Ambrose Murangira

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to participate in the dissemination of the EYE-C Program’s integrated study findings at the Golden Tulip Hotel in Kampala. Since it was a dissemination workshop, I would feel guilty if I did not also “disseminate” at least one finding that captured my attention.

The presentation contained many important findings on employment, income, skills, finance, markets, resilience and digital inclusion. However, one finding concerning young people with disabilities stayed with me long after the slide had disappeared from the screen.

The Empowering Young Women Entrepreneurs in Agriculture Stimulated by Coffee Program (EYE-C Program), led by aBi Development Ltd, seeks to transform coffee and complementary agricultural value chains into pathways for dignified and fulfilling work. It aims to support at least 300,000 young women to transition into work, with 5% of this target (approximately 15,000 young women) being young women with disabilities. The integrated baseline, labour-market and market-systems study disseminated at the meeting was conducted by Afrotech Management Consults Ltd.

The finding that made me pause

The study reported that 85% of young people with disabilities had a positive mindset towards coffee.

This was encouraging. It showed that young people with disabilities recognise coffee as an important and potentially promising economic sector. They are not standing outside the coffee economy without interest, ambition or appreciation of its possibilities.

But another figure created a striking contrast: only 34.1% of young people with disabilities selected coffee as their first livelihood choice, compared with 54% of young people without disabilities.

How can 85% express a positive attitude towards coffee while only about one-third consider it their preferred livelihood?

This is what I call the coffee aspiration paradox.

Young people with disabilities may appreciate coffee and recognise its economic importance, yet many do not see a sufficiently credible, accessible and profitable place for themselves within its value chain.

Put differently: They are interested in coffee, but they may not yet be convinced that the coffee economy has made room for them.

When interest exists but the pathway remains unclear

Development programmes often begin with mobilisation and mindset change. We encourage excluded groups to become confident, recognise opportunities and believe in their abilities.

That work remains important. However, the EYE-C Program findings encourage us to examine the other side of the equation: what happens when interest is already high, but participation remains low?

The study found that only 53.7% of young people with disabilities were engaged in income-generating activities, compared with 66.4% of young women and 82.5% of young men. Young people with disabilities also recorded lower financial inclusion, lower use of digital platforms, weaker access to livelihood resources and considerably lower average incomes.

The gap between aspiration and livelihood choice may therefore reflect the barriers young people encounter rather than a lack of motivation.

A young person with a physical disability may wonder whether farms, training venues, processing facilities and markets are accessible. A Deaf person may ask whether extension workers and trainers can communicate in sign language. A young person with a visual impairment may consider whether mobile applications, financial records, market information and training materials are accessible. A person with an intellectual disability may require adapted instruction, practical demonstrations, job coaching or additional time to learn particular tasks.

These are not signs of limited ambition. They are reasonable questions about whether the pathway is navigable.

An aspiration-opportunity gap beyond Uganda

The EYE-C Program finding offers a powerful coffee-sector illustration of a wider pattern observed elsewhere.

Research involving young people with disabilities in Nigeria found a gap between their aspirations and the opportunities available to them. Young people wanted education, employment, independent livelihoods and meaningful participation but faced inaccessible institutions, financial barriers, stigma and inadequate transition support.

Studies from Rwanda have similarly shown that young people with disabilities can demonstrate capability and ambition while continuing to face social expectations that underestimate their potential. In Ethiopia, even educated young people with disabilities have encountered restricted employment opportunities because of inaccessible workplaces, narrow recruitment practices and employer misconceptions.

Across these contexts, the lesson is that aspirations exist, but systems do not always convert them into opportunities.

The EYE-C Program findings bring this discussion directly into Uganda’s coffee economy. They invite us to look beyond whether young people with disabilities are interested and examine whether the value chain offers visible, accessible and realistic routes for entry and progression.

Training reveals where exclusion occurs

Another EYE-C Program finding strengthens this argument.

Only 14.6% of young persons with disabilities had recently participated in training, compared with 23.3% of youth overall. Yet among those who accessed training, 83% of persons with disabilities completed it, almost equal to the overall completion rate of 85%.

This distinction is important. Young people with disabilities are not necessarily entering training and failing. The wider disparity appears before or around the point of entry.

The pathway into training involves receiving information, registering, being selected, travelling to the venue, communicating with trainers, participating in practical exercises, completing assessments and then accessing mentorship, finance or employment.

Exclusion can occur anywhere along that journey. Information may not be accessible. Transport may be unavailable. The venue may present physical barriers. Sign-language interpretation may not be provided. Training tools and assessments may not be adapted.

The completion rate nevertheless sends an encouraging message that when young people with disabilities gain meaningful access, they demonstrate the commitment and capacity to complete training.

The question is therefore not whether they can complete agricultural training. It is how we can remove the barriers preventing more of them from entering and benefiting from it.

Coffee is an ecosystem, not one job

The paradox may also be influenced by how opportunities in coffee are presented. When people hear “coffee work,” they may imagine digging, spraying, pruning, harvesting and carrying heavy sacks. These are important roles, but they represent only part of the value chain.

Coffee also creates opportunities in nursery management, seedling production, extension, quality assurance, bookkeeping, digital farm mapping, aggregation, cooperative management, processing, roasting, packaging, branding, marketing, retail, traceability, data management and customer relations.

Some young people with disabilities can participate in conventional farm work without major adjustments. Others may require adapted tools or modified work processes. Others may find their strongest opportunities in enterprise management, processing, technology, quality control, finance or marketing.

The coffee value chain is not one occupation. It is an ecosystem of jobs, enterprises and services. Our collective responsibility is to make that diversity visible and accessible.

Turning the findings into collective action

The study gives all of us, development practitioners, coffee companies, cooperatives, government agencies, financial institutions, training providers, organisations of persons with disabilities and community leaders a foundation for action.

We can begin by listening directly to young women and men with different impairments. We need to understand why they value coffee, why some do not choose it, which roles interest them and what would make those pathways viable.

We can then map opportunities across the entire value chain, showing the tasks involved, skills required, possible barriers, reasonable accommodations, income potential and routes for progression.

Training actors can review the complete journey from mobilisation to employment. This includes accessible communication, recruitment through disability networks, accessible venues and sanitation, transport support, sign-language interpretation, adapted materials, flexible schedules and post-training mentorship.

The ecosystem can also co-design adapted tools and work processes with farmers and workers with disabilities. Solutions are more effective when persons with disabilities participate in analysing tasks and designing practical adaptations rather than receiving tools based on assumptions.

Skills must also connect to finance and markets. Training without capital, equipment, buyers and mentorship may increase knowledge without improving livelihoods. Financial institutions, SACCOs, VSLAs, cooperatives and buyers can help create inclusive pathways to affordable finance, start-up inputs, structured markets and enterprise support.

Finally, we should measure more than enrolment. We must track whether young women with disabilities complete training, receive reasonable accommodation, access finance, increase income, enter higher-value roles and gain greater control over economic decisions.

The question left with us

When 85% of young people with disabilities express a positive attitude towards coffee, but only 34.1% select it as their preferred livelihood, we should look beyond individual motivation.

Are the opportunities visible? Are training and financial systems accessible? Are there credible pathways into higher-value roles? Can young people with disabilities enter, remain, progress and control the income generated from their work?

The aspiration already exists. The task before all of us is to build coffee and complementary agricultural value chains that are not only open in principle, but accessible, profitable, dignified and sustainable in practice.

They are already interested. Together, we can build the pathways that allow them to participate, contribute and thrive.

END