Towards sustainable cocoa in Côte d'Ivoire
The impacts and contribution of UTZ certification combined with services provided by companies

Ingram, V., van Rijn, F., Waarts, Y., Dekkers, M., de Vos, B., Koster, T., Tanoh R., Galo A. 2017. Towards sustainable cocoa in Côte
d'Ivoire. The impacts and contribution of UTZ certification combined with services provided by companies. Wageningen, Wageningen
Economic Research, Report 2018-041. 140 pp.; 24 fig.; 45 tab.; 73 ref.

This study was carried out by Wageningen Economic Research and was commissioned and financed by UTZ, IDH and Nestlé.
Counterparts: UTZ: Henk Gilhuis, Siriki Diakité, Peter Konijn, Karen Reijnen. IDH: Thomas Duurland, Carla Romeu Dalmau. Nestlé: Darrell HighThis report can be downloaded for free at https://doi.org/10.18174/450223 or at www.wur.eu/economic-research (under
Wageningen Economic Research publications).
© 2018 Wageningen Economic Research
P.O. Box 29703, 2502 LS The Hague, The Netherlands, T +31 (0)70 335 83 30, E communications.ssg@wur.nl,
http://www.wur.eu/economic-research. Wageningen Economic Research is part of Wageningen University & Research.

For its reports, Wageningen Economic Research utilises a Creative Commons Attributions 3.0 Netherlands license.

© Wageningen Economic Research, part of Stichting Wageningen Research, 2018
The user may reproduce, distribute and share this work and make derivative works from it. Material by third parties which isused in the work and which are subject to intellectual property rights may not be used without prior permission from therelevant third party. The user must attribute the work by stating the name indicated by the author or licensor but may not
do this in such a way as to create the impression that the author/licensor endorses the use of the work or the work of theuser. The user may not use the work for commercial purposes.
Wageningen Economic Research accepts no liability for any damage resulting from the use of the results of this study or theapplication of the advice contained in it.
Wageningen Economic Research is ISO 9001:2008 certified.
Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041 | Project code 2282100188
Cover photo: Wageningen University & Research, Shutterstock, Boulenger Xavier/Shutterstock.com

2 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Contents
List of tables and figures ......................................................................... 4

7.4 Income and profitability ............................................................. 50

Preface................................................................................................. 7

7.5 Long-term viability of farmers and farmer groups .......................... 53

Summary ............................................................................................. 9

7.6 Healthy and safe living and working conditions .............................. 58

1. Introduction ................................................................................... 12

7.7 Child labour and rights............................................................... 59

2. Context ......................................................................................... 14

7.8 Soil and water quality ................................................................ 62

3. UTZ theory of change ...................................................................... 20

7.9 Waste management and reduction .............................................. 64

4. Methodology ................................................................................... 25

8. Conclusions & Recommendations ....................................................... 66

4.1 A plausible counterfactual and theory of change to evaluate impacts 25
4.2 Representative sample of UTZ farmers ........................................ 26
4.4 Impact and outcome changes as indicators .................................. 28
4.5 Mixed data collection with household survey as key tool ................. 31
4.6 Advanced data analysis to build counterfactual ............................. 31

8.1 To what extent do farmers gain knowledge and implement GAP, andwhy (or why not)? .................................................................... 66
8.2 To what extent do cocoa farmers implement these good agricultural
practices, and why (or why not)? ................................................ 71
8.3 Do adopted practices lead to better lives, incomes, crops andenvironment? ........................................................................... 71

4.7 Caveats and limitations ............................................................. 32

8.4 Conclusions.............................................................................. 75

5. Cocoa farmer characteristics ............................................................. 35

8.5 Recommendations..................................................................... 75

5.1 Socio-demographic characteristics .............................................. 35

References and websites ....................................................................... 78

6. UTZ' and partner's programmes and services ...................................... 38

Appendix 1 Glossary and definitions ........................................................ 82

6.1 UTZ program ........................................................................... 38

Appendix 2 Côte d’Ivoire cocoa programmes 2014-2017 ............................ 85

6.2 IDH Cocoa Productivity and Quality Programme ............................ 39

Appendix 3 Descriptive and statistical outcomes ....................................... 88

6.3 Company programmes and services ............................................ 40

Appendix 4 Regression tables and analyses ............................................ 102

7. Results per outcome ........................................................................ 46

Appendix 5 Indicators ......................................................................... 104

Better income, Better crop ................................................................ 46

Appendix 6 Overview of knowledge and implementation scores ................. 107

7.1 Sustainable practices rewarded by the market .............................. 46

Appendix 7 Farmer questionnaire 2017.................................................. 108

7.2 Farm efficiency ........................................................................ 47
7.3 Cocoa farm productivity ............................................................ 48

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041|3

List of tables and figures
Table 1.1

Outcomes of UTZ certification and related company activities

Table 7.11

Farmer's perception and satisfaction of cooperative services 57.................................................................................. 12

Table 7.12

Activities conducted by children on cocoa farms 2017 ......... 60

Table 2.1

Growth of certified cocoa worldwide ................................. 15

Table 7.13

Mean scores for GAP implementation ................................ 62

Table 2.2

Growth of UTZ certified cocoa worldwide .......................... 15

Table 7.14

Mean scores GAP implementation correlated with service

Table 4.1

Sample of farmer groups and companies in 2013 and 2017 . 27

Table 4.2

Farmer sample ............................................................. 27

Table 7.15

Mean scores for GAP chemical inputs implementation ......... 63

Table 4.3

2013 baseline and 2017 endline farmer characteristics ....... 28

Table 7.16

Mean scores for GAP implementation for inputs and service

Table 4.4

2013 sampled farmer characteristics ................................ 28

Table 4.5

Theory of Change assumptions ....................................... 29

Table 7.17

Shade tree density ........................................................ 63

Table 4.6

Indicators .................................................................... 29

Table A2.1

Programmes, projects and initiatives in the Côte d’Ivoire

Table 4.7

Data collection sources .................................................. 30

Table 4.8

Topics in farmer questionnaire 2013 and 2017 .................. 31

Table A3.1

Descriptives .................................................................. 88

Table 5.1

Key cocoa farmer socio-demographic characteristics (2017) 36

Table A3.2

Descriptive and statistical outcomes for UTZ and non-UTZ

Table 6.1

Company cocoa sustainability programmes ....................... 41

Table 6.2

Intensity of services provided to cooperatives ................... 43

Table A3.3

Descriptive and Statistical outcomes by service package ..... 96

Table 6.3

Differences in service intensity and years certified ............. 43

Table A4.1

Regression analysis farm size and certification status ........ 102

Table 6.4

Service packages provided by companies via cooperatives toTable A4.2

Regression analysis farm size and farm age..................... 103

farmers ....................................................................... 43

Table A4.3

Regression analysis farm size in production andintensity....................................................................... 62

intensity packages ......................................................... 63

cocoa sector ................................................................. 85

farmers ........................................................................ 90

Table 6.5

Key farmer characteristics and service intensity ................. 44

Table 7.1

Input-output ratio 2017 ................................................. 47

Table A5.1

Indicators................................................................... 104

Table 7.2

Changes in cocoa production .......................................... 48

Table A5.2

Indicator measurement ................................................ 106

Table 7.3

Reasons cited by farmers for changes in cocoa production... 49

Table A6.1

Overview of knowledge and implementation scores .......... 107

Table 7.4

Cocoa productivity per hectare ........................................ 50

Table 7.5

Cocoa household expenditure 2013-2017 ......................... 53

Table 7.6

Knowledge about record keeping, 2013-2017 .................... 54

Table 7.7

Farmers access to inputs ................................................ 54

Table 7.8

UTZ farmer' access to inputs correlated with service
intensity ...................................................................... 54

Table 7.9

Change in access to market information and timely
payment by buyer 2013-2017 ......................................... 55

Table 7.10

Farmer's perceptions of services provided by theircooperative .................................................................. 56

4 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

certification status ....................................................... 103

Figure 2.1

Cocoa value chain ......................................................... 15

Figure 2.2

Influence of the weather on cocoa productivity, 2013
and 2017 ..................................................................... 18

Figure 8.2

Knowledge and implementation of GAPs on farmmanagement ................................................................ 67

Figure 8.3

Knowledge and implementation of GAP (relating to child

Figure 3.1

How UTZ works ............................................................ 20

Figure 3.2

Theory of Change 2013 .................................................. 22

Figure 3.3

UTZ Theory of Change 2017 .......................................... 23

Figure 4.1

Evaluation methodology ................................................. 25

Figure 8.5

Impacts on better crops and incomes ............................... 73

Figure 4.2

Map of locations of sampled farmer cooperatives ............... 26

Figure 8.6

Certification as a vehicle for services ................................ 74

Figure 6.1

UTZ cocoa sales per origin country, 2012-2015 ................. 39

Figure 8.7

Confirming UTZ impact pathways ..................................... 75

Figure 6.2

Services provided by companies to cooperatives ................ 42

Figure 7.1

Farmer's input-output ratios ........................................... 47

Figure 7.2

Cocoa productivity per hectare ........................................ 48

Figure 7.3

Cocoa productivity per hectare related to service intensity .. 49

Figure 7.4

Cocoa productivity per hectare related to agriculturallabour, healthy and safe working conditions) ..................... 68
Figure 8.4

Knowledge and implementation of environmental and cocoaquality related practices ................................................. 70

service packages........................................................... 49
Figure 7.5

Net cocoa income and net cocoa income per hectare, 2017 . 51

Figure 7.6

UTZ farmers net cocoa income associated with service
package intensity .......................................................... 51

Figure 7.7Services provided by cooperatives to members in 2017 ...... 58

Figure 7.8

Use of personal protective equipment............................... 59

Figure 7.9

Percentage of children conducting hazardous activities on
cocoa farms ................................................................. 59

Figure 7.10

Knowledge of child labour rights and activities on cocoa
farms .......................................................................... 61

Figure 7.11

Mean scores GAP implementation of agrochemicals andwaste .......................................................................... 64

Figure 7.12

UTZ farmers mean scores for implementation of
agrochemicals and waste with agroservice packages .......... 64

Figure 8.1

Knowledge and implementation of GAPs concerning
input use ..................................................................... 66

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041|5

6 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Preface
UTZ aims to create a world where sustainable farming is the norm, and where

survey by the research team. It evaluates the effectiveness of the UTZ cocoa

farmers implement good agricultural practices and manage their farms

programme and associated programmes by companies implementing UTZ

profitably with respect for people and planet, where industry invests in andcertification in contributing to improvements for UTZ cocoa farmers andrewards sustainable production and consumers can enjoy and trust thecooperatives. Based on this evaluation, the report draws lessons and provides

products they buy. To this end, UTZ initiated a certification programme forrecommendations to improve the quality of the programme.

cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire in 2008. By 2012, the programme covered
189 certificate holders with over 44,000 cocoa farmers and by 2017, there

We are indebted particularly to farmers, cooperatives, companies and partners

were 425 UTZ certificate holders comprising nearly 330,000 farmers.

for their collaboration. We thank our research partner ALP for their hard work,
and we gratefully acknowledge the assistance, collaboration and constructive

This report analyses the contribution of UTZ with cocoa companies to changes

feedback from UTZ and IDH staff in Côte d’Ivoire and the Netherlands.

in cocoa farmer households in Côte d’Ivoire. The contributions focus on how
interventions by UTZ and companies with support from partners in the sector

We sincerely hope that this report provides a relevant reference for UTZ, IDH

to affect yields, incomes and crops, improve working and living conditions, andtheir partners and stakeholders in the further implementation of certification

better protect the environment. To explore UTZ's contribution claims toand sustainability initiatives in the cocoa sector in West Africa.

impacts at farmer household level, we analysed changes at the level of farmergroups, companies and service providers using a mixed method approach,based on interviews in 2013 and 2017 with cocoa farmers, cooperative
managers and companies . In addition we analysed data from UTZ, companies
and the literature.
In 2012, UTZ, IDH and Solidaridad commissioned Wageningen University &Research (WUR) to determine the effects of the UTZ certification programme
which was supported by IDH and Solidaridad, starting with a baseline study.

