally, experts interviewed during the analyses should also be invited to the workshop.

Regarding participants, it is important to consider the following criteria:

• the number of new participants compared to the number of participants who attended the first workshop. It is important to know what level of information to provide during the presentations based on this distribution of attending participants. There is a risk that the participants who attended the first national workshop may get bored, while new participants who do not know the project very well may feel excluded or manipulated and might therefore be on the defensive. It is also important to be aware of the general attitude of the well-informed participants who attended the first national workshop: are they rather in favour or opposed to the project?

• the interests and skills of participants, in order to split them into groups ahead of the workshop. These groups should encompass as many different stakeholders as possible (young people, decision-makers, secondary players, etc.). Group allocation could be shown through a colour code used on name tags or be done during the workshop itself as was the case in Tunisia.

Equipment:

• Flipcharts for group work (system chosen during the summary phase) and a system to report outcomes (wall or very large flipchart).

• Flipchart paper and markers.

• Stickers for the prioritisation of results, to enable everyone to express their views without generating endless discussions. The aim of this phase is not to make a decision, but to help the group visualise the different options.

Role of the facilitator: It is vital to have a skilled facilitator who will conduct the workshop in a clear manner, manage time and create an environment in which all participants can express their viewpoints and ideas. S/he is also responsible for building trust to ensure that everyone is able to express themselves as freely as possible (see section 2.3). It is therefore useful to have several facilitators for the discussion groups.

Reporting of results: The results of the analyses conducted throughout the study need to be reported in a concise manner, i.e. by mainly using the summary outcomes (step C). Other results from previous steps can be introduced to explain the summary results. This reporting phase should be kept as short as possible,[24] to leave as much time as possible for group work and feedback.

Validation of results: It is important to note that this step only includes validating and discussing solutions. The aim is to listen to and consider the participants’ comments, to discuss them whilst focusing on finding solutions, and to identify possible challenges. It is important to keep track of all diverging viewpoints, especially if a general consensus is not reached, which is also an important result.

Introduction to group work and clarification about the participatory aspect:

• When describing the process at the beginning of the workshop, it is important to specify the difference between the initial explanatory section, where results are presented, and the participatory section, where opinions are considered and discussions can take place. This distinction helps to avoid inappropriate or off-topic discussions at the beginning of the workshop, which can be tactfully postponed to the time allocated for discussion.

• Prior to presenting the research results, it is important to introduce the objectives of the group work and inform participants how they will be able to respond. Participants will thus listen carefully to the presentations and start thinking about the feedback they want to give.

Group work organization: Questions to consider: What are the participants’ skills and interests, and what topics are therefore appropriate for them to discuss? Depending on the participants, three options are available when organising both the group work and the reporting of results. They are as follows:

• Case no. 1: several participants have skills and interests relating to all the suggested topics. In this case, start group discussions on one topic. Groups then rotate after a while (20-30 minutes), as per the World Café approach. The facilitator stays with one topic and summarizes the findings of the first group to the second one. The second group then aggregates the findings and perhaps expresses differing points of view, which are noted and reported onto the flipchart (using a different colour to make a clear distinction with the first group’s findings). This second round takes less time than the previous one. Once every group has had the opportunity to express themselves on every topic, all participants are well informed about the discussion outcomes and the plenary session can be short and very concise.

• Case no. 2: If most participants have interests that can clearly be linked to only one topic, it might be worth organising one round of discussions and then reporting the outcomes in plenary for the entire group to provide feedback.

• Case no. 3 (intermediate): Several participants have skills and interests relating to several topics. The groups are created before the workshop based on the participants’ main interests, ensuring that each group includes different stakeholders (young people, decision-makers, secondary players, etc.). After a first round of discussions about the first topic, participants are then invited to choose another topic to consider. The facilitator stays with one topic and summarizes the findings of the first group to the second one. The second group then gives feedback on the findings and expresses differing points of view, which are noted and reported onto the flipchart (using a different colour to make a clear distinction with the first group’s findings). The process can stop here or continue with further group rotations. All the participants do not have the same level of information, and outcomes should therefore be reported in plenary session in a comprehensive manner.

Discussion outcomes are regularly reported on the flipcharts by the facilitator, either through cards/stickers or directly on the flipchart paper. The facilitator redirects the discussion if it gets off track.

In Tunisia, a mind map was drawn to report on group work (see annex), but other approaches can also be considered, such as the “log frame” used to develop projects.

Prioritisation of results

After reporting on group work, ideally the different solutions that have been elaborated and validated are prioritised based on their perceived urgency and usefulness to participants. This process will help refine the results and enable implementation in a targeted and prioritised manner.

Several approaches can be used to prioritise solutions. It is usually impossible to reach the consensus of all participants. As the aim of the workshop is not to make decisions but to visualise different options, the prioritisation process gives every participant the opportunity to express their views without generating endless discussions.

