REPORT

Innovative strategies to
stimulate adult labour and
tackle child labour

Findings from an innovative pilot project in cocoa-growing

communities in Côte d’Ivoire to provide cash transfers with
an incentive to hire a Community Service Group.

April 2024
 Protecting children and their families
in cocoa growing communities
The International Cocoa Initiative is a non-profit partnership
organisation dedicated to improving the lives of children and adults in
cocoa growing communities. We are experts on child labour and forced
labour in cocoa, advising governments and corporations to inform their
practices and influence decisions-making, and working with NGOs in
the field. We are committed to achieving sustainable cocoa production
that protects the rights of children and adults worldwide.

Supported by:

www.cocoainitiative.org | [email protected]

ICI Secretariat in Switzerland ICI National Office in Côte d’Ivoire ICI National Office in Ghana
Chemin de Balexert 9, II Plateaux, 7ème Tranche, Lot 3244, Ilot 264, No. 16, Djanie Ashie Street,
1219 Châtelaine | Switzerland Abidjan-Cocody | Côte d’Ivoire East-Legon | Accra | Ghana
+41 22 341 47 25 +225 27 22 52 70 97 +233 302 998 870
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Contents
Summary 6

Background and context 7

Learning questions 8

Data sources and methods 8

Findings 10
Within recipient households, who decided how cash was spent? 10
How was the cash spent? 10
How did recipients use Community Service Groups? 11
How did the project benefit children, family and community relations? 16
What other feedback did cash transfer recipients provide? 18

Conclusions 19

Appendix 20

5
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Summary
This report presents the results of a pilot project, in which targeted cocoa-producing households received a
one-off, unconditional cash transfer, combined with a subsidy for hiring adult labour. By encouraging
households to use Community Service Groups – teams of trained and equipped adults who offer affordable
agricultural services to local farmers – the project aimed to provide households with an alternative means of
doing agricultural work that might otherwise fall on children.

The project was implemented in 15 communities across 5 regions of Côte d’Ivoire, between April and August
2022. A total of 584 cocoa farming families received the cash transfer, either because a child labour case had
been identified through a Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System (CLMRS), or because the
household was selected as “vulnerable” by a local needs assessment committee, based on a set of defined
criteria.

Key findings
The results of this pilot show that an unconditional cash transfer, with an incentive to spend on adult labour, is a
promising means of increasing household resilience and tackling child labour in cocoa-growing communities in
Côte d’Ivoire. By strengthening farmer livelihoods and at the same time stimulating the supply of affordable
adult labour within the community, it can be an effective component of a strategy to prevent and remediate
child labour.

Recipients spent the cash transfer on labour, food, agricultural equipment, and children’s education. Around
half used the money to hire Community Service Groups, spending on average almost half of the total amount
received on their services.

Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the quality of services provided by the labour groups. They
also claimed that hiring the Community Service Group reduced their workload, in turn decreasing the need for
their children's help on the farm.

Demand for Community Service Groups in the targeted communities was driven up by the project and
remained high even after the subsidy expired, in some cases exceeding the groups’ capacity to deliver. Some
groups responded by expanding their capacity and professionalism. In addition, we noticed that new
Community Service Groups had been set up by entrepreneurial youth in five project communities without
external support.

Children benefitted from the project in several ways, including by working less on the farm. Some families
received the cash transfer because their child had been identified in child labour through a Child Labour
Monitoring and Remediation System (CLMRS), which allows us to track their progress over time. Two-thirds of
these children (66%) had stopped doing hazardous work by the most recent follow-up visit. While these figures
are based on a small sample of children, this suggests that cash transfers combined with an incentive to spend
on adult labour is a particularly effective approach. This will need to be confirmed with future follow-up visits, in
addition to further research.

Overall, cash recipients, cooperative representatives, community leaders and members of Community Service
Groups recommended that this cash transfer programme should be extended in the communities where it was
piloted and scaled up to reach more communities. They also recommended providing further support to
Community Service Groups to meet an increase in demand, so that more families would be able to benefit. Like
all cash transfer programmes, the question of who receives support is a sensitive topic. Our findings underline
the importance of using transparent eligibility criteria and communicating them clearly in targeted communities
to avoid misunderstandings.

