OPPORTUNITIES
MOVE FOOD
FORWARD

RURAL-URBAN DISTRIBUTION OF YOUTH

Urban areas host 54 percent of the global youth population, reflecting rising urbanization trends worldwide (see Appendix 1 for a definition of urban and rural spaces).¹⁵ This shift is driven by natural population increases, the expansion of small towns into urban areas, and rural-to-urban migration as young people seek better education and livelihoods, social mobility and cultural opportunities.^{15, 16} The shares of youth residing in urban areas are highest in South-eastern Asia (67 percent), North Africa (62 percent), Western Asia (61 percent), Europe and Northern America (61 percent), and Latin America and the Caribbean (61 percent). This trend reflects advanced urbanization and contexts in which youth engagement in agrifood systems will likely be more closely tied to off-farm segments of agrifood systems, especially retailing, food processing and services within urban and peri-urban areas, rather than primary agriculture.

More than half of rural youth (58.7 percent), representing about 27 percent of youth worldwide, are located in periurban areas, situated outside of city limits but within an hour’s travel to urban centres. These zones often blend urban and rural life,²⁰ offering diverse economic activities, from agriculture to services and small industries.^{21, 22} Perirural areas host the second largest share of rural youth (35.4 percent), followed by rural hinterlands (5.8 percent). These areas are home to about 16 percent and 5 percent of the global youth population, respectively (Figure 2.3). Youth in peri-rural areas benefit from proximity to rural resources and urban markets, although their access to the latter is more limited than their peri-urban peers.²³ Those in rural areas, and especially rural hinterlands, tend to maintain strong ties to their communities and traditional agricultural practices. This connection coupled with familiarity with local ecosystems positions them to innovate solutions that integrate traditional knowledge with modern technology in ways that are environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable.²⁴ As demand for sustainable and locally sourced food continues to grow, youth in peri-rural and rural hinterlands are well-placed to capitalize on emerging opportunities in niche markets, such as organic farming.^{25, 26}

RURAL YOUTH DISTRIBUTION ACROSS AGRIFOOD SYSTEM TYPES

Agrifood systems transition is closely intertwined with youth demographic shifts, which present both challenges and opportunities for the long-term viability and resilience of agrifood systems. As countries transition from traditional, labour-intensive agriculture towards more diversified and industrialized agrifood systems, the share of youth in rural populations (Figure 2.4). and of rural youth and children in total population (Figure 2.5) declines. In the early stages of agrifood systems transition, as exemplified by countries with traditional and protracted crisis agrifood systems, youth make up a higher share of the rural population. Rural youth, on average, account for 19.4 percent and 18.3 percent of the rural population in countries with protracted crisis and traditional agrifood systems, respectively (Figure 2.4). These countries, mainly in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, collectively represent over half (55.3 percent) of the world’s rural youth.¹³ For countries with protracted crisis agrifood systems, rural children and youth below the age of 25 comprise 47 percent of the total population. Given their demographic profiles, these countries are unlikely to face labour shortages in the near term and instead have the potential to harness their large youth populations to drive agrifood systems innovation and rural transformation.

In contrast, countries in the later stages of agrifood systems transition, largely in Europe, Northern America and parts of East Asia and Latin America, collectively account for about 37 percent of the world’s rural youth, a relatively lower proportion averaging 11.5 percent, 13.9 percent and 11.4 percent in diversifying, formalizing and industrial agrifood systems, respectively (Figure 2.4). These substantially lower shares reflect broader trends of urbanization and increasing off-farm and non-agrifood system employment opportunities as agrifood systems transition.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR RURAL YOUTH BY AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS TYPE AND LOCAL CONTEXT

The nature of agrifood systems transition in the areas where youth live influences the opportunities available to them. These distinct opportunities reflect a complex interplay of economic, social, institutional and environmental factors. As agrifood systems evolve, both new opportunities and challenges for youth arise at different stages of the transition. This dynamic is particularly apparent when examining how youth are distributed across agrifood system types and subnational “opportunity spaces” delineated by varying combinations of agricultural productivity potential and market access conditions (connectivity potential) (see Figure 2.6 and Appendix 1 for the methodology).