Prof.dr.ir. J.G.A.J. (Jack) van der Vorst

This endline study was commissioned in 2016 by UTZ, IDH and Nestlé. WUR

General Director Social Sciences Group (SSG)

led the study in partnership with Ivorian research organisation Agricole Local

Wageningen University & ResearchPartener (ALP). This report presents the results of the independent endline

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041|7

8 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Summary
Sustainability issues are urgent in cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire. The cocoa

implementation rates improving between 2013 and 2017, especially for non-sector continues to face deeply embedded, interrelated challenges around

UTZ farmers. However, knowledge and implementation rates are still low for

productivity; low income and working conditions; scaling up grouping andboth UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. Whilst implementation rates are generally

service delivery to farmers; negative environmental impacts; and a tighthigher than farmer's knowledge, barriers were found for fertiliser application

supply and demand relationship with recession and expansion affecting global

and handling diseased pods.

market and farm-gate prices.
The extent to which cocoa farmers implement good practices as a result ofThis report analyses the contributions of UTZ and the interventions ofcertification, training and other services, has been mixed and limited. UTZ

companies implementing UTZ certification with groups of farmers in Côte

certification plus service packages have not resulted in changing farmer

d’Ivoire. The outcomes analysed are increased yields, improved income,practices to the extent expected. The intensity of training and services

improved working and living conditions, and better environmental protection.

decreased over time, levelling out knowledge and implementation

UTZ initiated a certification programme for cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire in 2008. By

improvements. Non-UTZ farmers have also benefitted from training and2012 the programme covered 189 cooperatives comprising over 44,624 cocoa

services between 2013 and 2017.

farmers and partnerships with eight companies. In 2017 the programme hadgrown to 425 UTZ certificate holders comprising 330,000 farmers and seven

The question of whether adopted practices lead to better lives, incomes, crops

partners (due to mergers).

and environment was answered by looking at four main areas derived from the
UTZ theory of change. Farmers receiving high intensity service packages are

In 2012, UTZ, IDH and Solidaridad commissioned WUR to determine themost impacted. UTZ farmers continue to have significantly higher cocoa

effects of the UTZ certification programme, starting with a baseline study. This

productivity than non-UTZ farmers. Changes in productivity on a seasonal

report presents a follow-up with the results of the independent endline survey.

basis however are attributed largely to the weather. Over time non-UTZ

To explore the expected pathway of impacts at farmer household level,

farmers are catching up to similar yields as UTZ farmers. Farmers generally

changes at farmer group level, company and service provider were analysed

produce under potential, on average 480 kg/ha, indicating there is still room

using a mixed method approach, based on interviews in 2013 and 2017 withfor major improvement. UTZ farmers had significantly higher net cocoa income

944 and 426 cocoa farmers respectively, interviews and data from cooperative

per hectare in 2017 than non-UTZ farmers. Total cocoa income per household

managers, UTZ and companies. Using a counterfactual, a statistical analysis

member/day for 2017 is similar for UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. Cocoa per

and qualitative content analysis, comparisons were made of results for 2013

capita incomes remain low, at USD 1.25 per day.

and 2017, of UTZ compared to non-certified farmers, and of farmers receiving
different types of services and service packages, and varying intensity of

UTZ farmers have seen improvements in their lives, working and living

services.

conditions, whereas non-UTZ farmers have experienced fewer changes. UTZ
farmers perceive improvements in water and soil, but non-UTZ farmers note

The results indicate that farmers do gain knowledge and implement goodfew changes towards a better environment.

agricultural, social and environmental practices, with knowledge andWageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041|9Positive spill-over effects were also detected, although not anticipated in theenabling an increased intensity and broader package of services to be

pathway to change, contributing to the impact of certification. Service

provided.

packages appear to work, with specific packages ('agricultural training + one
input' and 'agricultural training +pesticides and fertiliser' packages) being

Recommendations:significantly associated with increased productivity and net cocoa income

Focus on topics that matter most: target interventions to match farmers'

improvement for UTZ farmers.

demographic, economic and farm characteristics, with tailored mixes ofservice packages that focus on farmers' specific needs and the most

Although the pathways to impact and change are largely confirmed, there

problematic practices relating to child labour, input use, shade trees andremains a gap between what certification is expected to deliver and what it

waste management.

actually has delivered. Impacts have not been felt by all UTZ farmers, and theIdentify barriers and enablers to improve sustainable cocoa production andlevel of impacts have generally been marginal for crop productivity, incomeslivelihoods: current incentives of certification and associated services are

and the environment. Lessons learnt from this study are that:

insufficient to motivate all value chain actors, requiring investments to close

UTZ certification alone has not led to impacts such as improving farmers'

sustainability gaps and reinventing tools to sufficiently and adequately

livelihoods beyond poverty levels and assuring social risk-free cocoa. One

implement and diagnose and address sustainability gaps and underlying

reason is that productivity and income increases are levelling off, with resultscauses. This includes tensions of (over)supply and low prices which harmsuggesting that a ceiling has been reached as productivity increases for UTZ

farmer incomes, risk mitigation and accessing more profitable value chains,

farmer plateauing while non-UTZ farmers are catching up to the levels

and enabling access to credit.

experienced by UTZ farmers.

Combine a high intensity package of Good Agricultural Practice training plus

Confirming the theory of change, pathways to impacts were largely as

Engage with complementary sector level interventions, based on evidence

foreseen: well-functioning cooperatives formed a vehicle to certification,of what works.

providing packages of services to members. Training and adherence to the UTZ

Facilitate the meeting of bottom-up farmer and top-down industry andpesticides and fertilisers to have higher impact.

Code of Conduct generally is associated with better crops, incomes andgovernment visions.

environmental outcomes and knowledge is applied in practice. There were also

Take a transformational approach to provoke systemic change in theunanticipated outcomes at producer and company level and the

Ivorian cocoa sector.

professionalisation of farmers and cooperatives; increased intensity andbroader range of services alongside certification and increased farmer
satisfaction with cooperatives. There appear to be positive spill-over effects as
non-UTZ farmers come into contact with certified farmers, learn and adopt
similar techniques to generate higher productivity and cocoa-related income.
Certification has functioned as a vehicle to which services have been attached,

10 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Introduction

1
Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 11Introduction2013 baseline study of UTZ cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire

This report answers this question about the contribution of UTZ certification

From 2012 to 2013 a baseline study was conducted by Wageningen Economic

and related activities by companies to the socio-economic development ofResearch in Côte d’Ivoire for UTZ, IDH, Cargill and Solidaridad. The baseline

cocoa famers by dividing it into sub-questions related to the UTZ Theory of

study focused on the effectiveness of the UTZ programme (Ingram, Waarts et

Change:al. 2014) and of the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) Cocoa Productivity andTo what extent do cocoa farmers have knowledge regarding good

Quality Program (CPQP) (Ingram, Waarts et al. 2014) for cocoa farmers inagricultural practices embodied in the UTZ Code of Conduct?

Côte d’Ivoire. This report compares the baseline of farm-level situation in 2013

To what extent do cocoa farmers implement these good agriculturalusing indicators on yields, incomes and crops, working and living conditions,practices, and why (or why not)?

and protection of the environment with the situation in 2017. The baseline

To the degree that these practices are adopted/implemented, do they leadprovided an initial assessment of impacts by comparing different groups of

to improved livelihoods, increased income, improved working conditions,cocoa farmers. The baseline report provided information about thebetter protection of water courses and improved soil quality?

inclusiveness of the UTZ cocoa programme in Côte d’Ivoire and evaluated how
certification and related activities affected farmers' knowledge andWe focused on three main outcome areas, shown in Table 1.1.

implementation of good agricultural practices and social and environmental
issues in line with the UTZ Code of Conduct. It also assessed the added valueof certification. Lessons were drawn from the results, feeding into
recommendations to improve the quality and effectiveness of the programme.

Table 1.1

Outcomes of UTZ certification and related company activities

Outcome areas

What is the contribution of UTZ certification and related activities byBetter lives

companies to the socio-economic development of cocoa famers?

1.

Sustainable practices rewarded by the market

This report analyses the contributions of UTZ and the interventions of2.

Long-term viability of farmer groups

3.

Child labour and rights

4.

Healthy and safe living and working conditions

companies implementing UTZ Certification with groups of farmers in Côte
d’Ivoire. The outcome areas analysed are: increased yields, improved income,
improved working and living conditions, and better protection of water courses
and the soil. To explore the contribution claims of UTZ at farm household level,
the interventions and changes at the level of farmer groups, companies andservice providers are taken into account.

Better incomes, Better crops
5.

Farm efficiency

6.

Cocoa farm yield

7.

Profitability and long-term viability of farmers and groups

Better environment
8.

Knowledge and practices of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) affecting soil and water
quality

9.

12 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Waste management and reduction (related to cocoa production)

2
Context
Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 13

Context
This section provides an overview of major changes in the cocoa-related

small proportion (2 to 5%) gains income working as agricultural labourers, ineconomy, value chain and certification that occurred during the period between

transport and from other sources (EMC 2016).

the baseline in 2013 and 2017. This context is important to understandpossible external influences on the outcomes of UTZ certification and theSustainability issues still urgent in cocoa production

supporting services provided by companies . Key terms are explained in the

The cocoa sector continues to face a number of deeply embedded, interrelated

Glossary in Appendix 1.

challenges, including old trees with low tree productivity; low farmer andworker incomes; pests and diseases such as swollen shoot virus, political

Côte d’Ivoire continues to be the largest producer of cocoa worldwide

instability in some origin countries; persistent poor labour and working

About 40% of cocoa produced worldwide comes from Côte d’Ivoire (ICCO

conditions; challenges to scaling up service delivery to farmers; negative

2017) and the country has remained the largest producing country worldwide.

environmental impacts, such as deforestation, soil degradation and pollution;

Cocoa forms 15% of Ivorian GDP, which is 40% of the nation's export earnings

and a tight relationship between supply and demand in the face of growing(Verter 2016). Ivorian farmers produced a record harvest of 1,690,000 tonnes

demand with long-term cyclical recession and expansion booms affecting

1of cocoa in 2016/2017, attributed to the favourable weather. There wereglobal market and farm-gate prices (Ruf and Siswoputranto 1995, Nkamleu,

between 800,000 and 1,200,000 small holder cocoa farmers, andNyemeck et al. 2010, Matissek, Reinecke et al. 2012, Bitty, Bi et al. 2015,

3,000 registered farmer organisations in 2016 (Hütz-Adams, Huber et al.

Fountain and Hutz-Adams 2015, Kolavalli, Vigneri et al. 2015, Wilson, Vigneri2016). Cocoa as a cash crop competes with rubber, coffee and palm oil, andet al. 2016, Internaitonal Cocoa Inititative 2017, Kroeger, Bakhtary et al.

also with on average six subsistence crops: maize, yam, chili, eggplant,

2017, Muilerman and Vellema 2017). Following the global trend in the cocoa

cassava and plantain (Schroth and Ruf 2014, Comoé and Siegrist 2015, Laven,value chain (Ingram, Waarts et al. 2018), in Côte d’Ivoire an increasing

Bymolt et al. 2017). Farmers combine food and cash crops with different

number of initiatives have been developed and implemented since 2012,

harvest times and income streams ranging from one off to continuous (Laven,increasingly by combinations of national and international public, private, civil

Bymolt et al. 2017). In 2012 and 2013 studies indicate that the average grosssociety, NGO and research organisations (see Appendix 2), such as thecocoa income ranged from USD 2,001 to USD 3,387 with generally few

Plateforme de Partenariat Public-Privé (Private-Public Partnership Platform)

differences between agro-ecological zones. However, the median cocoa income

which has over 100 members (Conseil Café-Cacao 2016)

is significantly lower than the mean, indicating that that there are more
farmers at the lower end of the income distribution curve (Maytak 2014). In

Concentration in the cocoa value chain

the same period, total cocoa farm household incomes ranged on average fromThe cocoa trade and processing continues to be dominated by a handful of

USD 2,826 to USD 4,622 (Maytak 2014). Cocoa farmers generally gain thelarge companies, with the growing market concentration in the industry

majority of their income from cocoa, ranging from on average 66% ofworldwide reflected in the situation in Côte d’Ivoire: Barry Callebaut, Cargill,household income in 2017 (Laven, Bymolt et al. 2017) to 75% in 2016 (EMC

Cemoi, ECOM-Zamacom, Olam (which took over ADM in 2015) and Transmar

2016). In addition to income from other agricultural crops and livestock, a(who took over COCAF Noble in 2014). Smaller companies include Sucden

1

News reports Reuters January 2 2017, September 11 2017, December 18 201714 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

(which took over Transmar in 2017), TNCI and NATRA. Many farmer groups

Changing and growing nature of certificationsell to directly to companies and exporters such as Cargill and Barry Callebaut.