A “dotmocracy” approach was used in Tunisia. In this process, participants use stickers to vote for the solution they thought should be given the highest priority in each topic. Participants go to the wall or to the flipchart displaying the results for each topic and affix their stickers on the card/space containing their preferred solution. Solutions are then prioritised according to the number of stickers (votes) received (see annex and reports made in Tunisia).

Expected result

A report will show the validated results together with the different scenarios and practical measures, as well as their order of priority. The results endorsed in Tunisia can be found in the annex.

STEP D: Policy brief

A short document presenting the main recommendations and results originating from the planning process will be drafted into a policy brief.[25] This document is aimed at a lay audience, and the terminology used will be adjusted accordingly. This document serves as a vehicle to present the study’s findings in a more visible and readable manner, giving recommendations on policy measures. This policy brief is a key element of the final phase of the process. Its objective is to- advocate for investment by young people among decision-makers.

References

CFS. 2014. Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems. 32 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-au866e.pdf

SDC. 2011. SDC Stakeholder Analysis Tool, Political Economy and Decentralisation Network-55. 13 pp. https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Learning-and-Networking/sdc_km_tools/Documents/Stakeholder_Analysis_PEDNetwork.pdf

FAO. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. 154pp. http://www.fao.org/3/ap106e/ap106e.pdf

FAO. 2014. Contribution to the 2014 United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Integration Segment. 7 pp.

FAO. 2016. Addressing rural youth migration at its root causes: A conceptual framework. Rome, FAO. 74 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5718e.pdf

FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2015. Achieving Zero Hunger. The critical role of investments in social protection and agriculture. Rome, FAO. 39 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4951e.pdf

Lombriser, R. & Abplanalp, P.A. 2005. Strategisches Management. Visionen entwickeln, Strategien umsetzen, Erfolgspotenziale aufbauen. 4. Auflage. Versus Verlag AG. 551 pp.

ANNEX Experience and lessons learned from the implementation of the strategic analysis tool within the framework of the pilot project in Tunisia

General observations

Supporting context-specific conditions in Tunisia: Tunisia has the necessary conditions and resources to implement the strategic planning tool (see Table 1). The LER has a dynamic team of skilled and diligent researchers working on issues relating to agricultural policies, development, rural economics and food economics. They have the knowledge required to implement the strategic analysis tool. Moreover, the data available in the country are outstanding and accessible. Several agri-food chains are also well established and structured.

Collaboration: FAO gave technical support to its local partner in Tunisia throughout the process. BFH-HAFL gave methodological support to ensure the operationalisation, implementation and validation of the tool. Skype calls among team partners (FAO, LER, BFH-HAFL) were regularly organised throughout the process, with approximately one call a month on average (nine Skype calls between July 2019 and February 2020).

Timeframe (see Figure 8): The project started in July 2019 and steps A.1 and B.1 were completed between July and September 2019. The first national workshop was organised on 14 October 2019 in Tunis. Steps A.2, B.2 and C were carried out between October 2019 and January 2020, i.e. after the first national workshop. This sequence of events, however, was not ideal as the initial outline caused some overlap in terms of content produced. The current tool has been adapted based on this feedback. The second national workshop was organized on 27 February 2020 in Tunis. Throughout the process, reports were promptly drafted and submitted for validation.

The project was implemented over a period of nine months.

It is worth mentioning here that the steps were reorganised and renamed after the experience carried out in Tunisia. These are the main adjustments:

• Step A.1 (step 1)

• Step A.2 (step 5a.)

• Step B.1 (step 2)

• Step B.2 (steps 3 et 5.b)

• Step C (step 6)

• first national workshop (step 4 with preparation of case studies to be presented)

• second national workshop (step 7)

Some steps that were necessary within the framework of the pilot project in Tunisia became obsolete or had to be adapted in other contexts (concept of the second workshop, evaluation of tool 2).

Experience and lessons learned from the pilot project: The experiments carried out in Tunisia were shared with FAO and BHF-HAFL, and the tool was adapted accordingly. The key points that emerged from this assessment are as follows:

• Detailed, meticulous and comprehensive work helped to justify the selection of the agri-food chains analysed.

• The case study analysis (agri-food chains) is not nationally representative and there are underlying weaknesses in terms of generalisation: therefore, the results cannot be generalised. However, the actor-centric and field-based approach have considerable potential for revealing specific issues, such as creating a political will which will ensure long term impacts for the project. In the case of Tunisia, however, many of the results of the analysis are applicable to the whole country, especially those relating to laws and state agencies. Other results remain specific to the selected agri-food chain and region (e.g. access to information and market challenges).