Most rural youth are located in areas with favourable agricultural productivity potential. About 54 percent live in high potential zones, 33 percent in medium potential zones and 13 percent in low potential zones Figure 2.6. This distribution reflects historical migration patterns, with populations gravitating towards areas offering better prospects for agriculture-based livelihoods.^{13, 15} However, residing in areas with high potential agricultural productivity – measured solely on biophysical and climatic conditions – does not necessarily translate into access to or benefit from that land, given prevailing barriers such as restrictive social norms and inheritance regimes, land rights and financial constraints (see Chapter 3).¹²

While most rural youth live in areas with strong agricultural potential, connectivity, defined by access to market, infrastructure and services, poses a greater constraint. Only 34 percent reside in high connectivity areas compared with 40 percent in medium connectivity areas and 26 percent in low connectivity areas – twice the proportion of those in low agricultural productivity potential zones Figure 2.6. The largest single share of rural youth (36 percent) is found in areas with strong agricultural productivity potential but weak market access Figure 2.7. These findings suggest that addressing infrastructure and market access challenges may be more critical to enhancing youth livelihoods than agricultural potential alone.

Across agrifood system types, opportunities for rural youth vary significantly, reflecting different stages of transition and broader structural conditions. Countries in advanced stages of agrifood systems transition offer the most diverse and high-quality opportunities for their rural youth. In industrial agrifood systems, 55 percent of rural youth reside in areas with both high agricultural productivity potential and strong market access conditions, while only 2 percent live in areas with low opportunities (Figure 2.7).

In contrast, youth living in countries in the early stages of agrifood systems transition (protracted crisis and traditional agrifood systems) face the most severe constraints. ²⁸ These include most countries in sub Saharan Africa, North Africa and Western Asia. In protracted crisis contexts, about 20percent of rural youth reside in low opportunity areas characterized by limited agricultural productivity potential and market access. Only 2 percent live in areas offering diverse and high opportunities. Most youth (43 percent) inhabit and work in areas with strong agricultural productivity potential but limited market access, often exacerbated by conflict, instability and resource constraints. ^{12, 29} Countries with traditional agrifood systems present similar patterns, but with a larger share of youth (14 percent) living in areas with diverse and high opportunities (Figure 2.7). ^30-32

Countries at intermediate transition stages characterized by expanding, diversifying and formalizing agrifood systems offer a more mixed picture. Predominantly located in Latin America, South-eastern, Southern and Eastern Asia, these contexts have higher shares of rural youth in areas with diverse and high opportunities and may offer a broader range of livelihood options across onfarm and off-farm segments of agrifood systems relative to traditional or protracted crisis agrifood systems.³

CLIMATE CHANGE UNEVENLY SHAPES GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL

While projected shifts in agricultural productivity suggest that climate change will reshape food production potential worldwide, the benefits will be unevenly distributed. The modelled scenario projects a net gain of approximately 182.6 million hectares of land with improved productivity potential. However, this net increase does not account for associated risks, including extreme weather events, prolonged droughts and widespread wildfires, which could undermine the reliability of existing and newly viable agricultural lands for long-term food production.^33,34

Significant regional disparities will emerge. The northern hemisphere, particularly Europe and Northern America, is expected to see productivity gains, with localized decreases in parts of the eastern coast of Australia, the Mediterranean coastline and the central United States of America (Figure 2.8). In contrast, large declines are projected across Latin America and the Caribbean, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. While new areas may become for long-term food production.³⁵ more viable for agriculture these are often sparsely populated, whereas declines will affect regions that currently sustain large populations, intensifying food security challenges.