Certification of cocoa production in general has continued to grow. The

Of the 93 export licenses granted in 2017/2016, only a handful belong toproportion of certified cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire in terms of world market

cooperatives. Farmers also sell to local middlemen called pisteurs, who sell on

production of certified cocoa beans is high, but the exact proportion is not

to traitants. Cocoa bean trading companies, exporting cooperatives andknown and overlaps occur when cocoa has multiple certifications (VOICE

traitants sell to chocolate manufacturers such as Mars, Nestlé, Mondelēz and

Network 2012). In 2011, 55% of certified beans sold globally were certified

Ferrero.

and the remainder is sold as conventional cocoa (VOICE Network 2012). In
2016, this pattern continued, with less than 50% cocoa produced as certified,

The cocoa value chain, shown in Figure 2.1, has remained traditional in theactually sold as certified (Fountain 2015).

period 2012 to 2017 in the sense that farmers sell to cooperatives, of which a
growing (but still small) number also export directly. The government isinvolved as a regulator and through ANADER, which trains farmers (seeAppendix 2), collaborating with companies, research organisations and NGOs.
ANADER receives funding from these partners and the Interprofessional Fundfor Agricultural Research and Advisory Services (FIRCA). ANADER has worked
with companies such as Cargill, ADM, CEMOI, NATRA, Barry Callebaut andorganisations such as IDH and World Cocoa Foundation - an umbrellaassociation of companies, and research organisations such as ICRAF.

Table 2.1

Growth of certified cocoa worldwide
Tonnes certified cocoa

Year

Fairtrade

2009

65

2010

26

2011

Rainforest AllianceTotal tonnes
UTZ

13

5

124

98

214

2013

176

571

691

2014

218

575

879

2015

252

491

918

2016

291

800

1188

458

1449

103,6962017

1,491,000

Sources: VOICE Network 2012, Fountain and Hutz-Adams 2015, Fountain and Hutz-Adams 2018

UTZ certified cocoa has seen a similar dramatic growth, shown in Table 2.2,
with the majority continuing to originate from Côte d’Ivoire. An estimated 15%of cocoa farmers globally are UTZ certified (UTZ 2017).
Table 2.2

Growth of UTZ certified cocoa worldwide

Year

Figure 2.1

Cocoa value chain

Tonnes UTZ

Number of UTZ% UTZ certified cocoa

certified cocoa

certified farmers

from Côte d’Ivoire

2010/2011

70.2

40,032

2011/2012

214.2

149,436

2012/2013

534.6

256,1112015

500,000

190,000

2016

650,000

260,000

2017

817,264

744,778

51%

23%

Sources: UTZ 2013, UTZ 2017

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 15Changes in nature of cooperativesof the movement to organise farms and gain access to funding and cocoa

Since 2012 the CCC – with partners such as GIZ - has actively been supporting

supplies. Other changes in the period are that 'pisteurs' have also become

farmers, particularly women farmers, to register in cooperatives and unions

certified as 'cooperatives', certifying the farmers supplying to them, providing(Conseil Café-Cacao 2016). An estimated 33% (EMC 2016) to 50% (GEFAK

training and services, for example in Gnato. This approach often aims primarily2015) of cocoa farmers in Côte d’Ivoire are organised into groups such as

to secure supply for the pisteur, providing services in return. This differs fromcooperatives. Although a wide range of figures on the number of cooperatives

the company approach which sought to encourage farmers to form

exists, since 2008, the number of farmers registered as members of groups

cooperatives and then assisted them to register and manage the cooperative,

and the number of groups appears to have increased. Around 1,000

as was the situation in 2008 to 2013, based on both empowering farmers

cooperatives existed when reforms to the Cooperative Law of 1997 were

through certification and services, and securing their supply. Cooperative

made 2. The Coffee-Cacao Advisory Board (Conseil Café-Cacao, CCC) recorded

managers mentioned that in 2017 in areas where there were previously no32,310 registered cocoa cooperatives in 2014-15. Other indications are thatUTZ cooperatives, these are now common, such as in the areas of Gnato,

1,656 cocoa and coffee cooperatives were registered in 2015, 4 andTabou and San Pedro. This suggests that pisteurs and traitants are doing the

1,500 cooperative were registered by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2015 5 andsame as companies, namely certification combined with cooperative formation

152 cafe and cocoa cooperatives registered with the Chamber of Agriculture inand service provision.

6

2018. The CCC registered 32 cocoa exporting cooperatives in 2013-2014.

3

Cocoa prices set by the Conseil du Café-Cacao
There is no single national farmer organisation in Côte d’Ivoire, but unions of

In January 2012 the CCC was made responsible for the management,cooperatives (UIREVI, ECOOKIM, UCOOPEXCI) and cooperative associations

regulation, development and price stabilisation of cocoa and coffee production

and federations (PMEX-COOPEX, ANAPROCI, Federation of Women Farmers inand quality in Côte d’Ivoire (ICCO 2017). The CCC is comprised of

Cote d'Ivoire) exist. Two international farmers organisations (the World Cocoa

representatives of all stakeholders. The CCC introduced major reforms in the

Farmers Organisation (WCFO) and International Cocoa Farmers Organization

form of a single regulatory body and new regulatory system with a focus on(ICCFO)) have grown since 2014, both with membership bases in the country.

the market. This made it possible to have an ‘advance' or ‘forward' sales

As such, there is no unified voice for Ivorian cocoa farmers on a national or

structure, so companies have an idea of volumes and prices. The forward saleinternational level. Most company interventions are focused on farmersof 70 to 80% of the next year's harvest occurs through twice-daily auctions.

(loosely) organised in cooperatives, while the majority of cocoa farmers remain

These forward sales auctions – due to end each year in August just before theunorganised. There are few clear strategies to reach these ‘high hanging' fruits

new crop starts – allow the establishment of a benchmark price for the next

(Fountain and Hutz-Adams 2018).

crop year. Since January 2012 a price policy has been implemented that sets aminimum state guaranteed price for farmers of 60% of CIF (the price of cocoa

Interviews with the managers of non-certified cooperatives in the 2013 sample

plus cost, insurance and freight at the port of destination), with prices

indicated that some cooperatives had stopped functioning and others hadannounced at the start of the October harvest and valid for one year. Exportchanged their name to revitalise or establish new links with companies and/or

prices, transport and handling fees were also revised. A stabilisation fund aims

to recruit new members. 'Fake' cooperatives 7 have emerged to take advantage

to compensate farmers if prices decrease over the year.

2

6

3
4

5

http://news.abidjan.net/h/472622.html
http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/docs/2015/dossier_type_dagrement_societe_cooperative.pdf
http://www.inphb.edu.ci/site_old/Magrinn%20%20125%20z!25/pdf/repertoire%20des%20acteurs%20socioprofessionnels/cooperatives%20secteur%20cafe_cacao_c%c3%94te%20d%27ivoire.pdf
http://www.agriculture.gouv.ci/

16 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

7

http://icoopaci.ci/visiteureq.php
https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2017/12/07/Cemoi-CEO-urges-consumers-topay-more-for-sustainable-chocolate,
https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2017/11/28/Fake-cooperatives-Cocoa-farmergroups-warn-of-sham-fair-trade-co-ops

Decreasing world market prices between 2016 and 2017, influencing

Environmental degradation

farmers in Côte d’Ivoire

Environmental problems have continued to plague the Ivorian cocoa sector

External market factors influence prices in Côte d’Ivoire. World prices are

since 2014, particularly ongoing deforestation, especially in protected forests,

determined by the London Futures exchange, where the cacao price has

decreasing biodiversity and increasing soil degradation (Bitty et al. 2016,

generally been high since recovering from the low in 2012. Ivorian farmers

Higonet et al. 2017, Ruf and Varlet 2017, Kroeger et al. 2017, Noble 2017).

received 53% of the ICCO (similar to Free on Board (FOB)) price for cocoa in

Soil degradation is associated with ageing plantations, inappropriate use of

2014/2015, which amounted to USD 3,057 a tonne in the 2014/2015 cocoa

fertilisers and pesticides and a low soil organic content (Ruf, Tanoh et al. 2016,

year (Oomes, Tieben et al. 2016). In 2017 it was around 60% of the value

IDH 2017). Initiatives to address deforestation and degradation started largely

at which the CCC has been able to make these pre-sales (Fountain and Hutz-

just after the data-gathering period of this study and include a November 2017

Adams 2018). The trend of gradually rising prices continued since 2012 andCocoa & Forests Initiative 'Cadre d'Action Commune – Côte d'Ivoire' agreement

reached a six-year high in July 2016. In February 2017 prices slumped

between cocoa and chocolate companies, WCF, IDH and the government todramatically to around €1,576 a tonne, 8 in reaction to high production globally

address deforestation and degradation, which will closely align with the and ain the 2016/2017 season. Despite the stabilisation fund, the record 2016/2017

proposal for a Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

harvest led to a price crisis, reducing farm-gate prices for the first time since(REDD+) initiative (see Appendix 2).

2012 by 36%.

9, 10, 11

The CCC reduced farm-gate prices by 36% at the mid-crop pricing in April 2017. The low price demotivated farmers, some of whom

Weather and climate continues to have major impacts on yields

did not harvest their cocoa 12 and caused political commotion as someAnnual weather patterns have a major influence on cocoa productivity andcompanies stopped buying from farmers and/or did not pay the guaranteed

quality (Zuidema, Leffelaar et al. 2005, Ojo and Sadiq 2010, Eberhard Krain

price. The response by the CCC to avoid further price fluctuations, disruption to2011, Läderach 2011). In 2016 the weather was generally favourable across

supply, and economic and political crisis was to sell 400,000 tonnes of thethe main central and coastal production zones with sufficient rain, sun and light2016/17 cocoa mid-crop harvest exclusively to locally based grinders via

winds producing a bumper crop. 14, 15 However, excessive rain also contributed

special auctions from January 2017 onwards,

13

aiming to avoid over-selling

and to halt further price decreases.

to disease in some areas. 16 All the focus groups and cooperative managers in2013 and in 2017 also confirmed the role of weather fluctuations, shown in
Figure 2.2. Future climatic changes are predicted to influence productivity with

Regulated farm-gate prices lower than in non-regulated countries

some areas becoming unsuitable (Lagunes and Sud-Comoe), some remaining

The farm-gate prices of the Ivorian regulated system have been on average

suitable - if farmers adapt to the new conditions - and some areas where cocoa

20% to 25% lower than in other cocoa-producing countries with non-regulated

is currently not grown becoming more suitable (Läderach 2011).

prices (Oomes, Tieben et al. 2016). This is in contrast with farmers'
perceptions, as the farm-gate price increased from 2012 to 2016 reflecting
price developments in the world market (Oomes, Tieben et al. 2016).
8

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/cocoa
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-30/ivory-coast-cuts-cocoa-price-36-inblow-for-biggest-grower
10
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cocoa-icco/world-cocoa-sector-could-be-in-surplus-foryears-icco-idUSKBN16M377
11https://gro-intelligence.com/insights/ivory-coast-cocoa-prices
12
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cocoa-ivorycoast-idUSKBN18R1OU
13https://www.reuters.com/article/cocoa-ivorycoast/update-2-ivory-coast-to-reserve-400000-tfrom-cocoa-mid-crop-for-grinders-idUSL8N1D249H
9

14

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cocoa-ivorycoast-weather/weather-good-for-ivorianmain-cocoa-crop-despite-price-concerns-idUSKBN14G126,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-03/pothole-puddles-spell-trouble-forcocoa-with-record-ivorian-crop, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cocoa-surplus/supplyglut-risk-as-cocoa-expansion-plans-backfire-idUSKBN16S266
15https://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/west-africa/2016/08/10/rain-sunshine-boost-ivory-coastcocoa-crop-prospects/
16
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ivorycoast-cocoa-weather-idUSKCN10X180

