Executive Summary

Green technologies offer a unique opportunity to address high youth unemployment and climate change. Green technology applies scientific innovation to develop resource-efficient and environmentally friendly commodities and processes. These technologies can create jobs in industries such as waste management, transportation, agriculture, and renewable energy. However, the adoption of green technologies in developing countries like Ghana comes with several constraints, barriers, and opportunities.

This study examines the relationship between youth employment and green technologies, particularly Climate Smart Agriculture Technology (CSA Tech) in Ghana, emphasizing policy and regulatory frameworks that promote youth employment and CSA tech development. It also explores the perspectives and experiences of policymakers, technology startups, accelerators, and other stakeholders. The goal is to understand the key actors, policy context, barriers, and enablers in the nexus between CSA Tech and youth employment in Ghana, leveraging Indigenous and traditional knowledge to enhance technological innovation for startups.

Despite the youth population in Ghana, estimated to constitute about 38% of the national population (Ghana Statistical Service, 2021), and the potential for green energy, there are substantial obstacles impeding the expansion of CSA tech as a means to absorb the burgeoning youth population. According to the Ghana Statistical Service, the national youth unemployment rate for young adults aged 15-35 years stood at 21.7% in 2023, with the risk of escalation if immediate action is not taken.

Ghana faces climate crises, manifested in extreme weather conditions, temperature increases, unpredictable rainfall patterns, pests, and disease influx, among others, and along with a high unemployment rate. CSA tech thus provides an avenue to mitigate the impact of climate crises while offering sustainable employment for the youth. However, stakeholders, particularly CSA tech startups, face enormous challenges in establishing, growing, and expanding to address these twin challenges. These challenges range from poor policy implementation and inadequate infrastructure to low financial and technical support and limited consumer demand, which restrict the influence and effectiveness of these tech startups in providing jobs and addressing the climate crisis.

This study therefore focuses on two areas:

  • Assessment of how current policies in Ghana support the goals of green technology, with an emphasis on CSA, tech, and youth employment, using a combination of top-down and bottom-up policy analysis and stakeholder assessments. Specifically, the assessment focuses on the current national strategies and policy framework for CSA tech and youth employment opportunities in Ghana.

  • In-depth exploration of the experiences of tech startups in scaling up CSA tech in Ghana and increasing youth employment. This approach also examines the roles of young people, particularly women, in this space, aiming to identify the factors that either hinder or encourage their contributions to innovation. It assesses the role of other critical stakeholders, including accelerators, in promoting and expanding tech startups in Ghana. It further examines the essential elements, tools, and policy initiatives needed to enhance the adoption of locally developed technologies and Indigenous knowledge systems.

The methodology adopted in developing this report comprised qualitative, quantitative, and analytical methods. To undertake this, we first conducted an extensive literature review to understand the current policy and regulatory regime of CSA Tech in Ghana, as well as the gaps and opportunities it presents to stakeholders. We also identified the main stakeholders and their responsibilities in these processes. Subsequently, we conducted selected stakeholder interviews with individuals and organizations engaged in CSA tech, including policy actors, CSA tech startups, accelerators, and other relevant stakeholders.

The research was followed by an analysis of the information received from the respective stakeholders, which allowed us to identify existing gaps, barriers, and opportunities. These formed the basis for proposing recommendations for consideration in each thematic area.

Key Findings

Coherence and responsiveness of policy frameworks and initiatives on CSA tech and youth employment
Policy responsiveness

Policy tools related to CSA tech exist in Ghana, but the system is widely perceived as difficult to navigate and poorly responsive to the practical constraints faced by young innovators. Support is often generic rather than tailored to the CSA tech sector, and access is limited by low awareness and burdensome procedures. In practice, many young entrepreneurs describe having to figure out pathways on their own, while non-state actors, such as private entities and accelerators, sometimes offer workshops and practical guidance that help some firms but do not consistently reach the full ecosystem.

  • Disconnect between policy and reality: A key marker of unresponsiveness is the gap between institutional accounts of consultation and the actual start-up experience. Public actors describe consultation and validation as integral to policy formulation, yet many CSA tech start-ups report low awareness of relevant frameworks and limited participation in policy processes. This disconnect is reinforced by practical constraints that can limit stakeholder reach, including incomplete stakeholder identification and resource limitations, leaving many innovators outside the feedback loop and fueling perceptions that support is disjointed and must be actively pursued.