UNPACKING YOUTH MOBILITY Disaggregated analysis by agrifood systems typology reveals stark disparities in rural youth vulnerability to climate-induced declines in agricultural productivity potential. These differences reflect the interaction of climate risks, weaknesses in how agrifood systems operate and resource inequalities across different regions. Traditional agrifood systems are the most vulnerable, with 85 percent of rural youth in these systems – representing 53 percent of the global rural youth population – facing declining agricultural productivity potential (Figure 2.10). Two-thirds of rural youth in sub-Saharan Africa and 82 percent in Western Asia reside in areas projected to experience significant declines (Figure A5.1 in Appendix 5). In sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, limited infrastructure, outdated technologies and restricted access to adaptation resources leave rural youth ill-equipped to adapt.^{12, 37} In such circumstances, migration – whether voluntary or forced – can become inevitable.³⁸ Over 9 million additional rural youth living in areas with low agricultural potential will further exacerbate these challenges. Rural youth in agrifood systems at intermediate stages of transition also face heightened vulnerability. Approximately 84 percent of youth in formalizing and 55 percent in diversifying agrifood systems are projected to experience declining productivity potential.

In contrast, rural youth in industrial agrifood systems, primarily in Europe and Northern America and parts of East Asia, are the least affected. Only 29.1 percent of youth in these systems are projected to experience impacts, representing 2.7 percent of the global total of affected youth. In some areas, climate change may improve agricultural productivity potential, reducing or forced – can become inevitable.³⁵ Over 9 million the number of youth in low-productivity regions. The disparities in youth vulnerability across regions and agrifood systems typologies underline systemic inequality in exposure to climate risks.

INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL MIGRATION

Over recent decades, the number of international migrants has increased significantly, reaching 304 million in 2024,⁴⁷ with corresponding increases in remittances to low- and middle-income countries projected to reach USD 685 billion in the same year.⁴⁸ Youth migration has also grown, with the number of international migrants aged 15–24 rising from 22.1 million in 1990 to 31.7 million in 2020. However, their share out of total migrants declined from 14.4 percent to 11.3 percent over the same period,⁴⁹ due in part to longer life expectancy among older migrants and migration policies that restrict access for lower-skilled migrants, who tend to be younger.^14,50,51

The share of youth among international migrants varies across regions. Youth account for 16.2 percent of the total migrant population in sub-Saharan Africa and 15.2 percent in Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, but only 9.2percent in Europe and Northern America. Youth aged 20–24 account for the majority of migrants (19 million or 6.8 percent of the total migrant population), compared to those aged 15–19 (12.5 million or 4.5 percent).⁴⁹ Young women represent nearly half of international youth migrants (48 percent), with higher shares in sub-Saharan Africa (52 percent) and Eastern and Southeastern Asia, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean (51 percent).⁴⁹

The share of international youth migrants residing in low- and middle-income countries (43 percent) is larger than that of older migrants (37 percent aged 25–34 and 30 percent aged 35–44).⁵⁰ This trend may reflect in part the broader demographic reality that the majority of the world’s youth live in low- and middle-income countries. However, it also highlights a key characteristic of global migration – most international migrants, including youth, tend to move within their own regions. Europe has the highest intra-regional migration share (74 percent), followed by sub-Saharan Africa (64 percent). Youth migrants are more likely than older cohorts to choose regional destinations due to geographic proximity, lower migration costs, and strong cultural, linguistic and economic ties.^50,52 Some regions such as Central and Southern Asia experience large migrant outflows, with 78 percent of migrants residing outside their region, particularly in member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Similarly, 60 percent of migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean live in Northern America, their movement contributing to one of the largest global migration corridors, although growth has slowed in recent years.⁴⁹ Crucially, children and youth make up a large share of forcibly displaced populations, including refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons (see Box 2.1).