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

| 17

Year

Sun

Rain

Other

DiseaseSummary

events2013

Intermittant Favourable

2017

Too dry

Favourable

Favourable

Too hot

Unfavourable

Uncertain

Key: Cooperative managers

Figure 2.2

Focus groups

Major influence

Minor influence

Influence of the weather on cocoa productivity, 2013 and 2017

Source: Cooperative managers, Focus group discussion

18 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

3
UTZ theory ofchangeWageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 19

UTZ theory of change
An impact logic (also known as a theory of change) is a tool to understand andA focus on outcomes at farmer levelvisualise the rationale behind a programme, the causal relationships between a

Although the entire UTZ programme is broader (e.g. by working with otherprogramme's activities and its intended outcomes at farmer level. The UTZ

actors in the supply chain), this impact evaluation focuses at farmer andtheory of change concerns the pathways that interventions and activities by

farmer group (cooperative) level. Impacts may have been influenced by

UTZ, partners and services providers expect will result in impacts.

external factors and have been considered in this study. The impact logic starts
with the actions and interventions of the programme and leads to expected

Pathways to enhancing the sustainability of cocoa productionchanges in farmers' situation, focusing on knowledge and practices of farmers,

Figure 3.1 shows ‘How UTZ works' and depicts (on the left side) the mainwhich are intermediate outcomes. These are influenced directly by the UTZ

requirements of UTZ certification and the associated Code of Conduct. Once all

programme. Actions by UTZ and partners (e.g. training in GAP) are expected

UTZ requirements are met and all programme aspects are finalised, the rightto contribute to ultimate outcomes. It is foreseen that there may beside shows the expected outcomes and impacts of UTZ certification. These areunintended effects of certification not captured by internal management

based on UTZ' ‘big picture' approach to make the production of cocoa

systems and audits, and therefore this evaluation also asked open questions

sustainable. The main impacts expected are enshrined in UTZ's slogan of

about both intended and unintended effects.

‘Better farming, Better future'.
A notable assumption in the theory of change is that training and an internalmanagement system (IMS) lead to more professional farmers through better
farm management and risk management, and contributes to improved farmresilience by reducing farmers' vulnerability to external shocks, such as
adverse weather affecting yields. Also that training and support at cooperative
level leads to stronger and professional farmer groups and traitants. In the
UTZ Ghana cocoa programme (Waarts et al. 2015), professionalisation was an
explicit indicator, based on the assumption that increased professionalism (i.e.
increased profitability and long-term risk assessment of farmers and farmergroups) leads to greater productivity and income – and that compliance withUTZ Code and GAP (including IMS) leads to professionalisation.
UTZ Theory of Change revised
UTZ revised its general Theory of Change (Figure 3.2), in part due to revisions
to its Code of Conduct in 2014. A new Core Code of Conduct was released in2015, with different versions for individual and for group-certification, and a
product-specific Cocoa Module was published in 2015. Comparing the
Figure 3.1

How UTZ works

20 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

intervention logic formulated in 2012 and shown in Figure 3.2 to the newtheory of change relating to farmers and farmers groups developed in 2017 –shown in Figure 3.3, the impact pathways, outcomes and impacts have notchanged dramatically. The main changes concern:• More concise terminology.
• New specific knowledge requirements (e.g. decrease in the mandatory
number of shade trees).
• A requirement for a child labour monitoring system.
• Gender inclusion is now more specifically addressed.
• The 2017 sector-level focus and UTZ partnership programme is reflected inother, separate UTZ ToCs about policies, supply chains and consumers.
• New certificate holders such as 'traitants', with very large volumes of cocoa
beans and large numbers of farmer and their 'pisteur' suppliers.
• Stronger cooperatives that change their trading partner when they do notreceive a good price, provide members with services without interventions or
support from buying partners or export directly to manufacturers, or decide
to not rely on companies to support and finance certification but to finance itthemselves.
• Recognises the cascading supply chain interventions from chocolate
manufacturers (i.e. Mars, Nestlé, Mondelēz and Ferrero) that makecontractual agreements with companies about supplying certified beans –which affects company’s interventions.
• Service providers such as ANADER are now recognised in the supply chain
ToC.
Using the impact logic to evaluate pathways to impact
In 2012, with UTZ, IDH, Solidaridad and Cargill we identified the expected
pathways for change and represented these in a Theory of Change diagram(Figure 3.2). We also reflected upon what would have happened had
certification not (or otherwise) been implemented (see Ingram et al. 2014).
This counterfactual considers changes which might have resulted from otherinterventions or the external context (e.g. weather, economic development,
policy changes etc.). In 2017, the 2013 Theory of Change was compared to therevised UTZ Theory of Change, shown in Figure 3.2, to see how programmes
had changed. External influences were also assessed in 2017, discussed in
Section 2 on the context.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 21

Figure 3.2

Theory of Change 2013

Source: Ingram et al. 201422 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Figure 3.3

UTZ Theory of Change 2017

Source: UTZ 2017

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

| 23

4
Methodology
24 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Methodology
4.1 A plausible counterfactual and theory of change
to evaluate impacts
Impact evaluation requires a strong counterfactual design
The aim is to show the impact of UTZ certification and associated company
interventions on behavioural changes, the socio-economic development andperceived environmental impact for certified farmers. This is based on thetheory of change (Chapter 3) and a counterfactual: What would have
happened if farmers were not UTZ certified? We constructed the counterfactual
by comparing data from UTZ and non-UTZ farmers in 2013 and 2017, shown in
Figure 4.2. This conventional impact evaluation approach compares 'treated'(UTZ) to 'non-treated' farmers to disentangle the role of UTZ. However, UTZ
certification is not a one-size-fits-all 'treatment'. Different farmers received
different packages of services alongside certification, such as training,
agricultural inputs and/or credit. As all farmers in the process of certification in2013 were fully certified by 2017, we evaluated the associations between thetypes of services farmers received and different outcomes.
The counterfactual builds on different data sources and analyses
The strategy to identify a good counterfactual depended on the availability of a

Figure 4.1

Evaluation methodology

pool of (comparable) non-certified farmers in 2013 and 2017. This was achallenge because the growth of certification was not known or predictable in2012. Given this development and the fact that UTZ is not a one size fits all

The actual counterfactual is fuzzy

approach, we constructed the counterfactual using a combination of approaches:

The counterfactual is fuzzy because there are different ‘treatments' (UTZ

Comparing data from UTZ farmers in 2017 to UTZ farmers in 2013;

Certified farmers + a company services) and/or ‘control' (non-certified)Comparing UTZ farmers to non-UTZ farmers in 2013 and 2017;

farmers. The outcome indicators (such as knowledge of and adoption of certain

Comparing UTZ farmers and different intensities of services received (seepractices) for certified and uncertified farmers cannot simply be compared,

chapter 6); andbecause farmers with certain characteristics (e.g. more experienced farmers)

Using qualitative data to explain changes over time and differences

might be part of particular groups (e.g. certified farmers since a long time

between groups (UTZ versus non-UTZ, or between different service

related to a certain buying company). Often, these characteristic are also

intensities).

related to the outcome indicators.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 25

Comparing just certified versus non-certified is not a robust
methodology
Certification impact studies have often compared the outcomes of certified
farmers to non-certified farmers. This assumes that non-certified farmers havenot changed in the absence of the certification. However, this is often not thecase, since there have been numerous interventions in the cocoa sector in Côte
d’Ivoire (see Chapter 4 and Appendix 2), many of which are similar to UTZ andcorporate interventions, and some of which are provided by the same service
providers. UTZ and company's interventions therefore may not only directly
influence certified farmers, but may indirectly influence non-certified farmers.
Attention to potential spill-over effects and unexpected effects is therefore a
critical part of this study.

4.2 Representative sample of UTZ farmers
The sample of farmer groups is representative
Farmer groups were selected randomly using criteria of certification locationand company (see Figure 4.1). Location refers to agro-ecological zones(excellent, good and marginal, see Läderach 2011 for details), withcooperatives randomly distributed across the country in three agro-ecologicalzones to ensure that the influence of suitability of the area for cocoa growing is
captured. UTZ farmers are classified as those farmers that have been
supplying to UTZ certified cooperatives in both 2013 and 2017. The sample,
shown in Table 4.2, is representative of UTZ farmer groups in Côte d’Ivoire
despite the fewer cooperatives and farmers in 2017.

Variation of services is taken into accountTo credibly evaluate the contribution of UTZ to the outcome indicators we
proposed to estimate the 'Total Programme Effect' (Elbers et al. 2009, 2014).
This approach does not rely on the comparison of a fixed treatment group to acontrol group, as this is only feasible in a well-defined 'project' in terms ofspace and scope, but uses the heterogeneity in treatment or treatment
intensity in a sample to model in a regression the contribution (partial
correlation coefficients) of different types/combinations of services on theoutcome (e.g. income, productivity). This method controls for the fact thatsome farmers are more likely to have received certain interventions. This isdone using regression analysis of changes in outcomes variables (e.g. income)on changes in control variables (e.g. age) and changes in interventions (e.g.
receiving a training, being certified etc.).
Effect of service intensity analysed for UTZ farmers only
An estimation of the total programme effect was however not possible given
the limited variation in a) services received, particularly by non-UTZ farmers
and b) farmers characteristics. However, as there was sufficient variation inservices received among UTZ farmers, this was used to analyse differencesamong UTZ farmers and the contribution of different service packages. Given
the limited variation in the sample, we could not calculate the total programme
effect for all farmers, only for UTZ farmers using dummy variables for different
service packages.

26 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Figure 4.2

Map of locations of sampled farmer cooperatives

Table 4.1

in the main cocoa regions, according to the 2013 baseline (Ingram et al.

Sample of farmer groups and companies in 2013 and 2017

Company (2013)

Number of farmer Company (2017)

Number of farmergroupsADM

groups2 --Barry Callebaut

4 Barry Callebaut

1

Cargill

60 Cargill

20

Cocoaf Ivoire

9 Transmar

1

Natra

1 SCOOPADIS

1

Olam

4 Olam (ADM)

6

Zamacom

6 ECOM (Zamacom)

3

#

3 #

4

CEMOI

2 CEMOI

1##

6 ## Z

8Total

97 Total45# independent cooperatives not attached to a company, ## Cooperatives not part of a company program.

2014). A large-scale study in 2016 (EMC 2016) also found on average 84% of
cocoa farmers were Ivorian, and 16% natives of mainly neighbouring
countries.
Table 4.2

Farmer sample

Farmer's certification status
UTZ in 2013 and 20171
UTZ in 2013 - Non UTZ in 2017

Sample in

Status in

Sample in

2013

2017

2017

788

606

339#

166

5

156

156

79

16

237

944

944

426

*

Non-UTZ in 2013 - non-UTZ in 2017
Unobtainable **Total
1Same farmers interviewed 2013 & 2017.