  • The National Green Jobs Strategy: This strategy is widely treated as the clearest and most comprehensive framework linking CSA tech with youth employment, yet it is weak as a responsive instrument due to low awareness among key stakeholder groups. CSA tech start-ups, accelerators, and sector experts commonly report having no information about it, and relevant public institutions such as the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Communications and Digitalisation have also been cited as lacking awareness during engagements. With the strategy nearing expiry, key commitments, such as tax reliefs and benefits linked to CSA tech participation, have not been operationalised, and the reasons for the delay have not been clear or convincing to ecosystem actors.

  • Youth employment frameworks without a CSA tech focus: Beyond the Green Jobs Strategy, several major frameworks remain broad and do not translate intent into operational pathways that centre on CSA tech and youth employment. The National Climate Change Policy provides overarching climate direction and recognises youth as stakeholders, but it does not explicitly treat CSA tech or youth employment through green tech as a core delivery priority, and it is frequently viewed as needing review to reflect current developments, including the role of tech start-ups.

  • Weak Practical Mechanisms for Innovation Support: Within CSA-specific frameworks, the Climate-Smart Agriculture Food and Security Action Plan recognises youth employment as a challenge and acknowledges science, technology, and innovation, yet youth employment institutions are not well integrated into stakeholder mapping and there is limited clarity on roles, responsibilities, and practical mechanisms for promoting innovations and technologies. Across many related policies, interventions relevant to youth and CSA tech are often not backed by clear budget lines, actionable implementation plans, or timelines for monitoring and tracking.

  • Regulatory unresponsiveness: Responsiveness is also constrained at the regulatory level. CSA tech is not governed by a dedicated regulatory framework; instead, it is shaped by broader agricultural and environmental legislation that is not designed for CSA tech realities. Business registration pathways are widely perceived as burdensome, leading many start-ups to rely on agents or informal facilitators to complete the processes. Intellectual property protection remains limited because registration is costly, procedurally complex, and poorly understood. Tax incentives exist within the fiscal framework, but awareness is low, and access can be constrained by onerous documentation and eligibility conditions that are unrealistic for early-stage firms, including requirements for nationwide establishment for some incentives.

  • Structural drivers of unresponsiveness: Several structural factors underpin these patterns. Many relevant policies were developed before the current wave of CSA tech start-ups emerged and, as such, were not designed with this sector’s operational realities in mind. Consultation processes can be constrained by limited reach and incomplete stakeholder mapping, leaving key innovators uncaptured. CSA tech is also often treated as a subset of general agri-tech rather than as a distinct category that requires targeted incentives and support. Institutional fragmentation compounds the problem, with the Youth Employment Agency, the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture running initiatives that are not consistently linked to one another or to overarching CSA tech policy frameworks, producing a support landscape that feels disjointed and difficult to navigate.

Policy Coherence

The Green Jobs Strategy stands out as the most explicit attempt to link CSA tech with youth employment. Beyond it, many policies related to climate resilience and youth employment do not provide the clarity and coherence needed for implementation, particularly in how CSA tech and youth employment outcomes are defined, prioritised, and operationalised.

  • Fragmentation and duplication: Fragmentation, duplication, resource constraints, and implementation gaps weaken delivery across the youth employment landscape. These challenges are compounded by limited emphasis on TVET and STEM pathways, insufficient support for entrepreneurship, weak collaboration with the private sector, and outdated frameworks that do not keep pace with the needs of a rapidly evolving innovation ecosystem.

  • Initiatives operating in silos: Existing initiatives, such as the Youth in Innovative Agriculture programme and the Presidential Pitch, lack strong links to overarching CSA tech policy frameworks. This reinforces parallel delivery rather than a unified pipeline that connects policy intent to financing, adoption support, and scaling for CSA tech start-ups.

  • Indigenous Knowledge coherence: A coherence gap also emerges around Indigenous Knowledge. Green growth and climate frameworks may acknowledge Indigenous Knowledge and the need to strengthen its relationship with scientific knowledge, yet the flagship youth employment and green enterprise strategy does not clearly connect Indigenous Knowledge to green tech and youth employment, creating inconsistency across policies that are meant to reinforce each other.