ASPIRATIONS AND PLANS TO MIGRATE INTERNATIONALLY

Youth express higher aspirations for international migration than adults across all agrifood systems typologies, with aspirations rising between 2015 and 2023 (Figure 2.11). In 2023, 46.6 percent of male and 45.5 percent of female youth expressed a desire to migrate compared to approximately 36 percent in 2015. Migration aspirations among youth are lowest in industrial agrifood systems and highest in countries with protracted crisis agrifood systems, where 61.8 percent of young males aspire to migrate (Figure 2.11) (see also Box 2.2). In such fragile contexts, such as Eritrea, where economic prospects are limited, youth often view migration as the only pathway to a better life.⁵³ However, many young people may be unable to migrate due to financial and institutional barriers, and remain trapped in their present circumstances.⁵

In protracted crisis and traditional agrifood systems, male youth are more likely than female youth to aspire to migrate internationally, reflecting gender norms that favour men’s work outside the home.⁵⁵ However, in other agrifood systems, migration aspirations do not differ notably by gender.

Despite high aspirations, few youth actively plan to migrate in the next year and even fewer have made concrete preparations for such moves (Figure 2.12; Information about plans and preparations to migrate internationally were only collected in 2015 Gallup World Poll data). This gap between aspirations and actual plans to migrate likely reflects the significant barriers young people face, including financial constraints, limited access to information and restrictive migration policies that limit migration opportunities.⁴⁰ In addition, young people may hold aspirations to migrate internationally for years, but the period of active preparation could be much shorter. Changes in conditions at destination, including labour demands and migration policy shifts towards border restrictions or the opening of legal pathways for migration, can also influence if and when migration aspirations transform into actual migration.⁴⁰ Key drivers of international and internal migration among youth are discussed later in the chapter.

YOUTH MIGRATION WITHIN NATIONAL BORDERS

While international migration often receives the most attention, the majority of migration occurs within national borders,⁴⁵ especially among youth, who typically lack the financial resources and networks necessary to migrate internationally.

Evidence from Demographic Health Surveys in 26 countries – primarily from sub-Saharan Africa, with some from Asia and Europe – shows that youth internal migration rates are generally high and vary significantly by country and gender (Figure 2.13).Young women (aged 15–24) are in most cases more likely than young men to have migrated within their country at least once in their life, contrary to international migration patterns. Among female youth, the incidence of internal migration ranges from 87 percent in Bangladesh to 14 percent in Armenia and Tajikistan. For male youth, the incidence ranges between 61 percent in Gabon to 4 percent in Armenia. Only three countries in the sample – Cambodia, Gabon and Mozambique – have a notably higher incidence of internal migration among male youth than female youth, while in the United Republic of Tanzania and Timor-Leste, female and male youth report migration at similar rates.

There is significant heterogeneity in the direction of youth migration patterns across the selected countries. Around 30 percent of youth migrants engage in rural-to-rural^a migration across the entire set of countries, but this type of migration is particularly important at lower levels of GDP per capita (Figure 2.15). For instance, in both Burundi and Rwanda, over 60 percent of young migrants are rural-to-rural migrants. Other studies also show that on average in low- and middle-income countries, more people migrate between rural areas than from rural to urban areas,^{45, 57} often in search of arable land. On average, young women are more likely than young men to migrate between rural areas.

Rural-to-urban migration varies by country (Figure 2.15). In Nepal, over 60 percent of young male migrants migrate from rural to urban areas, whereas in Gabon, Ghana and Tajikistan the proportion is relatively small. Additionally, no consistent gender patterns have been identified in rural-urban migration.

Urban-to-rural migration is also notable (Figure 2.15), with movement patterns indicating circular and seasonal movements or return migration. In many cases, youth work in cities to save money before returning to begin a family and start their own farm.⁵⁸ A study in Nairobi noted that 41 percent of male migrants aspired to return to their villages in the next 12 months, and 76 percent planned to return permanently.⁵⁹ Young female migrants, however, were less likely to express an interest in returning permanently to their villages.⁵⁹

Urban–to-urban migration is more common in higher income and highly urbanized countries, where it tends to dominate migration patterns (Figure 2.15). In Albania, for instance, migration between urban areas accounts for 62.2 percent and 42.1 percent of male and female youth migration, respectively. In Gabon, where most of the population live in urban areas, over 85 percent of migration for both male and female youth occurs between cities.⁶⁰ Migration to and from urban areas may involve smaller towns rather than major cities, as towns are typically classified as “urban” in Demographic and Health Surveys. Box 2.3 offers a more detailed analysis of youth migration along the rural–urban continuum in East and West Africa.