6
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Background and context

The use of child labour is wide-spread in cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire, with a prevalence rate of around
41% amongst children living in cocoa-growing households. Root causes include household poverty, challenges
accessing adult labour, and livelihoods that are highly vulnerable to shocks. 1

To tackle child labour by improving the resilience of cocoa-producing households, the International Cocoa
Initiative, with support from Jacobs Foundation and Touton, piloted an innovative cash transfer combined with a
subsidy for hiring adult labour. Cocoa-producing households received a one-off cash transfer of CFA 50,000
(approx. EUR 76). If the recipient decided to use all or part of the money to hire a Community Service Group
(see box 1 for an introduction to the concept) for agricultural labour, ICI paid an additional subsidy to the group
matching the amount spent on labour (up to an additional CFA 50,000).

The project was implemented in 15 communities across 5 regions of Côte d’Ivoire. The cash transfer was
distributed between April and May 2022 to 584 cocoa farming families. The subsidy offer was valid until August
2022.

Of the households receiving the cash transfer, 350 were covered by a Child Labour Monitoring and
Remediation System (CLMRS), 2 implemented by ICI or one of its partners. For these farmers, the cash was
given as “remediation” when a case of child labour was identified in their household. The other 234 farmers
were selected to receive the cash by a local needs assessment committee, with priority given to households
with the following vulnerability criteria:

Household headed by a woman, a single parent, a child, or an elderly person

Household hosting at least one non-biological child
At least one child living in the household not in school.

Within these households, the cash recipient was either:

i. the registered member of the cooperative, for households covered by the CLMRS; or
ii. the head of household, for households not covered by the CLMRS but selected by the local needs
assessment committee.

Among the households covered by the CLMRS, 5.5% of cash recipients were women, reflecting the fact that
cooperative membership is traditionally male-dominated. Among the households selected by local committees,
33.3% of recipients were women (“female-headed household” was one of the criteria used to identify vulnerable
households in need of support).

1
Unicef (2018) Children’s Rights in the Cocoa-Growing Communities of Côte d’Ivoire
2
For a general introduction to how a CLMRS works, see Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation Systems | ICI Cocoa Initiative.

7
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Box 1: What are Community Service Groups?

Community Service Groups are groups of adults that have been equipped and trained to perform
agricultural tasks upon demand by farmers in their community at an affordable rate. Many groups offer
services on credit, meaning that farmers pay only after they have sold their produce. Within ICI projects,
Groups are encouraged to divide the money they earn from providing services into three: one third is
shared between the members of the group, one third supports activities in the community that benefit
children, and one-third is spent on maintaining and buying equipment, and further training. These groups
can help tackle child labour by making adult labour more easily accessible, by performing tasks that
children may have otherwise had to do, and through supporting projects that benefit children within the
community. Members of the group say they benefit as they are trained in better agricultural techniques and
have access to equipment, which can help improve yields on their own farm, in addition to being able to
rely on the group when they need extra help.

Learning questions
The innovation was piloted to assess its feasibility and effectiveness, with a view to integrating it into existing
systems to prevent and address child labour in cocoa-growing households, if found to be effective.

This report provides an overview of the results of the intervention, focusing on the following questions:

Within recipient households, who controlled how the cash transfer was spent?
How was the cash transfer used? Are there differences in spending patterns between men and women?
What share of the cash transfer was spent on labour provided by Community Service Groups?
What share of the cash transfer was spent on other sources of labour, and if so, why?
Was (part of) the cash transfer spent on something that would directly benefit children? If so, on what?
If cash recipients use the cash for labour from a Community Service Group, were these groups able to meet
the additional demand?
How did the project affect the revenues and the dynamics of the Community Service Groups, during and
after the end of the cash payments?
Did the cash transfer help to reduce or prevent the engagement of children in hazardous child labour? Did it
support their school participation?

Data sources and methods

A mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches were employed to answer the questions above. Below is an
overview of the data collected from the different stakeholder groups.

8
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Table 1: Overview of data sources 3

4 to 6 months after cash 14 to 16 months after cash

Before project start
payments payments

March-May 2022 September 2022 July-August 2023

Cash recipient Baseline survey with household End-line survey with household Qualitative interviews (n=42)
households head (n=621) head (n=584)
Focus group discussions with
men (n=15) and women (n=11)
of the recipient households

Community Focus group discussions, one Qualitative interviews with

Service Groups in each beneficiary community Groups members (n=14)
(n=15), including collection of
key figures on group activities
and revenues
Key informants Focus group discussions with
within the community leaders (one in
community each beneficiary community,
n=15) and cooperative
representatives (n=8)

In addition to the data collected as part of the project, CLMRS data for 63 children in the project communities
was analysed to understand how children’s engagement in hazardous work changed over the course of the
project.