* Not used in analysis.
# Includes: 129 farmers (in 10 cooperatives) in Nestlé Cocoa Action and 498 farmers (2 cooperatives) in Mars

A sample of 426 farmers provides the basis for impact evaluation
Shown in Table 4.2, in 2013 944 farmers were sampled and interviewed, and426 of the same farmers were interviewed in again 2017: this strengthens the

programmes.
** Unobtainable due to travel (10%), sick or dead (4%), migrated (3%), refused interview (3%), had destroyed
or finished their cocoa farm (3%), or not accessible due to security or road problems (1%).

statistical analysis by being able to look at change for individual farmers. Many
studies conclude on impacts based on a sample of around 150 to 200 for
separate programme components. Rarely are regressions based on sample
sizes of more than 500; when impacts are not detected with a sample of thissize, the impact is likely to be very small. To enable a meaningful analysis of
the variance in the sample within budget constraints, the sample was reduced
from 944 to 500, with 426 finally reached. The reduction in statistical power tothe sample of 426 is relatively small.
The initial selection of farmers was random, but we added farmers in a nonrandom way to obtain a sufficiently large sample as we experienced an

The 2017 group of farmers is representative for the full 2013 sample
Table 4.3 shows the characteristics of the farmers in the baseline and endline
sample (the matched sample). Overall, the subsample matches the baseline
sample as most key characteristics are similar. This was tested using
regression models for each variable. Farmers interviewed in 2017 differ inthree aspects: in the 2017 sample more farmers were in the ‘Good agroecological zone’, own a larger portion of their land and have a slightly higher
share of cocoa income in their total gross income. These differences do notbias the overall representativeness of findings.

attrition rate of 23% (see Limitations section) of the original sample. This
attrition rate was high compared to neighbouring Ghana (Waarts, Ingram et al.
2015). In the verification meeting stakeholders attributed this to the context oflarge-scale migrations within Côte d’Ivoire related to the conflicts, civil wars
and livelihood opportunities. This explanation is similar to that given in otherstudies (Crook 2001, Ruf 2001, Woods 2003). There is large mix of ethnic
groups in the sample, with up to 8 to 13 different ethnic groups farming cocoa

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 27

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

2013 baseline and 2017 endline farmer characteristics

Variable

Baseline (N=944)

Endline (N=426)

4%

3%Farm size (ha)55

Ownership***

81%

90%

22

22

Ownership*

FemaleAge oldest plot (in 2013)
Age (in 2013) of the farmer

2013 sampled farmer characteristics

Variable

Non-UTZ farmers

UTZ farmers

4%

3%

Household size***

7

8

Farm size** (ha)

4

5

85%

77%

Female47

46

Oldest plot (years)

23

22

Excellent agro-ecological (Zone 1)

47%

50%

Age*of the farmer

52

50

Good agro-ecological (Zone 2)**

32%

38%

Agro-ecological Excellent (Zone 1)

51%

50%

Marginal agro-ecological (Zone 3)

12%

12%

Agro-ecological Good (Zone 2)**

49%

36%

% cocoa of gross income***

89%

93%

Agro-ecological Marginal (Zone 3)***#

0%

15%

% cocoa farm in production

90%

92%

Share of cocoa income***

82%

93%

Share cocoa as total land area***

48%

66%

# there are no non-UTZ farmers in zone 3, but this has limited consequences for comparison.

Valid counterfactual as UTZ and non-UTZ farmers are comparable

See Glossary Appendix 1 for explanation of statistical significance (*, ** and ***) used in tables.

The comparison between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers is only reliable if the
farmers were comparable before starting with UTZ certification. UTZ
certification was not allocated randomly: companies targeted farmers andlargely supported them to form groups if they were not already organised in
the period 2008 to 2013 and then provided support. We compare farmers on
basic characteristics as the 2013 situation of farmers was already influenced bya selection bias by company partners. Table 4.4 shows there are somesignificant differences between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers, but the differences
are limited in size. Non-UTZ farmers have significantly smaller household sizes,
smaller farm size (through relatively more under ownership), are older, aremore often living in agro-ecological zone 2 or 3, and were less dependent on
cocoa as a source of income in 2013.

4.4 Impact and outcome changes as indicators
Producers and cooperatives are the focus of the impact evaluation
The impact evaluation focuses on farmer and cooperative level and evaluates
the changes and effects at outcome and impact level. Indicators are the pointof departure in choosing the questions to be asked to farmers and cooperative
managers. The intervention logic assumes that a certain change at farmer
household level leads to the desired outcomes and impact. A cocoa farmer
household survey provides the means to test this logic. The intermediate steps
are covered by measuring behavioural changes (knowledge andimplementation of GAPs and the UTZ Code of Conduct). Quantitative andqualitative data were collected on outcome areas concerning productivity andprofitability. The assumptions underlying this logic are shown in Table 4.5.
Statistical analyses and qualitative content analyses are used to test theunderlying assumptions and the logic itself.

28 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Table 4.5

Theory of Change assumptions

ResultBetter life
• Better working conditions and respect for workers and children's rights contribute to abetter livelihood and improved standard of living.
• Training and awareness rising, peer pressure and inspections mean that labour rights arerespected and prevent child labour, in line with ILO standards (such that children are not

Data collection on a wide range of farm and farm characteristics
The impact and outcome changes were translated into measureable indicators,
shown in Table 4.6 and in detail in Appendix 5. All these indicators were used
for both the baseline and endline impact evaluation, except for the indicators
on farmer inclusiveness and quality, which in agreement with UTZ were notassessed in 2017. Data on the selected indicators was collected from ninedifferent sources, shown in Table 4.7.

conducting hazardous or heavy work, not working during school hours etc.). These factors,
together with improved income, contribute reduce child labour.
• Training and criteria on safe practices and safe handling and storage of agrochemicals andagrochemical waste lead to healthy and safe working and living conditions. Together with

Table 4.6

better access to emergency and primary healthcare this contributes to improved health.

Indicator

Better crops• GAPs implemented as a result of training and compliance with certification requirements
lead to increased productivity, with a better crop leading to better economic prospects.
• Training, information, inputs and other services are provided to farmers and/or theircooperatives.
• Lead farmers are appointed and trained, farmers organised in cooperatives• Enhanced knowledge on GAPs due to the training received
Better income• Improved crops lead to increased production, which leads to increased income.
• Training leads to farmers becoming more entrepreneurial.
• Increased income is invested in the farm (production) and/or improving the standard ofliving (housing, sanitation, healthcare, education, etc.). Improved farmer profitability andimproved farmer resilience, contributes to improved long-term economic viability of farms.
Better environment• Training on GAP and on safe practices, handling and storage of agrochemicals andIndicators

Better life
1.

Farmer characteristics

2.

Programme inclusiveness3.

Livelihood and standard of living

4.

Sustainable practices rewarded by the market

5.

Stability of cooperatives, services provided and access to market

6.

Labour rights

7.

Child labour and rights

8.

Healthy and safe living and working conditions

Better income, Better crops
9.

Cocoa production efficiency

10.

Productivity

11.

Quality

12.

Profitability and long-term viability of farmers and groups

agrochemical waste, cocoa waste management and reduction lead to reduce environmental

Better environment

impact compared to conventional production. A better environment will result, where water

13.

Soil and water quality

and soil quality is maintained and improved and natural habitats and biodiversity on and

14.

Waste management and reduction (related to cocoa production)near farm are protected and restored.

15.

Protection and restoration of natural habitats (on/near farm)• Improved productivity and production efficiency contribute to reduced pressure on land andreduced GHG emissions per unit of produce.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 29

Table 4.7

Data collection sources
Data source

Data source

FarmerCoop manager

Focus group

Company

Servicequestionnaireinterview

discussions

interviews

providerCompany data

Stakeholder

UTZ datainterviews

Literature
review

interviews
Number interviews

426

14

14

7

2

10

2

1

115 people
Indicators
Better life

Farmer characteristics,

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Market, Groups, Livelihoods,
Rights, Living & working
conditions
Better income, Better crops

Farm efficiency, productivity

√

√

√

√

profitability
Better environment

Soil & water quality, Waste
management, Protection
natural habitats

30 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041√√

4.5 Mixed data collection with household survey as
key tool

Combining and triangulating using nine quantitative and qualitative
sources
Qualitative and quantitative data from the questionnaires, interviews,
discussions, companies and UTZ was triangulated. During the verification

Questionnaires pilot tested

meeting, the participants also triangulated and interpreted the findings,

The endline questionnaires were adapted from the questionnaires used in theparticularly when different data sources provided different results. The

baseline in 2013, which were based on the theory of change and resulting

conclusions regarding the spill-over effects (the overall effect/influence of UTZ)

indicators and literature on the impact of comparable interventions. The main

were also addressed based on findings from the cooperative manager

sections in the farmer questionnaire are shown in Table 4.8. The 2017

interviews, focus group discussions, company interviews and in the verificationquestionnaires were discussed and refined following discussions with UTZ andmeeting.

IDH from December 2016 to March 2017. Twelve enumerators and two
supervisors were trained and the farmer questionnaire was pre-tested in thefield in April 2017. The farmer questionnaires were conducted by ALP from May
to October 2017 in French and local dialects by research partner ALP. The
other questionnaires were conducted by ALP and Wageningen Economic
Research staff from December 2016 to October 2017.

4.6 Advanced data analysis to build counterfactual
Providing insights into cocoa farmers using simple descriptive data
Data from the household survey were provided to Wageningen Economic
Research in Excel format in August 2017. Data were analysed with thestatistical software STATA. To give an accurate and realistic representation of

Table 4.8

Topics in farmer questionnaire 2013 and 2017

SectionTopicsA.

Farmer households

Gender, age, ethnicity, household size, education

B.

Cocoa production

Farm area, age, measured farm, own/leased land, certified

C.

Efficiency & productivity

Changes in production, reasonsD.

Production costs

Labour costs per activity, input costs, equipment costs

E.

Certification

Changes in certification, premium received (nominal and a

production, selling price and buyers

F.

Profitability and livelihood

the situation we looked into mean, median, standard deviation and minimum
and maximum values for indicators (see Appendix 4). We compared theseoutcomes for different service packages and intensities and compared UTZ
certified to non-UTZ certified farmers.
Identifying other influencing factors using advanced statistical models
Advanced regression analyses are used to test the robustness of these results
taking into account differences in terms of a limited set of personal, household% of total price), training received in last year

and farm characteristics (as presented in Table 4.4) and agro-ecological zone.

Changes in livelihood, perceptions of certification, sources

This helps to build the counterfactual in combination with qualitative data to

and level of household income, use of cocoa income,

explain observed differences, or lack thereof. These analyses also give us

satisfaction with farming, cooperative and livelihood

insight into other influencing factors on indicators of interest. While this is notG.

Market reward

Future of cocoa farming, wishes for children

the main aim of this study we report on this for the key indicators. Additional

H.

Implementation of GAPs

Level of implementation of specific GAPs on production,robustness tests were done by adding the number of years the cooperative has

environment & working according to the UTZ Code of
Conduct, topics addressed in training
I.

Labour working conditions

Knowledge and implementation of labour rights

J.

Knowledge of GAPs

Level of knowledge of specific GAPs in the UTZ Code ofbeen UTZ certified and using different analysis methods. Where the analyses
produced strong statistical significance, this is reported in the text and noted intables - see the Glossary in Appendix 1 for details.

Conduct on production, environment & working
environment and addressed in training

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 31

Analysing outcomes for different service intensities to establish a
plausible counterfactual
For each indicator we analyse data for two different samples. The first sample
is the entire sample including UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. We analyse theabsolute differences between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers in 2017 and analyse
the changes since 2013. The second sample only includes the UTZ farmers. We
do the same analysis (2017 situation and changes since 2013) but for thedifferent service intensities and packages received by UTZ farmers. For thisanalysis we exclude the non-UTZ farmers, as the group of non-UTZ farmers
with higher intensity services levels is too small for any advanced statisticalanalysis. The results of the main regression analyses on household and farmcharacteristics are presented in in Appendix 4.
Combination of econometric models to test robustness
Advanced regression analysis were used to test the robustness of results
taking into account the limited variances in farmer, household and farmcharacteristics (see Table 4.4) and agro-ecological zone. This helped to build
the counterfactual in combination with qualitative data to explain differences,or lack thereof. These analyses also give insight into other factors influencing
the indicators, which are reported on for key indicators in Appendix 4,comparing UTZ with non-UTZ farmers, and comparing UTZ farmers by service
intensity.
Gaining insight into changes at cooperative level, interventions andchanges at farm household level using qualitative data
Qualitative data were transcribed from interviews and coded based on theindicators, then analysed using content analysis and some simple statisticaltechniques.
Validation workshop with stakeholders
In March 2018, the results were shared and validated during workshops in
Abidjan and in Amsterdam with staff from UTZ, IDH, companies andgovernment stakeholders in the Ivorian cocoa value chain. These discussions
were used to further interpret and validate the findings.