• The first national workshop was organized in Tunis, not in the analysed region. More young actors operating in agri-food chains would have been able to attend had the workshop been organized in the analysed region. The second national workshop was held where decision-makers are based, in this case, Tunis.

• The sequence of the study was reorganised after LER collaborators provided feedback. The first national workshop was held before steps A.2 and B.2. In the current revised tool, we decided to execute the entire situational analysis before organising the first national workshop.

• Allowing enough time for national workshops 1 and 2 is vital. This guide provides the required timeframe in hours. The goal is to first choose the operational modality most suited to the national context in order to ensure the presence of the largest possible number of selected participants.

• For the second national workshop, we had originally planned to invite a foreign expert to showcase an example from outside the country, in order to bring a new perspective and provoke thought. This would have meant organising the second workshop over two days, with the risk of losing participants. It was decided to organize a one-day workshop without the presence of an international expert instead.

First national workshop (14 October 2019)[26]

Below is the agenda of the first workshop co-organized by LER and FAO in Tunisia:

Notes:

• The workshop was organised in the capital city, forcing players operating in local chains to travel. These participants, especially young people, had to leave early to get home on time. It would have made more sense to organise this first workshop in one of the regions of the analysed chains.

• The Q&A session organised at 09.45 helped put participants at ease and clarify some points that otherwise might have hindered the follow-up work (e.g. What is a farmer? Why were these two agri-food chains selected rather than others?)

• The four case studies presented by young people helped set the stage and make a list of specific issues.

• The analysis of challenges and solutions in a problem tree and a solution tree was conducted in a very systematic and efficient way. Unfortunately, because this activity was carried out at the end of the day, some participants, especially actors operating in local chains, had already left the workshop.

• Making more time at the end of the session to allow for reflection on the causal links between the issues and the solutions might have produced more accurate results. This would take 1 to 2 extra hours, which in turn would mean organising the workshop over two days.

Second national workshop (27 February 2020)

Below is the agenda of the second national workshop co-organised by LER, FAO and BFH-HAFL in Tunisia:

Notes:

• Workshop attendees were a diverse group: comprised of middle managers and high-level leaders, young people and regional administrative officers. This wide range of participants complicated the running of the workshop.

• The research team’s presentations were very well done but did not provide all the information essential to the group work. It would have been helpful to share reports before the workshop.

• The group work activities were completed during the time allocated and the participants successfully discussed, refined and validated the solutions proposed by INRAT-LER and FAO.

• As mentioned during their speeches, representatives of the Agricultural Investment Promotion Agency, including its Director-General, Mr Chaffai Abderrahman, recognized the importance of the workshop and intend to incorporate the results into their agency’s work. The representative actively participated in the group discussions and used this opportunity to rethink and to view things in a new light.

• Another interesting secondary outcome emerged from the project: two workshops and several mini workshops and interviews facilitated the dialogue and creation of relationships between different partners operating in the agricultural investment sector in Tunisia.

Validated Results in Tunisia

1 This tool was finalised in the weeks before the COVID-19 sanitary crisis. Although it is impossible at this stage to fully measure all of its socio-economic impacts, a global economic recession is an actual risk in the short term, which may result in a rise of food insecurity and poverty, particularly in rural areas. Moreover, young people are likely to be impacted by the expected economic crisis. See: FAO. 2020. COVID-19 global economic recession: Avoiding hunger must be at the centre of the economic stimulus. http://www.fao.org/3/ca8800en/CA8800EN.pdf; https://iloblog.org/2020/04/15/young-workers-will-be-hit-hard-by-covid-19s-economic-fallout/

2 Reference period is 2005/2007.

3 The tool and implementation guide are available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA2061EN (tool); http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA2065EN (guide)

4 In the case of Tunisia, the matrix on current institutional, policy, legal and incentive frameworks was quite large, which is why it could not be shared, approved or optimised at a later stage: it would therefore be useful to draft a summary identifying the main elements.

5 Here is a list of available tools:

• Tool for conducting a capacity needs assessment on decent rural employment at country level – http://www.fao.org/3/a-av093e.pdf

• Tool for conducting a context analysis on decent rural employment at country level – http://www.fao.org/3/a-av094e.pdf

• The Gender and Rural Advisory Services Assessment Tool – http://www.fao.org/3/CA2693EN/ca2693en.pdf

• The Gender in Agricultural Policies Analysis Tool (GAPo) – http://www.fao.org/policy-support/resources/resources-details/en/c/1234866/

6 In Tunisia, the full analysis of a dozen agri-food chains and wide-range statistical data helped identify the olive oil sector and the sheep milk emerging sector in a northwest disadvantaged region (e.g. with high youth unemployment rate) but high-potential (climate, proximity to the capital, etc.). Thus, one of the country’s more traditional chains (olive oil) was selected, as well as an emerging high-potential chain.