The baseline survey and end-line surveys collected from recipient households were administered to the
person within the household who received the cash; or to another knowledgeable adult household member
when the recipient was not available.

The survey tool comprised qualitative and quantitative elements and covered the following topics:

Demographic information about household members

Farm characteristics
Labour hiring practices, including use of the Community Service Groups (before and after the cash
distribution)
Use of the cash transfer (end-line survey)
Feedback on the cash transfer, including the amount received and when it was transferred (end-line
survey)

All 621 farming households selected to receive the cash were included in the baseline survey. A total of 584
households actually received the cash transfer 4 and were included in the end-line survey (for more sample
details, broken down by community, see Appendix Table A1). ICI trained a team of external enumerators to
conduct the surveys using mobile data collection.

3
From all the focus group recordings, eight had to be discarded for reasons of inaccurate translation or irrelevant answers. A total of 55
focus groups were used as the basis for our study.
4
The remaining 46 households selected could not receive the cash transfer due to absence during the distribution, having moved, or due to
the death of the intended recipient.

9
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Findings
Within recipient households, who decided how the cash was spent?
The cash was transferred via mobile money, either to the person registered as the cooperative member (for
households covered by the CLMRS) or to the household head (for households not covered by the CLMRS).
Overall, the recipient was a woman in 12.5% of households. According to the end-line survey, in around 95% of
households, the person receiving the cash also was the main decision-maker in relation to how the money was
spent, meaning that men were the main decision-makers.

To maximize the benefits of the cash transfer for children, more consideration could have been given to actively
encourage more inclusive decision-making within the household, or through directly transferring the money to
the household member(s) responsible for making decisions related to the children. Previous evidence shows
that women prioritize their families’ health, nutrition and education when they have power over household
spending decisions. 5

How was the cash spent?

Four to six months after the distribution of the cash transfers, 94% of recipients reported having spent all of the
amount received, around 5% had spent a part of it, and 1% (4 households) had saved the total amount for later
use.

The four most common areas on which cash was spent were paid labour, food, agricultural equipment and
children’s education. More than 70% of beneficiaries spent at least some of the cash on agricultural
labour, including community service groups or other types of labour (see Figure 1). Around 35% of households
spent some of the cash on children’s education.

Figure 1: How cash was spent

80%
All households, n=567
70%
Male recipients, n=487
60%
Female recipients, n=76
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
labour food agricultural children's health loan clothing other
equipment education repayment
and inputs

Different spending patterns were observed between male and female recipients. For example, 76% of male
recipients spent at least some of the cash on hired labour, against only 58% of female recipients. Men were

5
For empirical background and a more in-depth discussion around decision-making dynamics between men
and women in cocoa-growing households, see for example KIT-Viability-Report-2022.pdf.

10
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

also much more likely to spend the cash on purchasing agricultural equipment or inputs, reported by 48% of
male recipients against 30% of female recipients. By contrast, the share of women who spent at least some of
the cash on food was 61%, compared to 46% of male recipients. Women were also more likely to spend part of
the cash on medical treatment or medicine for family members, and slightly more likely (with a 2-percentage
point difference) to spend part of the cash on children’s education.

No differences in spending patterns were observed between households covered by a CLMRS and those not.

Households were also asked to estimate the amount of cash spent on each of the items listed as most
important. The largest amounts were spent on hiring labour, with an average of CFA 14’900 spent per
household. This was followed by spending on agricultural equipment and inputs, on average around
CFA 8’000; and food and children’s education, each on average CFA 7’300 (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Amount of the cash transfer spent on different areas (FCFA)

20000 All households, n=571

18000
Male recipients, n=490
16000
14000 Female recipients, n=77
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
labour agriculture food children's health loan clothes other
education repayment

How did recipients use Community Service Groups?

In total 72% of the cash recipients allocated all or part of the cash transfer to hiring labour. Out of these, two
thirds hired a Community Service Group in the three months preceding the end-line survey. Among households
who used the cash transfer to hire these groups, the average amount spent by households (not including the
additional ICI subsidy) was CFA 21,250 (EUR 32,50), corresponding to just under half of the total cash transfer
amount. Five households invested not only the total cash transfer in the use of the Community Service Groups
but also an additional amount from their own pocket (the maximum subsidy paid by ICI was the amount of the
cash transfer, even if the household decided to spend more money on the Community Service Group). There
were no significant differences in spending on Community Service Groups between households covered by the
CLMRS and those not.