  • The Digital Economy Policy: Digital economy and ICT initiatives can strengthen general skills development and entrepreneurship, including measures relevant to innovation challenges and rural incubation, but they provide no clear CSA-specific direction or support for CSA tech. Implementation structures for these digital policies have also been under development, further limiting their immediate usefulness as a dedicated pathway for CSA tech, resilience, and youth employment.

Indigenous knowledge (IK) as a lever to enhance technological innovation in CSA

  • IK is recognised in Continental frameworks, like the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), which promote the integration of IK to strengthen both climate resilience and agricultural innovation. In Ghana, national policies such as the National Climate Change Policy, the Climate Change Adaptation Policy, and the CSA-FSAP acknowledge the value of IK and call for its documentation and further integration.

  • Despite this recognition, national implementation remains weak. No comprehensive framework currently exists for documenting or scaling IK, and government support is limited. The National Green Jobs Strategy notably excludes IK, highlighting persistent policy incoherence. Stakeholders cite low awareness, weak coordination, and limited participation of Indigenous communities in technology design as key barriers.

  • The report identifies that tech startups could benefit from combining Indigenous and local knowledge with foreign knowledge to design innovative products and services. However, a disconnect between policy and practice remains.

  • While some academic institutions and NGOs have begun to integrate and document IK, most of it remains undocumented and is transmitted informally within communities. Overall, stronger institutional commitment, documentation efforts, and integration of IK into technology and employment policies are needed to fully harness its potential.

Practical Realities and Challenges of CSA Start-Ups

The study sampled ten Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) technology start-ups in Ghana, all less than six years old and founded by predominantly young entrepreneurs with a mean age of 33.2 years. The founders entered the sector out of ambition rather than necessity, with five having previously been in paid employment and four being self-employed before establishing their companies. No female-led company was captured in the sample despite deliberate efforts to identify one.

The start-ups offer a mix of software and hardware solutions across multiple business models, serving over 1,000 clients collectively. Their technologies span six broad areas, including precision agriculture and drone spraying, circular waste-to-product innovations, AI-powered irrigation systems, digital weather and climate information services, organic input and micromanure production, and digital market platforms connecting farmers to buyers. An average of 69% local content is embedded in their products, reflecting the deep integration of Indigenous Knowledge across all technology types. Nine of the 10 companies are at the implementation stage, with one still at the ideation stage.

Collectively, the ten companies employ 124 people, of whom 98.4% are youth under 35 and 35% are female, a share that exceeds the national tech workforce average of 28%. Of these positions, 61% are direct jobs and 39% are indirect, with over 30% of direct employees on temporary or casual contracts due to their employers’ financial constraints. Each company operates from a single branch serving primarily its immediate geographic area, with five headquartered in Greater Accra, two in Ashanti, and one each in the Eastern, Central, and Northern Regions. Their activities span the full agricultural value chain, from pre-production planning and irrigation design through to post-harvest processing, market linkages, and climate risk management.

Major Findings

  • Policy Exclusion and Lack of Awareness: A central finding from the sample is the weak integration of CSA tech start-ups into the policy ecosystem that is intended to support them. Most of the companies interviewed could not identify public policies connected to their work beyond operational compliance requirements, such as certification and standards. Where awareness existed, it was not always specific to CSA technology, suggesting a broader gap in policy communication and outreach. Most companies also reported that they had never participated in any stage of policymaking. They attributed this to not being invited, not knowing such processes were available to them, or believing participation would not yield policies responsive to start-up realities. This contrasts with the view held by some public stakeholders that consultation is part of policy development, while also reflecting practical constraints such as difficulty identifying all relevant actors, resource limitations, and the fact that some start-ups emerged after key policy frameworks were developed. The overall effect is a persistent disconnect that leaves start-ups sceptical of public systems they perceive as difficult to access and of limited practical value.

  • Business Registration and Intellectual Property Challenges: Business registration is widely pursued but is experienced as burdensome. While most firms in the sample are formally registered, founders frequently described the official registration process as slow and frustrating, with prolonged delays. Many indicated that they relied on agents or personal contacts to expedite the process rather than completing it solely through formal channels. Intellectual property protection is weaker and far less common. Only a minority reported having registered or licensed products, leaving most without formal protection. Among those without protection, some had started the process but discontinued due to challenges. The dominant barriers are the high costs involved, limited information about procedures and institutions, and the multi-step, long-timeline nature of the registration process.