7 This work was conducted for the entire country, with time-consuming research made for several agri-food chains. The process was considered too burdensome for a country like Tunisia with such a diversified agricultural sector. The selection of chains and region could be based on a matrix cross-referencing chains with wider regions in the country and a set of indicators detailing the importance of the chains, investment opportunities, barriers to entry.

8 As we saw in the Tunisian experience, there is a risk of an overlap between the two steps. It is recommended to clearly separate what comes under the general framework (step A.1) and what pertains to the chains identified at the regional level (step B.1).

9 Observations may relate to different aspects, such as strengths/weaknesses, challenges encountered, links with other actors.

10 Possible areas of focus (several areas possible): monitoring of activities, programme implementation, policy formulation, policy review, decision making, information sharing, young people’s issues, credit/funding allocation, other.

11 Possible stakeholders: central government; ministry of agriculture; ministry of economic affairs; ministry of finance; other ministry; investment authority/investment promotion agency; local government; intergovernmental and regional organizations; financial institutions; funds and trading banks; donors and foundations; research institutes; academia and extension organizations; small producers, including family farmers and their organizations; youth organizations; business ventures, including large-scale farmers and multinational corporations; civil society organizations and social movements; women’s organizations; indigenous people’s organizations*; community representatives; worker organizations.

* Issues regarding the rights of indigenous people must be addressed. However, depending on the context, it may be difficult to discuss the role and rights of indigenous people. Therefore, any action taken needs to be well prepared. Special attention will be paid to specific or divisive definitions of “indigenous people”, which can vary from one country or region to another. FAO is committed to meeting the following criteria regarding indigenous people (during their description): Priority in time, with respect to occupation and use of a specific territory; the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, which may include aspects of language, social organization, religion and spiritual values, modes of production, laws and institutions; self-identification, as well as recognition by other groups, or by State authorities, as a distinct collectivity; and an experience of subjugation, marginalisation, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination, whether or not these conditions persist (http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/en/).

12 The Tunisian experience emphasized that these aspects are at a global scale and not specific to certain chains. However, regional particularities may arise here, e.g. investment incentives implemented in a specific region of study.

13 Including, if available, the corresponding incentive budget.

14 Services offered can include those mentioned at the top of the page.

15 Training courses can be provided by formal educational institutions (schools, universities) or other organizations (extension services, rural organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)).

16 In Tunisia, two mini workshops were organised to gather actors from the olive oil sector, and one was organised for the sheep milk sector. These mini workshops proved very useful for the identification of stakeholders and helped raise awareness among operators to help them prepare for their participation to the first national workshop and case studies.

* in case turnover is unknown, it is possible to estimate rough orders of magnitude. Example 1: + small / ++ medium-sized / +++ large. Example 2: under xxx/yr. / over xxx/yr.

17 The CFS RAI Principles is an international guidance instrument which was adopted following a large consensus process. The 10 principles were widely endorsed by the different parties, but they do not include measurement parameters or an evaluation template.

18 Principles 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have not been included separately, as they are in substance included in the criteria on other principles. The issue of corruption has not been explicitly addressed, as it is very difficult to measure and evaluate, but can play a role in certain assessment criteria.

19 In Tunisia, a fourth sector, that of international organizations, was added.

20 In Tunisia, this part on political economics of investments by young people proved to be very important, as it helped conduct informed debates about the different positionings of the actors at play.

21 In Tunisia, the selection process of both successful projects as well as those which encountered problems, led to interesting results. Four young agri-entrepreneurs operating in the sheep milk and olive oil sectors showcased their projects, pinpointing the main challenges they had to face and how they addressed them.

22 This approach is focused on the SWOT analysis, but the aim is not, at this stage, to open the analysis to external entities which were not analysed during steps A and B. It is however important to consider all the relevant issues raised during the analyses, whether internal (value chain actors, organizations, State agencies, etc.) or external (e.g. market potentials) to the reviewed system.

23 A synthesis report is available at: FAO et INRAT. 2020. Promouvoir et pérenniser les investissements des jeunes agri-entrepreneurs en Tunisie. Rapport final du projet - Investissements responsables par et pour les jeunes dans l’agriculture et les systèmes alimentaires en Tunisie. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb0943fr

24 In Tunisia, one challenge arose at this stage: it was difficult to strike a balance between the need for a concise presentation and the wealth of results obtained during the previous steps.

25 The Tunisian policy brief is available online: Elloumi, M. ; Fiedler, Y. ; Ben Saad, A. ; Ouertani, E. ; Yangui, A. ; Labidi, A. 2020. Pour un environnement institutionnel et financier favorable à l’investissement par les jeunes dans l’agriculture et les systèmes alimentaires en Tunisie: Document d'orientation. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/fr/c/cb0884fr/

26 The LER drafted a full and very detailed report, which is available from FAO.