Of all cash recipients, 24% did not use the Community Service Groups but hired labour through other channels.
They stated one of three main reasons for this choice:

Demand for the Community Service Groups (temporarily) exceeded their capacity to deliver: “Everyone
wants to work with the Community Service Group at the same time, but at this time of the year, they are
busy, so I took a group of 30 young people from the village to help me."

11
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

The Community Service Group being too far from the campement 6 where farmers have their plots: “The
Community Service Group is far from us, so we can't get their services […] so it's our small self-help
group from the campement that I took to help me.”
A lack of awareness of the Community Service Group and the subsidy offer: "I didn't have the
information that I could use the Community Service Group which would be paid for in part by ICI."

Households used Community Service Groups for a variety of services: most commonly clearing fields
(reported by all recipients who hired the groups after receiving the cash transfer), spraying pesticides (more
than half), and pruning (around one-third). When comparing the demand for different types of services before
and after the cash transfer, we find that while clearing fields and spraying pesticides were already the most
common tasks done by the Community Service Groups before the project, the demand for pruning services
had increased substantially, up from only 10% to 33% of farmers. Overall, the data suggests that the project led
to a broader range of services requested from the Community Service Group, with a much higher share of
farmers hiring the group for other services, including food crop cultivation, such as the sowing or harvesting of
rice and the preparation of the soil for yam production.

Are farmers satisfied with the quality of services provided by Community Service Groups?
The quantitative data testified to an overall high level of satisfaction amongst producers with the quality of
services provided by the Community Service Groups. Farmers stated that the groups fully and speedily
accomplished the work entrusted to them, reliably following the producer’s instructions.

Female farmers added that now that the Community Service Groups had been reactivated, their husbands
hired labour to reduce their own workload, which in turn also reduced the need for children’s help with the
farm work, as illustrated by this quote:

"The Community Service Group reduced the workload that was resting solely on our husbands’
shoulders. The GSC can clean more than a hectare a day. Thanks to their work, our children do little
work now.”

6
Satellite hamlet located at a distance from the main village, in some cases informal settlements.

12
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Most farmers interviewed 14 to 16 months after the cash payment stated that they continued to be highly
satisfied with the quality of service of the Community Service Groups. Many continued to use their services
despite the subsidy offer having come to an end, also because the Community Service Group had decided to
lower their daily rates (see below). Some stated that they still wished the “cash plus” subsidy scheme to
continue so that they could continue to benefit from their services.

How did the project affect the Community Service Groups?

Community Service Groups already existed in each of the beneficiary communities before the beginning of the
project, but they received a refresher training and new equipment when the project started. Refresher trainings
covered the correct and safe application of agrochemicals and group management, among other topics. The
labour subsidy boosted the use of Community Service Groups. While some Community Service Groups
had not been hired at all during the 3 months prior to the cash transfer, all Community Service Groups in the
targeted communities had been hired at least once during the 3 months after the transfer. The average
amount earned by a Community Service Group during the intervention increased by more than 700%
from a mean revenue of CFA 72’000 during the 3 months preceding baseline data collection, to CFA 617’133
during the intervention (including cash paid directly and the additional subsidy from ICI).

The qualitative data also reveals that the Community Service Groups appreciated more reliable and timely
revenue flows, thanks to the subsidy, which they received at the end of each month upon presentation of
invoices. Traditionally, Community Service Groups often provide labour services on credit, while farmers were
waiting for the cocoa revenue to come in, which risks some farmers defaulting on payment. This benefit of the
project was expressed by several Groupss during the focus group discussions:

"We no longer have any problems with work done without payment. In the sense that before the service
we get part from the producer and the other part from ICI." C
"The process is reliable because those for whom we have performed services have respected the
payment system, both the beneficiaries and ICI."

Community Service Groups also appreciated the training and new equipment they received as part of the
project. Some groups also reported that the new equipment had attracted additional young men from the
community to seek to join the Community Service Groups.

13
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

How did the Community Service Groups use their revenues?

When asked during the focus group discussions how they intend to use the revenues received, all groups
explained that they intended to follow the same principle of revenue allocation that had been in place since the
formation of the group, before the cash transfer project. According to this principle, the revenues are divided by
three, with one-third spent on projects to benefit children within the community, such as support to the local
school, one third invested in maintenance or replacement of working equipment used by the group (such as
protective clothing), and one third distributed among the members. Based on data collected one year after the
end of the project, three groups had donated part of their revenues to the local school for renovation works and
school materials.