  • Funding Gaps and Financing Constraints: Access to capital is consistently presented as the most binding constraint to growth and expansion. Grant funding from private sources, such as accelerators and donor agencies, is the dominant financing pathway, and firms describe it as both essential and uncertain given the intensity of competition. Debt financing is largely avoided because interest rates are high and collateral demands are difficult for early-stage companies to meet. State financial support appears marginal within the sample, with only isolated instances of government assistance. The financing environment is further constrained by low proposal success rates. Startups describe repeated rejections in grant applications, linking this to limited proposal-writing capacity and to the broader competitiveness of available funding. Financing needs vary sharply across firms, from those seeking modest resources to move from ideation to production, to those requiring substantially larger amounts to commercialise, certify, acquire equipment, and expand to new markets.

  • Existence of Tax Incentives without Accessibility: Tax incentives are described as present in principle but difficult to access in practice. Many companies were unsure whether they qualified for any incentives, and those with some awareness described the application processes as demanding, document-heavy, and difficult to navigate for small firms. As a result, many did not pursue incentives at all, prioritising financing and operational survival instead. Public stakeholders acknowledge that eligibility requirements and documentation burdens can be difficult for youth-led enterprises to satisfy, limiting uptake even where incentives exist.

  • Market Access and Adoption Barriers: Even where start-ups report a meaningful client base, sustained market adoption remains difficult. Companies described customer interest in demonstrations and pilots that do not reliably translate into consistent willingness to pay, especially among smallholder farmers. This creates revenue instability and undermines scale. Underlying barriers include affordability constraints, limited capacity to absorb new technologies, and the relatively high cost of innovations compared to conventional alternatives. Competitive pressure from established firms is also important, particularly where incumbents can offer lower prices due to scale. These challenges are compounded by equipment, import, and data and connectivity costs.

  • High Employee Attrition: A significant internal constraint is staff retention. Several firms reported high turnover, including cases where most trained youth staff leave within a year in pursuit of better-paying opportunities. This creates a cycle in which companies invest scarce resources in training only to lose skilled workers before benefits are realised. Limited cash flow and low margins restrict start-ups’ ability to offer compensation packages that retain talent, slowing institutional growth and continuity.

  • Technical Skills and Support Deficits: Many start-ups reported gaps in technical and managerial competencies that directly affect performance and access to support. These gaps include licensing and intellectual property management, navigating tax procedures, data interpretation and sensor use, product management, marketing, fundraising, human resources, and operating advanced equipment. External technical support is available through accelerators and development partners, but it is competitive and constrained, and weak proposal capacity can limit access even where support exists.

  • The Role of Accelerators: Accelerators and external support programmes function as major enablers for many start-ups, particularly through structured training, mentoring, market exposure, and grant funding. At the same time, these programmes operate under constraint and are not a substitute for predictable public support. Stakeholders in accelerator ecosystems also point to the continued burden of slow registration, certification requirements, and inconsistent policy and institutional backing, which collectively raise the cost and uncertainty of scaling.

  • Women’s Participation: Women’s participation in CSA tech entrepreneurship is described as limited, particularly at the leadership level. No female-led companies were included in the sample, and the workforce remains male-dominated. This pattern is linked to both broader structural barriers affecting women in tech and entrepreneurship and to the difficulty of identifying female-led CSA tech firms using the sampling approach. Constraints described include discriminatory norms, reduced access to finance and networks, skills and training gaps, domestic responsibilities, and persistent stereotypes.

  • Limitations of Integrating Indigenous Knowledge: A notable positive finding is the strong integration of Indigenous Knowledge and local expertise in the design and delivery of innovations. Local knowledge supports production processes, calibration of inputs and practices, and contextual interpretation of farming and climate conditions, improving relevance and affordability. However, this integration also carries limitations. Indigenous Knowledge is often poorly documented and not standardised, making replication and consistent transfer across settings difficult. Variability in practices can produce uneven results, and blending Indigenous Knowledge with modern technical standards can be challenging where informal expertise does not align with formal measurement and compliance systems. Respondents therefore emphasised the need for documentation, capacity building, and deliberate integration of relevant Indigenous Knowledge into skills and training systems, including TVET.

Recommendations

  • Policy coherence and specificity: CSA technology and youth employment should be better reflected in key climate and agriculture policy frameworks. The recommendations call for reviewing and updating core policies to reflect current developments in climate change and the role of tech start-ups, including revisions to the National Climate Change Policy and the National CSA Food and Security Action Plan.