4.7 Caveats and limitations
As the main primary data collection method has strengths and weaknesses interms of the validity of conclusions that can be drawn, the methodology usedin 2013 was revised to countervail limitations and weaknesses identified (seerecommendations in Ingram et al. 2014). Some additional limitations wereidentified in this follow-up research. The major limitations of the study are:• Relying on survey data The basis of the study continues to rely on aquestionnaire to farmers. This method has inherent problems as it relies on
short term memory recall by farmers and possible recollection error, no orpoor recordkeeping, interpretation bias and perceptions, particularly ofenvironmental changes which often occur at different timescales compared tolivelihood changes (Angelsen, Larsen et al. 2011). This means the data aresubject to recollection error and interpretation bias. However, this bias
probably also occurred in 2013.
• Confusion on certification status Farmers still occasionally appeared
confused about their certification status and from whom they had received
training. This has been related to the existence and status of ‘fakecooperatives' (see chapter 2 on the Context). To circumvent this we used
cooperative level data to determine the certification status of farmers.
• Attrition and de-certification Almost a quarter of the farmers were
excluded from the follow-up research as their cooperatives are no longer UTZ
certified. In addition, attrition was high among farmers that still supplied to
UTZ certified cooperatives. This means that the farmers of the 2017 certified
subsample may not have been entirely representative for all the farmers who
have been UTZ certified at a point in time. While the groups are comparable
on key characteristics, they may differ in unobservable ways. The certified
sample may have an optimistic bias if it so happened that unsatisfied or lessmotivated farmers dropped out. But it may also have a pessimistic bias, incase the more successful or satisfied farmers have dropped out. To partiallyaddress this issue, we interviewed managers of cooperatives who had
stopped being UTZ certified, and used UTZ data to explain the reasons why.
• Definition of service intensity focused on short term While the analysisof service intensities - in addition to the traditional with and without UTZ - isan improvement, it is still limited. Especially as we rely on the use of services
at household level for the last year. However, it may be argued that services
provided in earlier stages of certification, in the period 2014 to 2015 or even32 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

before, may have delayed effects for some indicators – in particular in termsof yields. For other indicators, the effect may have already occurred after
one year, and farmers may not have received services in the last year, while
the effects persist (e.g. in terms of practices). We tested the relation toservice use in 2013 and find that there were considerable changes in service
intensity experienced by farmers in 2012/2013 and 2016/2017. We did notgather data from farmers for the in between period (2014 and 2015) in2017, based on the assumption that recall would be poor.
• Spill-over effects not considered in the household analyses. Whiledata at farm household level shows limited service intensity among non-UTZ
farmers compared to UTZ farmers, 60% still received one or more services in
the last year. The interpretation of spill-over effects (e.g. the influence of
training and information from other sources on the performance of non-UTZ
farmers) was taken into account through qualitative data analysis, literatureand feedback from the verification meeting.
• Major differences in labour costs between 2013 and 2017. This can be
explained by several factors. It could be that farmers in the 2013 baseline
underestimated the time worked and/or had trouble remembering theamount of time they worked. To address this issue in 2017, the survey
questionnaire was changed so that farmers were asked how many days they
worked rather than how many hours. Also more categories of labour wereadded, in response to the answers given in 2013 and insights about labour
from the UTZ Ghana study (Waarts et al. 2015). There were two categoriesof children (instead of one) differentiating between two classes of childlabour, and additional categories for other adult family labour (i.e. being
helped by neighbours, and abusan). In the baseline survey farmers wereasked about their own labour, for children below the age of 15, and hiredlabour. It appears that the lower number of categories meant that farmers
under-reported the labour days spent in total on the farm, in comparison to
the more precise reporting in 2017. This has consequences for a meaningfulinterpretation of the change between 2013 and 2017 for income-related
variables and total labour costs. The changes to the questionnaire appeared
to result in a more realistic response in 2017 when cross-checked with timespent by farmers reported in other studies (Neale 2016, Vigneri, Serra et al.
2016). A result, only 2017 labour costs and input-out ratio are reported on.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 33

Cocoa farmer
characteristics

34 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

5Cocoa farmer characteristics
This chapter presents the general socio-demographic characteristics of thereflected a general trend where as of June 2012, 51% of the 86 UTZ

farmers, their farm and production characteristics. The only notable differences

cooperatives had multiple certifications. In 2017 in contrast, 9% were

between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers in 2017 are in terms of cocoa production.

Rainforest Alliance and 5% were Fairtrade (FLO) certified. UTZ data on themultiple certification status of farmer groups indicate that in August 2016 28%

5.1 Socio-demographic characteristics
Farm size increased slightly but not consistently
The total farm size in 2017 varied widely for both UTZ and non-UTZ farmers,of cooperatives were multi-certified, with 24% UTZ and Rainforest Alliance and
7% both UTZ and Fairtrade. According to farmer survey data in 2017 5% of
farmers who were UTZ certified were also Fairtrade certified and 9.3% wereboth UTZ and Rainforest Alliance certified.

from 1 ha to 43 ha. On average, UTZ farmers owned 4.4 ha in 2017 and 4.1 hain 2013. Non-UTZ farmers owned 3.8 ha compared to 3.4 ha in 2013. Thesechanges from 2013 to 2017 and between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers are notstatistically significant. The total cocoa farm size in production in 2013 was
4.4 ha and in 2017 4.7 ha (both estimated by the farmer and measured usinga GPS) and 5.0 ha in 2017 compared to 4.9 in 2013 (for only measured
farms). The increase from 4.4 to 4.7 ha is not statistically significant. The
increase in the area of measured farms is statistically significant. There was nocorrelation between farm size and farmer's age, but a correlation was foundbetween farm size and the age of main farm. This means that for every year
the main farm exists, the average size of the cocoa farm increased by 0.06 ha.
Continuing gendered cocoa farm activities
The focus group discussions indicated that in the period 2013 to 2017 there
were hardly any changes in terms of types of activity men and women
conducted on farm. There were however changes in the activities perceived as
suitable for children on cocoa farms (in 2017 stated as 'fetching water andplaying').
Decrease in number of farmers with multiple certification
In 2013, of the farmers participating in the UTZ programme, 21% were also
Rainforest Alliance certified and 2% were both UTZ and Fairtrade certified. This

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 35

Table 5.1

Key cocoa farmer socio-demographic characteristics (2017)

Indicator

Unit of measurement

Results
Mean

MedianStandard

Significant difference a

Minimum

Maximum

deviation

Number of

between UTZ certified &respondents

non-UTZ certified
farmers

Age

Number of years

Gender% male97%

50

Household size

Number

8

50

11.52

27

92

418

Not significant

418

Too few women formeaningful analysis

8

3.39

0

18

418

Significant(UTZ 8 non-UTZ 7)

Number of persons the

Number

12

11

6.63

0

52

418

farmer takes care of
Position HH

Weak significance(UTZ 12.6 non-UTZ 11)

91% household head, 4%: wife, 2.2% other adult,

423

Not analysed176

Not analysed623

Not analysed623

Not analysed

3.1% childParticular position in

Traditional authority 63%, religious leader 9%,

community

family or clan head 1%, cooperative 9%, leadfarmer 4%, company 1%, youth group leader 14%,
School teacher 1%

Migrant status

10% first generation immigrants (92% Burkinabé,
8% Malian), 10% 2nd generation immigrants (92%
Burkinabé, 8% Malian), 80% Ivorian

Ethnicity

28 ethnic groups: of total Baoulé 46%, Attie 24%
Guéré 6%, Bété 5%, Senoufo 3%, others >1%

Membership cooperative

Number: 423

418

Not analysed

Farm ownership% 77% founder, 18% inherited, 4% administrator,

425

Not analysed

0.2% owner, 0.7% other.
Number of cocoa farms

Number

1.57

1

0.81

1

6

425

Not significant

Cocoa farm size (all farms)

Hectares (estimated by farmers or measured)

4.78

4

4.03

0.02

40

413

Not significant

Cocoa farm size (all farms)

Hectares (measured only)

4.99

4

4.16

0.5

40

336

Not significant

Age of main farm

Number of years since establishment

23.70

21

11.38

4

72

319

Not significant

All data from 2017, except data marked with # from 2013 baseline.
See Glossary in Appendix 1 for definition of statistical significance.

36 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

6
UTZ’ and partner’s
programmes andservices

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 37

UTZ' and partner's programmes and services
This chapter presents information on the UTZ programme in Côte d’Ivoire andvolumes of cocoa, at approximately 67% of cocoa purchases, often through athe sustainability programmes and services offered to farmers and their

network of local buyers, known as pisteurs (EMC 2016). UTZ certified beanscooperatives as part of certification by UTZ' partners, the companies and IDH.

have grown exponentially in volume year on year: in 2015 total sales volume
was 400,000 tonnes and 300,000 tonnes in 2014. There has been a 72%

6.1 UTZ programme
UTZ starts in Côte d’Ivoire in 2008
In 2007, UTZ launched its cocoa programme with founding members Cargill,
ECOM, Heinz, Mars, Nestlé and Ahold and the not-for-profit organisations
Solidaridad, Oxfam Novib and WWF. The first pilots in Côte d’Ivoire started in2008 (two projects with Cargill and two with ECOM). After stakeholder
consultations, the UTZ Good Inside Code of Conduct for Cocoa was launched inJune 2009 and the Cooperative Agricole de Fiédifoué (CAFD) and Coopaga
were certified in August 2009. In November 2009 the first batch of UTZ cocoa
arrived in Amsterdam. By December 2009, one more farmer group wascertified and 5,400 tonnes had been produced by UTZ cocoa farmers. In
January 2010, the Chain of Custody (CoC) and corresponding labelling was
finalised and an interim traceability procedure installed and the first UTZ
chocolate products appeared in the market: Baronie Easter Eggs, KitKat
Australia, Cocio and AH chocolate bars and chocolate letters in Dutch
supermarkets.
Continued growth of UTZ programme in Côte d’Ivoire
By June 2012 the UTZ programme covered 189 cooperatives, with86 cooperatives certified, comprising over 44,624 cocoa farmers, and there
were partnerships with eight companies in Côte d’Ivoire. By December 2016,
there were 258 UTZ certificate holders with 193,444 group members in Côte
d’Ivoire, 28 of which are Chain of Custody UTZ certificate holders. Although thenumber of certificate holders has been stable, the certificate holders havebecome larger in terms of the number of members. In 2013 UTZ started
certifying private buying companies (known as traitants), who buy large

38 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

increase in UTZ cocoa sales from Côte d’Ivoire, with 374 tonnes in 2015, 218
tonnes in 2014, and 199 in 2013 and less than 100 in 2012. In 2016 UTZ
cocoa comprised about 6% of total Ivorian production which reaches themarket as certified.
In 2015 UTZ registered an Ivorian office, developed a new Code of conduct forcocoa – with Ivorian contributions, and implemented training via the UTZ
Academy Online, training all 89 CCC staff in field on the UTZ programme. In
2016 the office grew with 3 new UTZ staff and the start of the Sector
Partnership Programme and other projects.
In 2016 UTZ developed a new training strategy to support certification, andtrained 363 men and women. The training focuses on ‘training the trainers' inthe value chain such as exporters, companies and service providers such as
the National Support Agency for Rural Development (Agence Nationale d'Appuiau Développement Rural, ANADER) and consultants. UTZ does not directlytrain producer organisations, traitants and farmers, but sometimes thecooperative managers (responsible for the Internal Management System)
participate in UTZ training.
Quantity of UTZ cocoa beans increases
There has been continued growth in sales of UTZ certified cocoa from almost
all origin countries, except for Ghana and a continued major growth in sales
from Cote d'Ivoire, shown in Figure 6.1. As of June 2012, UTZ data indicatedthat 51% of the UTZ certified cooperatives had UTZ and another sustainability
certification (all Rainforest Alliance). In December 2016, 11% of cooperatives
had multiple certification (8% Rainforest Alliance and 2% FairTrade).

400

Changes in farmers being certified374

X 1,000 tonnes cocoa

Interviews with UTZ and companies indicated that farmers who have beencertified since 2014 differ from those who joined the early years of the UTZ

300

programme: being now attached to traitants, having different backgrounds

218
190

from the early entrants which do not have such close collaboration or as

60

6.2 IDH Cocoa Productivity and Quality Programme

200

100

-

Côte
d’Ivoire

intense level of services.

Ghana

Indonesia

Peru

EcuadorNigeria

Dom.
Republic

Other*UTZ 1st buyer cocoa sales*- per origin country
2012

Figure 6.1

2013

2014

2015

UTZ cocoa sales per origin country, 2012-2015

Source: UTZ data 2016.