Data collected also confirms that the project helped breathe new life into the groups, as illustrated by the
following statements by members during the focus group discussions:

"Before the project, we were not too much in demand, but since the arrival of the project the services
have become more and more important and we have earned money in our fund."
“Before [the project], the parents used the children in the plantations, now they solicit us for their work
instead of the children.”
“Before the producers said that our services were too expensive and it was really difficult for us to get all
our money after the service.”
"They hire us much more than before because they know that part of the money will be paid by ICI."

How have Community Service Groups fared since the end of the subsidy scheme?
Overall, the positive dynamic triggered by the project for the Community Service Group activities was
sustained beyond the project period in most communities. Interviews with groups held 16 months after the
end of the cash payments showed that the total demand for their services had increased compared to before
the project.

In 12 out of 14 communities visited, the Community Service Group continued to be operational, whereas
in two communities, the group had become inactive. Of the 12 groups which existed prior to the start of the
cash and labour subsidy project, six had registered new members since the end of the project. Membership of
the other six groups remained stable. The total number of Community Service Group members has risen from
123 to 177 by July 2023.

The active groups had on average 4 work assignments per month, with a similar composition of tasks
compared to during the project period. Community Service Group members reported that former cash transfer
recipients who had used the subsidy offer during the project period were now the most important client group,
explaining that the positive experience during the project had influenced this change. However, the Community
Service Groups were also hired by other community members who had not received a cash transfer.

Out of the 12 operational Community Service Groups, seven decided to lower their rates for a person-day from
CFA 5’000 to CFA 3’000 after the end of the project, to better accommodate their clients’ budgets. They had
returned to the same payment modalities as before the project, offering farmers service on credit to be repaid
after the cocoa harvest.

The average revenues of those Community Service Groups which continued to be operational were
reported to be approximately 8% higher after the end of the project period than during the project period,
reflecting a significant increase in the amount of work, considering that the rate per day had dropped by
40%.

Next to a growing number of assignments and sustained high revenues, group members also reported that
group management had become more professional. One Community Service Group member in
Kouadiokro stated:
14
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

“We have a well-organised office. We now have an advisor on dispute issues, one person supervising and
controlling the quality of our services, and we are well equipped.”

Several groups had invested some of their revenues in new equipment. When asked about their plans for use
of the revenues, 5 of the 12 groups said they wanted to start running additional income-generating activities,
such as a chicken farm or a palm tree nursery; 3 groups said they wanted to donate some money to the local
school; and 3 groups said they wanted to reinvest the revenues in equipment.

In addition to these positive long-term results amongst the existing Community Service Groups, new
Community Service Groups had been created in 5 of the project communities (including in one
community where the former Community Service Group had become inactive) to respond to the stimulated
demand for their services. On average these new groups counted 10 members and largely followed the
business model of the existing groups. Two of the new groups had acquired equipment at their own expense
and asked the existing Community Service Group in their communities for coaching support to ensure they
could offer high-quality services. The other three new Community Service Groups had only machetes at their
disposal and offered a limited range of services.

To conclude, based on what was observed one year after the end of the project, the cash-plus-subsidy
scheme boosted demand for Community Service Groups. Some groups responded to this by increasing
their capacity and professionalism. It remains to be seen whether the downward adjustment of daily rates can
be maintained in the long term. Also, we can see that while in some communities, entrepreneurial youth
manage to create new Community Service Groups without external support, in other places motivated youth
will need support to make sure that they get the training and protective equipment they need.

15
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

How did the project benefit children, family and community relations?
Perceived effects on children’s engagement in work and schooling
According to both quantitative and qualitative data collected, children benefitted from the project in terms of
decreased engagement in child labour and availability of additional funds to pay for their education.
Several cash recipients stated that the affordable labour services by the Community Service Groups allowed
them to engage their children less often in hazardous farm work. Many families also reported using the cash to
pay for children’s education.

“Today with this project the children have rest now. Thanks to the help and advice, they [the parents] no longer
employ their children in hard work."

"Now the children have time to study, to have fun because they no longer go to the field to work..."

Some recipients also reported that the cash transfer enabled them to pay for medical consultations and other
health costs for their children, without resorting to loans.