Migration patterns among older cohorts mirror the youth cohort, reflecting the fact that many migrants relocate to their current residence before the age of 25.

KEY DRIVERS OF YOUTH MIGRATION

Youth migration is driven by a complex and often intertwined array of factors at the individual, family, community, national and international level.⁶¹ For many youth, migration is often a family strategy to diversify income and improve household welfare,⁶² especially in contexts where state-provided welfare systems are absent or weak. In such cases, the decision to migrate is not made in isolation, and parents and elders may support youth migrants financially, with the expectation of future remittances.⁶³ When migration is a family strategy, it implies for youth balancing personal aspirations with familial obligations and expectations.

Youth migrate internally for various reasons, but primarily for marriage, education, employment and to join family members (Figure 2.16). Both young women and men often cite joining other family members as a primary reason for migration to both rural and urban areas. For young women, marriage and family reunification are the predominant reasons, especially for those migrating to rural areas. In Nepal, marriage accounts for nearly all female youth migration to both urban and rural areas, while in Cambodia and Kenya, employment is a leading driver of young women’s migration to cities. For young men, education and employment are the primary drivers especially for rural to urban migration (Figure 2.16), reflecting the concentration of secondary schools in urban areas and the poorer quality of schools in rural areas.^64,65 When youth migrate primarily for work or education, the process is rarely a single event and instead often involves a series of moves.^19,66,67 Youth may migrate for short or long periods, return home, stay temporarily and then migrate again. However, quantitative data capturing these multiple migration moves remain limited (see Box 2.4). These findings corroborate evidence^{68, 69} showing that youth migration – particularly internal migration – is driven by reasons beyond immediate economic gains. Migration age profiles are strongly correlated with the age structure of life-course transitions such as education, entry into workforce and marriage, especially among women.⁷⁰ These transitions differ widely both within and across societies and are further shaped by social markers of differentiation including gender, class and Indigenous or ethnic identity.

For many young people, internal migration is often also a response to a lack of decent employment opportunities in rural areas. The prospect of better jobs, even within the informal economy, draws young people to cities.⁷⁵ Data from school-to-work transition surveys also highlight job satisfaction as a key motivation for migration, with strongly dissatisfied working rural youth more than twice as likely to migrate as those who were satisfied with their jobs.⁷⁶ However, a study in Zambia⁷⁷ examining the role of rural vibrancy in youth migration decisions found that youth aged 15–24 were less influenced by local economic opportunities, including the availability of non-farm economic opportunities, than older individuals. While areas with greater agricultural productivity were associated with reduced rural out-migration, increased local non-farm economic activity seemed to have the opposite effect, increasing rural out-migration. However, these patterns are not observed among youth.⁷⁷

International migration, however, is more likely to be driven by economic reasons than internal migration. Unemployment and underemployment are strongly associated with intentions to migrate abroad, as shown in Figure 2.17, which illustrates key factors correlated with international migration plans among youth and adults. Youth planning to migrate internationally also tend to be better educated and are less likely to be female, married or living in rural areas (Figure 2.17).^{78, 79} In Lebanon, youth from poorer backgrounds have a higher propensity to migrate, with unemployment and higher education levels increasing the likelihood.⁸⁰ In the European Union as well, youth with higher levels of education and those who are unemployed, particularly in countries with high youthto-adult unemployment ratios, are more likely to have intentions to migrate.⁷⁹ Additionally, among youth who have migrated in the last five years, the likelihood of planning another move is higher, especially when experiencing dissatisfaction with living conditions in the local area.