The Dutch government-funded Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) aims toaccelerate and up-scale sustainable trade by building impact-oriented
coalitions of multinationals, civil society organisations, governments and otherstakeholders. Through co-funding and convening public and private interests,
strengths and knowledge, IDH aim to create shared value for all partners. The
objective is to make sustainability the new norm and contribute to achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals. The Cocoa Improvement Programme(CIP1) was a public–private partnership 50% funded by IDH running from2008 to December 2012. IDH convened and aligned parties accounting for

23% of cooperatives no longer UTZ certified
UTZ 17 reported that globally 9% of all certificate holders had dropped out ofthe programme in 2011, 12% in 2012 and 25% in 2013. In 2014 in Côte
d’Ivoire, 23% of the 218 certificate holders (farmers) dropped out, mainly due
to not being able to sell their certified beans, when companies did not renew
contracts to purchase certified beans and due to financial problems.
Interviews with the managers of two cooperatives in the 2013 sample who had
dropped out of UTZ certification, also indicated that cooperatives stopped beingcertified because when they were no longer supported by a company; because
the cooperative stopped functioning and members sold to other cooperatives orpisteurs. This cooperative later restarted with a new name and arranged andpaid for its certification. Other cooperatives had temporary problems andstopped, for example when they didn't implement corrective measures after anaudit and were suspended, but later recertified. Another cooperative manager
indicated that their members were now focusing on coffee rather than cocoa,
and so cocoa certification was less important for them.
17

approximately 30% of the chocolate market and focused on the largest
producer countries: Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Cameroon and
Ecuador. The CIP1 aimed to be a major force behind the up-scaling ofcertification, strongly promoting UTZ, increased market demand for certified
chocolate, the institutionalisation of sustainability in the sector, and thedissemination of innovative sustainability practices.
The IDH Cocoa Productivity and Quality Programme (CPQP) sought to catalyse
large-scale positive impact and stimulate innovations on effective farmer supportand improved production by mainstreaming the results of the CIP1 and ran from
April 2011 to 2015. The CPQP aimed to assist large numbers of smallholder
cocoa farmers to move out of poverty and make the transition to running viablebusinesses for sustainable cocoa production. The CPQP promoted a variety oftactics and tools to create change in cocoa production, focusing on four tools:
good agricultural practices (GAPs), input provision; standards systems(certification), and farmer aggregation and financing mechanisms. The CPQP
focused more on service delivery models and fertilisers than the CIP1. The €7
million CPQP provided match-funded capital through a competitive grant process

Drop out analysis UTZ Cocoa programme, July 2015

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 39

that advances the cocoa market in the areas of quality, productivity,

The IDH Cocoa Learning and Innovation Program (CLIP) followed up the CPQP,

professionalisation of farmers and their organisations, total quality standard

from 2016 and runs to 2020. It focuses on learning and innovation,systems, financing, and coordination and alignment The CPQP aimed to train

productivity, farm and coop investment, developing financial products formore than 50,000 farmers and certify over 30,000 farmers, to produce overcocoa sector; cocoa farmer nutrition in collaboration with 8 companies in CdI

64,000 tonnes of certified cocoa and make UTZ Certified cocoa widely available

and Ghana and the NGOGAIN; and on forest conservation though a landscapeon the international market. The CPQP therefore assisted in the growth of UTZlevel programme that focuses on forest cover, land use planning in the Tai

certification and is relevant to this study. The CPQP aimed to bring together

forest area located in south western Côte d’Ivoire bordering Ghana, and farmer

partners to cover over 40% of the worldwide cocoa processing industry and 30%

livelihoods.

of worldwide chocolate manufacturing businesses. It involved local governments,
UTZ, Solidaridad, UNDP, WCF and WWF and private sector participants including
Ahold, ADM, Armajaro, Barry Callebaut, BT Cocoa, Cargill, Continaf, ECOM,
Ferrero, Friesland Campina, Mars, Heinz, ICCO, Nestlé, Swiss Contact, Oxfam
Novib, Petra Foods (Delfi) (IDH 2012). The majority of cocoa companies
collaborating in the CIP1 and CPQP collaborated in this study, shown in Table
4.1.
The IDH Cocoa Fertilizer Initiative (2012-2017) 18 started as part of the CPQP. It
aimed to restore soil fertility to key cocoa growing regions in Côte d'Ivoire,
limiting farm expansion and deforestation, and ultimately enabling farmers to
improve their livelihoods by turning cocoa farming into a sustainable business,by increasing the availability of high-quality cocoa fertiliser at an affordable costto cocoa farmers. The initiative led to large scale private sector fertiliser‘workstream' initiatives through CocoaAction, a World Cocoa Foundation-hosted
sustainability strategy platform of large chocolate and cocoa companies. The
Cocoa Fertiliser Initiative assisted companies (ECOM, Mondelez, CEMOI andBarry Callebaut) and the CCC and fertiliser suppliers to improve fertiliser
distribution to cooperatives; and training. Cargill was also supported withcoaching farmers on fertiliser adoption. Research was also conducted on soil
fertility and fertiliser application effects and associated variables. Results
reported by IDH (2017) included that companies have set targets on volumes offertiliser to be distributed to farmers; the price of fertiliser has decreased byapproximately 20% through leveraging supply chain interactions; innovations in
the private sector occurred, seeking to tackle risk sharing; partnerships between
supply-chain partners, financiers, and coops have created new models to deliver
fertiliser to the farmers; and insights to soil status and mapping andrejuvenation have been made, leading to new studies.
18

https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/initiative/cocoa-fertilizer-initiative/

40 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

6.3 Company programmes and services
UTZ certification accompanied by company sustainability programmes
UTZ certification has been implemented in Côte d’Ivoire through partnerships
with eight companies in the period 2008 to 2013. Due to the merger of ADM
and Olam and the cooperative SCOOPADIS obtaining a permit to export beansrather than sell through NATRA, there were six company partners in 2017.
These companies have working relationships with the cooperatives from which
they purchase cocoa beans. All the companies have corporate social
responsibility programmes, summarised in Table 6.2, which include
certification as well as other interventions. Of the farmers participating in the
UTZ programme, 9% were also Rainforest Alliance certified and 5% were both
UTZ and Fairtrade certified. This reflects the general trend: as of June 2012,
51% of 86 UTZ cooperatives had multiple certifications and by August 2016
28% were multiple certified, with 24% UTZ and Rainforest Alliance and 7%
both UTZ and Fairtrade. Both prior to, and during the UTZ certification
programme there have been and continue to be services provided as part ofthe programmes which address many issues covered by UTZ. An overview of
relevant activities is provided in Appendix 2, see also Hatløy (2012).
Changes in the nature of company programmes over time
Figure 6.2 provides an overview of the services provided by companies
participating in the UTZ programme. Services such as cooperative capacity
building, farmer training, farmer development, financial support, community
development and processing related activities were foreseen in the theory ofchange to potentially impact the key indicators. The table highlights thedifferences between company approaches to implementing certification as astandalone activity or as part of a package of services. It also shows that since

Sources: Company interviews (n=7), Service provider interviews (n=1).

2014 companies have focused more on providing agronomic, farm inputs(pesticides, fertiliser, herbicides, seedlings, protective equipment etc.),

UTZ certified farmers receive a higher intensity of services

finance, seedlings and community services, and less on farmer training and

The number of services provided is termed 'service intensity'. Nine farm level

certification. This is because cooperatives have been certified for at least five

services were identified from the company and farmer questionnaires:years, making such support less of a priority.

• Finance

Table 6.1

Company cocoa sustainability programmes• Agricultural (GAP) training• Cooperative training

Company

Programme

PeriodDetails• Management training

ADM

Socially and Environmentally

2001-2014

70 cooperatives, 22,000• Social training

Responsible Agricultural

farmers, UTZ, RA andPractices Programme

Fairtrade Certification.

• Access to fertiliser, seedlings or pesticides via cooperative

Barry Callebaut

Quality Cocoa for a Better Life2010

Partnership with

programme Quality Partner

2017-datecooperatives since preProgram, Forever Chocolate

2008, 92 cooperatives,
77,000 farmers. Includes
one of largest traitants.
UTZ & Fairtrade & RA
certified.

Cargill• Free farm inputs (such as fertiliser, pesticides, farm equipment and personal
protective equipment).
Table 6.3 shows the intensity of services reported as received by farmers in
the last year. This measure of service intensity captures only short term
effects. However, services provided in 2014 to 2015 and even earlier, may
have delayed effects for some indicators – in particular in terms of
productivity, as changes to agricultural practices such as pruning, mulching,

Cocoa Sustainability Program,

2003-2012

113 cooperatives UTZ

Cocoa Promise

2012-datecertifiedfertiliser application, planting new trees or grafting may only be manifested in

Cocoaf Ivoire

-

2010

UTZ, RA and Fairtrade

productivity changes between one and up to four years later (Binam,Transmar-

7 certified cooperatives

Gockowski et al. 2008, Ruf and Agkpo 2008, Baah 2010, Fan, Brzeska et al.

Natra

-

UTZ certification, 1

2013, Maro, Mrema et al. 2014). For other indicators, outcomes maybe occur

cooperative

after one year, and farmers may not have received services in the last year,

350 cooperatives stopped

although the effects of services provided persist (e.g. in terms of knowledge

multiple certification. UTZ

learnt continuing to influence practices)(Daniel, Guest et al. 2011).

Olam

Olam Livelihood Charter20102010-date

Cocoa Action charter

certified
SCOOPADIS-

2006

3,000 UTZ certified
farmers of 15,000
members

ECOM Zamacom Akwacao (agronomy division)

2008

2,000 certified RFA & UTZ

CEMOI

2009

11,500 farmers, certified

2016

RFA & UTZTransparence Cacao

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 41

Figure 6.2
Certification

42 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Sources: Company interviews (n=7), Service provider interviews (n=2).
Services provided by companies to cooperatives
Farmer Training

2014-2017
inputspre finance & credit

2008-2013

Seedling
supplyCommunity development

Fermentation

Schools & literac1 classes

Infrastructure eg sanitation

Social training (HIV, healthcare, gender)

Education

Seedling supply

Access to credit/saving schemes

Pre-finance/advance

Pesticide supply, treatment gangs

Fertiliser

Demonstration and pilots

Business training & education

Coop mgt skills

Nursery training

Farmer training in-field

Gender training

Cooperative capacity building

Certification support

Pre-audits% of sampled cooperatives provided service by companys
100%
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Processing

Table 6.3 shows that the majority (85%) of UTZ certified farmers received two

Five service packages identified

to five or more services. Free inputs and agricultural (GAP) training were given

The combinations of services reported as provided by companies and received

in all levels of service intensity. Social and management training were services

by farmers, termed a 'service package' were analysed. Only UTZ farmers were

provided mostly in the higher service intensities. One-third of UTZ farmers

analysed because the number of non-UTZ farmers receiving different services

received inputs (fertilisers or pesticides) and agricultural training.

was too small for statistical analysis. Five service packages were found, shownin Table 6.5. Whilst 5% of UTZ certified cooperatives had received no services
at all (shown in Table 6.3), 11% of the certified farmers had received no

Table 6.2

agricultural services, shown in Table 6.4.

Intensity of services provided to cooperatives

Service intensity

UTZ

Non-UTZ

No services

5%

38%

1 service9%38%

2/3/4 services

38%

21%

5 or more services

47%

4%

Table 6.4

Service packages provided by companies via cooperatives tofarmers
Service packages% of UTZ farmers

No agricultural services

11%

Agricultural training only

14%

Pesticides AND/OR fertiliser (no agricultural training)

12%

Service intensity is not significantly related to certification timescale

Agricultural training AND (pesticides OR fertiliser)

31%

Table 6.3 shows the correlation between years of certification (of theAgricultural training AND pesticides AND fertiliser

32%

cooperative) and the service intensity to farmers in the last year, which it isSource: Farmer questionnaires (n=339).

Source: Farmer questionnaires (n=339).

not statistically significant. The tendency is that farmers in cooperatives
certified for 5 years or longer receive more services, but the intensity of
Significant and large decrease of service intensity over time

services tends to decrease significantly after seven years.

Forty per cent of UTZ farmers received the same level of service intensity in2013 as in 2017, 13% experienced a higher intensity, and 47% a lower
Table 6.3

Years cooperativecertifiedintensity. The largest portion of UTZ farmers (29%) shifted from high intensity

Differences in service intensity and years certified
Number of

Number of

1 service(>5 services) to 2 to 4 services. There were considerable changes in the

2/3/4

5 services

intensity of the package of services received: 20% of UTZ farmers experience
the same intensity of services provided, 25% an increase in intensity, and 55%

farmers

services

servicesor more

5

39

0%

0%

41%

59%

a decrease. More farmers now have access to pesticides, but less have

6

60

7%

10%

38%

45%

received agricultural training.