  • Green Jobs Strategy implementation: The Green Jobs Strategy should be urgently implemented before its expiry, including the tax reliefs and benefits it provides for individuals involved in CSA technologies. The recommendations treat slow implementation as a central gap and reinforce the need for stronger awareness and delivery so CSA tech start-ups can benefit from what the Strategy already commits to.

  • Policy awareness and inclusion of youth start-ups: Youth tech start-ups should be deliberately involved in policymaking through consultations, workshops, and other engagement mechanisms. Policy information should also be simplified and made more usable through user-friendly policy guides that provide clear, concise information on existing frameworks for CSA and youth employment. The recommendations further propose a centralised CSA tech policy hub to provide access to policy information, resources, and support services for youth tech start-ups.

  • Business registration and intellectual property protection: Regulatory and compliance constraints require practical support. The recommendations emphasise building capacity and providing expertise in certification and intellectual property rights, alongside strengthening a support ecosystem that includes incubators, accelerators, and mentorship programmes so young entrepreneurs can navigate regulatory hurdles more effectively.

  • Financing and investment readiness: Access to financing should be improved through targeted options suited to CSA tech start-ups, including grants, loans, and equity investments. The recommendations also call for improving access to incentives and streamlining how start-ups can access them and other funding opportunities. Development partners are encouraged to provide financing through grants, equity investments, and blended finance models, and to fund incubation hubs that strengthen start-up capacity.

  • Tax incentive accessibility: Tax reliefs and tax holidays should be implemented, and the process for accessing them should be simplified so early-stage CSA tech start-ups can realistically benefit. The recommendations link low uptake to limited awareness and burdensome application processes, and they point to the need to operationalise tax-related support in a way that works for small, early-stage firms.

  • Adoption and market creation: To strengthen demand, development partners are encouraged to support farmers and other end users in adopting CSA technologies to create markets for start-ups, with farmer groups and associations serving as practical channels for this effort. This aligns with the report’s emphasis that adoption and sustained patronage are decisive for growth and that willingness to pay can remain weak even after pilots and demonstrations.

  • Skills and capability building: Skills development should be supported through training and capacity-building programmes that strengthen both technical and soft skills, thereby improving competitiveness and growth potential. The recommendations also call for targeted expertise for youth entrepreneurs in areas such as certification, tax relief, intellectual property rights, and business development. In addition, the report highlights internal strategies start-ups can adopt, including strengthening grant-writing and business-planning capacity, using business model canvases, and improving retention through company culture, mentorship, and growth opportunities.

  • Women’s participation and enabling support: Support programmes should be inclusive and gender sensitive, with deliberate efforts to deepen young women’s participation. The recommendations propose investment in women’s digital skills training, mentorship, suburban and rural training centres, improved access to finance for women-led ventures, women-supportive incubation and acceleration, targets for participation and leadership, and expanded digital infrastructure. They also note the Affirmative Action Act as an opportunity to advance gender equality in tech and innovation.

  • Indigenous Knowledge integration: Indigenous Knowledge should be intentionally documented and integrated into education and training systems, especially TVET. The recommendations call for collaboration with academic institutions to document Indigenous Knowledge practices, the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge into curricula, collaboration between traditional knowledge holders and modern technologists, and dedicated support, including funding and capacity-building for Indigenous Knowledge-based innovations.

  • Ecosystem coordination and implementation discipline: Coordination and alignment should be strengthened by linking relevant initiatives and programmes to overarching CSA policies, so efforts reinforce each other rather than operating in parallel. The recommendations also call for closer collaboration between accelerators and policymakers, as well as for monitoring and evaluation arrangements to track progress and adjust policies and programmes. Development partners are encouraged to support policy advocacy, implementation support services, and the review of older frameworks while ensuring youth start-ups are included in revised national green and employment policy processes.

About the Authors

avatar

Bismark Owusu Nortey is the Acting Executive Director of the Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana, where he represents smallholder farmers across the country.

avatar

Dr. Serwah Prempeh is the Senior Fellow and Head of APRI’s Just Green Technology Transition Programme, which is focused on aligning African technology innovation priorities with its development goals and bridging Africa-Germany-EU relations on just green technology innovation and development.

This report was produced in the context of the Green Technology for Green Growth: Barriers and Drivers Project in partnership with the Mastercard Foundation. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the Foundation, its staff, or its Board of Directors.

Source link