Food insecurity also influences youth migration plans (Figure 2.17). Youth living in areas experiencing moderate food insecurity have a significantly higher probability of making plans to migrate abroad. According to figure 2.17, it is significant. Youth facing severe food insecurity may be trapped in situations of vulnerability

Migration patterns among older cohorts mirror the youth cohort, reflecting the fact that many migrants relocate to their current residence before the age of 25.

YOUTH MIGRATION AND LABOUR SHORTAGES IN AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS

Youth migration can enhance livelihoods and incomes, while addressing labour shortages in agrifood systems. If well-managed, youth migration could fill critical labour gaps within agrifood value chains^{3, 5} and revitalize rural areas in countries facing shrinking youth populations.

Global agrifood systems already rely heavily on both internal and international migrants. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated this dependence, as border closures and mobility restrictions led to severe labour shortages in many agricultural supply chains, especially those reliant on seasonal labour, with disruptions in production as well as the processing and distribution of food.⁸¹ Temporary and seasonal migration – both within and across borders – is a longstanding characteristic of rural livelihoods, linked to seasonality of agriculture and household income diversification strategies (see Box 2.4). For instance, major agricultural exporters such as Brazil,⁸² Chile⁸³ and Mexico⁸⁴ depend on internal migrants, often from Indigenous communities, to fulfil seasonal labour needs on commercial farms. In South Asia, internal migrants form a substantial portion of the workforce in aquaculture and fish processing industries in countries like Bangladesh and India.^{85, 86}

For countries in the early or intermediate stages of agrifood system transition but with large youth populations, such as protracted crisis, traditional and expanding agrifood systems, migration can enhance youth economic prospects. Evidence from Peru demonstrates that temporary labour migration, whether to work within or outside agrifood systems, significantly improves the welfare of young migrants.⁸⁷ Temporary labour migration is a function of agricultural activities with different crop cycles, ensuring continuous employment throughout the year. While agriculture remains a key employer for youth migrating to rural areas, migration enables access to non-agricultural opportunities, particularly for youth moving to urban areas. A study in Ethiopia, Malawi, the United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda found that youth migration to urban areas facilitates entry into non-agricultural labour markets, whereas rural-to-rural migration primarily supports livelihood diversification within the agrifood sector.⁸⁸ This highlights how migration – whether to rural or urban areas – can help young people supplement their incomes and reduce dependence on a single economic activity, making them more resilient to economic and environmental shocks.

Migration also affects the agricultural activities and income of those who stay in the household. Studies in Ethiopia and Malawi demonstrated that youth migration affects rural households’ labour allocation and decisions, with the labour endowment of migrants replaced by other members of the households or leading to an increase in hired labour.² The impact on household income varies by context; in Malawi, youth migration has been linked to reduced total household income, whereas in Ethiopia, it has led to higher net income.

In industrial agrifood systems, international migration is increasingly vital for addressing agricultural labour shortages caused by declining rural populations. Australia, Canada and the United States of America have long relied on migrant workers to sustain their agrifood industries.^{89, 90} Similarly, Southern European nations like Greece, Italy and Spain are experiencing a growing dependence on migrant labour as local populations move away from agricultural work.⁹¹ In Greece, for example, migrants now constitute a substantial share of the workforce in sheep, cattle and goat husbandry, reflecting broader trends in workforce restructuring.^{92, 93}

Although youth constitute a large proportion of migrant agricultural workers, comprehensive statistics on their exact numbers remain scarce due to data aggregation practices. Migrant youth under 18 are often categorized alongside children in child labour studies, obscuring their specific contributions. Research indicates that youth under 18 can comprise 10 percent to 40 percent of migrant agricultural workers and 16 percent to 80 percent of child labour in specific agrifood value chains.⁹⁴ However, they often face precarious working conditions, including lower wages, longer working hours, reduced educational opportunities and higher occupational hazards compared to local youth.⁹⁵