Results from the CLMRS data

Of all the cash beneficiaries, 350 are covered by a Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System
(CLMRS). In two of the beneficiary communities, the CLMRS is implemented by ICI. This allowed us to analyse
the follow-up records of the children previously identified in child labour in these communities.

We have follow-up records from the period between September 2022 and February 2023 (after the cash
transfer has been distributed and used) from 81 children previously identified in child labour in the two
communities. Out of these, the families of 18 children received the cash transfer and subsidy, while the families
of 63 children received a different type of remediation.

Amongst the children whose families received the cash transfer plus subsidy, 66% had stopped doing
hazardous tasks according to the one follow-up visit which took place after the family received the
cash. This rate of “remediation success” (which will need to be confirmed by at least one additional follow-up
visit within another 6 months) is higher than the average rate of children stopping hazardous work, which is on
average around 50% of children based on the most recent follow-up visit (see ICI-CLMRS-Effectiveness-
Review_EN.pdf (cocoainitiative.org) ). When we compare this to the 63 children in the same communities who
were previously identified in child labour, who received another form of remediation and were followed up in the
same period (September 2022 to February 2023), the rate of children no longer working at this visit is even
lower at around 41%.

Even though this is a small sample of children, these results indicate that the cash transfer plus
subsidy for the Community Service Group has been highly effective in stopping children’s engagement in
hazardous child labour.

16
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Figure 3: % of children previously identified in child labour, no longer doing hazardous work
(based on one follow-up visit after cash distribution, Sept 2022-Feb 2023)

66%

50%
42%

children in cash recipient children in same children in ICI implemented

families communities benefitting CLMRS in CIV, 2018-2022
from other types of
remediation

Perceived effects on families, communities and cooperatives

According to qualitative data from the focus group discussions, the project also helped to strengthen and
improve the quality of family relations. Some beneficiaries mentioned that by hiring more labour they had more
time available to spend with their families and with their children, for example:

"Before, with the workload, we had no time to take care of our families. With the Community Service
Groups, we producers now have all the time in the world to take care of our families.”

Some recipients and Community Service Groups also mentioned that the intervention helped to increase
families’ food security. They reported that the productivity of both cash and food crop plantations increased, as
a combined result of the mobilisation of additional labour and additional funds available for agricultural inputs.

Representatives of local cooperatives mentioned that they also saw an increased interest of farmers to join the
cooperatives:

"There has been a great change and thanks to this support, at the level of the cooperative, it has brought
about new members. Those who were reluctant to join the cooperative are ready to come in to benefit
from it.”

In terms of community relations, the qualitative data revealed both positive and negative effects.

Some recipients reported that the reactivation of the Community Service Groups strengthened cohesion within
the community, and created positive dynamics amongst the youth:

"This project has made our young people more responsible, and created mutual aid between them.”

"We felt the presence of a mobilised labour group, which has encouraged other young people to join a
group to get work."

Others reported envy and resentment amongst those community members who were not selected to receive a
cash transfer. Some local stakeholders expressed their frustration with the selection process which they
perceived as unjust, as stated for example by one cooperative representative:

“We are not satisfied with the beneficiary selection process followed by ICI; our producers were not
privileged and there are even beneficiaries who did not deserve this fund.”
17
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

What other feedback did cash transfer recipients provide?

Most cash transfer recipients (94%) reported that the cash transfer corresponded to their needs. A large
share of cash recipients also reported that the timing of the cash transfer was well chosen. The following
quotes from recipients from the end-line survey illustrate this:

"I was going through a difficult situation when I received the money. I had to pay for my child's schooling,
and this allowed me to do it. There was no food at home. With this money, I bought a bag of rice so that
my children could have something to eat."
“If I had not been eligible for the project, maybe my son would have died because this money allowed me
to send him to the hospital. Also, my family was going through famine. So, I used some of that money to
buy a bag of rice. The rest I used to buy agro-chemicals to treat my field."
"Usually, we have to take our children for labour, but now with this fund, I have used the Community
Service Group"
“Being elderly and not being able to maintain my fields myself, it allowed me to finance the labour.”

Among the 6.4% of recipients who stated that the amount was insufficient, some argued that the cost of labour
they needed for their fields was greater than the amount of the cash transfer. The cash transfer amount of CFA
100,000 was designed to cover two to three interventions by the Community Service Group per recipient, such
as weeding, land clearing and the use of phytosanitary products.

Almost a quarter of recipients (23%) reported resentment or jealousy from other families who had not
received a transfer, notably from other members of the same cooperatives, as the following selected quotes
illustrate:

“My brother let me know that he had been in the cooperative for many years and that he should also
benefit from the project just like me.”
"Other people came to my house to complain. They told me that there was discrimination in the selection
of beneficiaries as they are also members of the cooperative."
“People complained about the number of beneficiaries in the area and thought that I had to give
something to be chosen."
"My neighbour was not happy that I was the beneficiary and not him, others in the village say that it was
out of affinity.”

A total of 34 beneficiaries (around 6%) reported also that they had been approached by relatives with the
request for a loan after they had received the cash transfer. However, since households had been instructed by
ICI to spend the cash transfer for the household’s own benefit, only 4 beneficiaries had agreed to grant a loan
to relatives.

18
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Conclusions
The results of this pilot show that an unconditional cash transfer, with an incentive to spend on adult
labour, is a promising means of increasing household resilience and tackling child labour in cocoa-
growing communities in Côte d’Ivoire. By strengthening farmer livelihoods and at the same time stimulating
the supply of affordable adult labour within the community, it can be an effective component of a strategy to
prevent and remediate child labour.

Cash recipients reported that the one-off payment of CFA 50’000 was an appropriate amount, allowing them to
hire adult labour, invest in their agricultural activities, and to pay for children’s education. The timing of the one-
off cash transfer (April-May) was certainly relevant for how the money was spent, as schooling costs are
incurred at the start of the school year; and labour needs for land preparation, pruning and spraying peak
between March and July. However, a considerable share of the money was also used to cover essential
household needs, notably food and healthcare.

The data shows differences in spending patterns between male and female recipients. In households where the
cash was paid to women, higher shares of the money were spent on food and healthcare, and lower amounts
on agriculture. To ensure direct benefits of the cash transfer for families and children, these findings suggest
that there is a need to actively encourage inclusive decision-making within households, to make sure
that women can bring their priorities to the table.

The data from survey and focus groups also indicates that there is a need for better communication within
the targeted communities, to ensure that the beneficiary selection process is transparent and accepted
by all community members, as well as to prevent resentment and perceptions of unjust allocation of support.

The end-line survey found a continued high demand for labour services amongst recipient farmers, with
more than two-thirds spending at least some of the cash on labour. The amount reportedly spent on
labour was also higher than any other single area of spending. We conclude that farmers’ choice of labour
sources can vary considerably depending on the availability of cash and that supporting and incentivizing
farmers to hire adult labour has considerable leverage to reduce the engagement of children in
agricultural work.

The data also suggests that the subsidy strongly encouraged the use of Community Service Groups and
helped bring dormant groups back to life, an effect that could still be seen, even a year after the end of the
project. However, in several communities, the increase in demand exceeded the groups’ capacity to deliver in
the short term, meaning not all households who wished to take up this option were able to. One year after the
end of the project, we observed that communities had adapted to the sustained high demand by increasing
Community Service Group membership, and even by creating new groups themselves.

Overall, cash recipients, cooperative representatives, community leaders and members of Community
Service Groups recommended that the cash plus labour subsidy scheme should be extended in the
communities where it was piloted, and scaled up to reach more communities. They also recommended
providing further support to Community Service Groups to meet an increase in demand, so that more families
would be able to benefit.

ICI has developed a separate implementation guide, to support others wishing to replicate this intervention, for
example as part of sustainability programmes by companies, or as a service offered by cooperatives to their
members. This includes additional lessons learned on how the design of such an intervention could be further
improved to facilitate scale-up and maximise benefits to all stakeholders.

19
 Innovative strategies to stimulate adult labour and tackle child labour

Appendix
Table A1 : Overview of baseline and end-line sample

total # of
# of households participating in the # of households participating in the
Community cash
baseline survey end-line survey
recipients

PK8 89 87 81

BIENOUFLA 115 124 123

KOFFIKRO 76 78 77

KOUADIOKRO 52 52 49

AHONDO 44 44 43

ABRADINE 1 36 42 41

KOFFI KOUAKOUKRO 7 4 4

TAKOA 40 40 40

KOUDOUYO 35 43 43

SIMONKRO 9 12 12

MBRAKRO 21 22 18

KAYO 13 15 13

BALEYO 19 23 23

KOUASSIKANKRO 8 9 9

AMANIKRO 20 26 22

Total 584 621 598

20