7

133

3%

8%

35%

54%

8

76

11%

13%

37%

39%

9

30

7%

10%

57%

27%

Source: Farmer questionnaires (n=339).

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 43

Reduction in training and service intensity related to farm

except for differences in age (older farmers receive less services), for farmers

characteristics and time certified

in the marginal agro-ecological zone 3 (less services in less favourable cocoa

Farmers with higher importance of cocoa (income and share) in 2013

zone 3) and the length of time a cooperative has been certified (decreasing

experienced less reduction in the intensity of services received. Farmers wholevel of services by cooperatives certified for a longer period).

are certified longer, experienced a higher reduction in the intensity of services
received. During the verification meeting, this was explained as usually at thestart of certification a farmer is supported more and this support decreases

Table 6.5

Key farmer characteristics and service intensity

Variable

No services

1 serviceover time because 1) the cooperative and farmer become fully certified (2) the

2/3/4

5 or more

services

services

service programme ends or changes 2) services are not (longer) required byFemale

0%

3%

5%

2%

the farmer or cooperative, i.e. a farmer feels they have has received sufficientHousehold size

8.50

8.27

8.41

8.57

Farm size

6.53

4.12

5.11

5.62

Farm ownership

89%

87%

78%

72%

Oldest plot

24.78

22.17

21.75

21.53

Age***of farmer

54.78

55.10

50.55

47.89

Agro-ecological zone1

39%

47%

55%

47%

Agro-ecological zone2

28%

33%

33%

39%

Agro-ecological zone3*

33%

20%

12%

14%

Share cocoa

94%

89%

92%

94%

Years cooperative certified**

7.44

7.33

7.05

6.83

training or the training is not tailored sufficiently to the farmers needs. Whilst
farmers' scores on knowledge and implementation of the UTZ Code of Conduct
and GAP (see Results chapter and Appendix 6 for details) indicate that either
more knowledge (e.g. via training) or different or more incentives are needed,
farmers experience barriers to the implementation of practices due to the(additional) labour and resources required.
Key farm characteristics are similar for different intensities of services
provided, except for age, zone and time certified
Table 6.6 shows key characteristics of UTZ farmers who have received different
service packages. While differences exist, most are not significant (statisticalsignificance is indicated with asterisks, see the Glossary in Appendix 1 fordetails), implying that the profiles of farmers receiving services are similar,

44 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Source: Farmer questionnaires (n=339).

7
Results per
outcomeWageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 45

Results per outcome
Better income, better crop
7.1 Sustainable practices rewarded by the market

sell at lower price to 'pisteurs' if in need of urgent cash or credit. Most
companies pay out premiums twice a year, coinciding with major periods offarmer household expenditure, such as the new school year. Fifty per cent ofcooperative managers indicated that the buying price has not changed due tocertification.

More farmers received premiums albeit at a lower amount than in2013

Price remains a major motivation

Twenty-six per cent of farmers reported selling to their cooperative mainly

The main reason farmers gave for their cooperative to sell to a particular

because of the price. Farmers also sell to pisteurs if they need cash, especiallycompany was the price. Training and credit were mentioned second and third.

urgently. Only UTZ farmers received premiums for certified cocoa. more UTZ

Forty-three per cent of farmers gave more than one reason, while 56% said

farmers report having received a premium in 2017 (77%) than in 2013 (58%).

they did not know why.

The premium ranged from CFA 30 to 50/kg, on average CFA 38/kg, 4.2% of
the average annual selling price. The premium in 2017 was statistically

Increase in contract security and competition

significantly lower than in 2013, when the average was CFA 45.5/kg.

Twenty-one per cent of cooperative managers indicated that there have been
more buyers since 2016, with 14 mentioned in total, and 50% said they have

Forty-two per cent of cooperative managers indicated that the premium

more long-term buying commitments since 2016.

doesn't cover the costs of certification and that it takes on average 20 years
for cocoa to be profitable (ranging from 5 to 25 years). Both cooperative

Post-harvest practices result in good cocoa quality

managers and farmers said they have no influence on the premium paid byTwenty-eight per cent of focus group discussions reported quality increases.

companies to the cooperative. Cooperatives and farmers do influence theFarmer scores on post-harvest practices and quality were high. UTZ farmers

percentage of the premium shared by the cooperative and farmer, which isscored 0.8 out of 1 in 2017, with non-UTZ farmers catching up to 0.7. Theregenerally decided during the cooperative's General Assembly.

were no significant differences between 2013 and 2017 or between UTZ and
non-UTZ farmers. Cocoa quality improvements were attributed by stakeholders

UTZ reported that 76% of the certified cocoa was sold as certified and thatin the verification meeting largely to the CCC reform in 2013. Training given tocertified cooperatives receive on average €84/tonne (CFA 55,020/tonne)

farmers to assure and improve drying - as part of GAP may also havepremium.

contributed.

Average seasonal cocoa selling prices were CFA 700/kg and 1100
CFA/kg in 2017
Farmers report that they were generally paid CFA 700/kg for dried cocoa in the
low season (petite trait) and CFA 1,100 /kg main season (grande trait). This
corresponds with the price set by the CCC in the period. Farmers occasionally

46 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

7.2 Farm efficiency

labour costs (i.e. both farmers own labour and family labour (non-hired labour)and hired labour), plus farm input costs.

Unusual farmer's labour costs
The total labour days reported by farmers in 2017 are much higher than in2013 – see limitations discussed in the Methodology section. As a result of thisTable 7.1

Input-output ratio 2017

difference, only labour costs and input-out ratio for 2017 are reported on.
Benchmark data for time spent on cocoa farming activities vary widely, also
reflecting different data gathering approaches. Neale (2016) estimated600 adult farmer labour days on cocoa in Ghana in 2014, based on anassumed 6-day working week and two non-working weeks per year. Vigerni
and colleagues (2016) reported that in Côte d'Ivoire most labour on cocoa
farms is carried out by adult men, while children contribute a small proportionof farm labour (around 5% of total household labour days used) and that

Input-output ratio

MeanMedianStd. Dev.

Min

Max

N

2.8

2.0

2.7

0.1

20.2

324

UTZ farmers receiving a higher intensity of services have higher
economic efficiency than farmers receiving fewer services
UTZ farmers who received full service package have significantly higher
efficiency ratios, shown in Figure 7.1. This implies that complete agro-service
packages work well, making farmers more efficient.

average daily wages are between CFA 2,000 and 3,000 (USD 4 to 6), justsimilar methodology to this study, they calculated that on average 11 persondays per hectare of labour were used on farms of over 5.9 ha, which is lessthan one-fourth of the 48 person-days reported by farmers with farms of lessthan or equal to 1.70 ha. Vigneri and colleagues (2016) also found that labour
productivity increases at higher land quartiles, however comparing yields byland quartile suggests that the increase in labour productivity does not fullycompensate for the decline in labour use. In Côte d'Ivoire, fewer labour days
(both household and hired) are used per hectare as land size increases,suggesting a potential labour constraint for farmers with larger landholdings.

Input-output ratio for UTZ farmers
2017

above the national minimum agricultural daily wage of CFA 2,000. Using a

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

No difference between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers' economic efficiency
of inputs and hired labour
A farmer's average economic efficiency (also known as the ratio of output toinputs) is calculated as gross income divided by total production costs. The
higher the ratio the more efficient the farmers are (i.e. more output with thesame input). Eighty per cent of all farmers had access to or used inputs – theFigure 7.1

No agroservices 24

Agro training,
Pesticides
Agro training Agro training,
no fertilizers or
and/orand pesticides pesticides andpesticides 40 fertilizers, no or fertilizers 88 fertilizers 86
agro training
28

Farmers' input-output ratios

same for UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. There was no significant difference
between the efficiency of non-UTZ and UTZ certified farmers when controlled
for other factors. The input-output ratio for both non-UTZ and UTZ farmers
was 2.8 in 2017 (see Table 7.1). This means income from cocoa farming is 2.8
times higher than input costs. The input costs of cocoa production include all

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 47

1200 kg/ha for farmers with at least 2 ha cocoa farms (EMC 2016). These

7.3 Cocoa farm productivity

surveys suggest that other farmers were in a similar range to farmers in the

Cocoa yield per tree could not be measured as most farmers (still) do not know
number of cocoa trees (98% of all farmers in 2013 and in 2017).
UTZ farmers continue to have significantly higher productivity
Productivity is defined as cocoa yield per hectare. Farmers' reports on yieldsand (measured and estimated) farm size are based on recall and whereavailable, on records such as sales receipts. UTZ farmers had significantly
higher productivity in 2013 and in 2017 than non-UTZ farmers, shown in
Figure 7.2. However, the average yield of UTZ farmers stayed the same
between 2013 and 2017, whilst non-UTZ farmers' productivity has increased
considerably with 143 kg/ha on average. Since non-UTZ farmers’ productivity
increased, the difference in productivity between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers
has become significantly smaller. Though the productivity gap between nonUTZ and UTZ farmers has become smaller, the upper range of productivity,
shown in Figure 7.2, is significantly higher for UTZ than non-UTZ farmers.
600

527

Productivity (kg/ha)

400
300

Changes in production attributed in 2017 mostly to weather
External influences (see the Context chapter 2) were indicated as a factor that
can affect productivity either positively or negatively. The different data
sources all point towards unfavourable weather decreasing productivity, withno clear trends for agro-ecological zones and affecting both UTZ and non-UTZ
farmers. Shown in Table 7.2, in 2017 most (62%) UTZ and non-UTZ farmers
reported an increase, with a similar proportion of UTZ and non-UTZ farmers
reporting a decrease in production. Non-UTZ farmers reported a higher
increase than UTZ farmers compared to 2013 (11% more) compared to UTZ
farmers reporting a 5% increase.
Changes in cocoa production

143

2013

2017

Difference-30

Change 2013-2017

UTZ

Non-UTZ

n=338

n=79

Increase

62

Decrease

35

Same

259

Non-UTZ

Figure 7.2of fertilisers, insecticides and fungicides (EMC 2016).

2017 %

100-100

steadily since 2009, related to better maintenance of farms and intensive use

402

200
0

increased considerably, despite one study indicating that yields have increased

Table 7.2

497

500

study in both time periods, and also that that productivity in 2016 has not

Do not know

UTZ

Non-UTZ

62

5

11

38

-4

-7

2

0

-2

-4

0.9

0

0.6

0

UTZ

Cocoa productivity per hectare

In 2013 28% of certified farmers named certification as the reason for
production change, in 2017 this was not mentioned (see Table 7.3). Instead,the weather was a major factor mentioned by 39% of farmers. Pesticides andBenchmarks to compare the productivity of the farmer sample in 2013 ranged
from 620 kg/ha certified (N'Dao 2012), 576 kg/ha Rainforest Alliance certified(COSA 2012), and for non-certified farmers' 570 kg/ha non-certified (N'Dao2012), 565 kg/ha (KPMG 2012), 450 kg/ha (HatlØy 2012), 435 kg/ha 352
kg/ha (Gockowski and Sonwa 2007) and 334 kg /ha non-certified (COSA
2012). In 2016 similar yields were reported, from 435 kg/ha (Balineau,
Bernath et al. 2016) and an average of 668 kg/ha ranging from 321 to

48 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

spraying are cited more frequently than in 2013. Farmers indicated that thecauses for decreases in productivity in 2017 are similar to 2013: 1) bad
weather/little rain (33%); 2) death/disease, 28%; 3) lack of fertiliser, 27%;4) ageing farm 21%; and a 5) lack of spraying, 15%. Farmers also provided
the reasons for changes (both improvements and decreases) in their cocoa
production, shown in Table 7.3.

Reasons cited by farmers for changes in cocoa production2013 top 5%

2017 top 5%

Certification

28

Little rainfall/dryness

39

Training

25

Spraying

30

Spraying

17

Fertiliser

29

Pesticides

15

Pesticides

27

Little rainfall/dryness

15

Good rainfall

24

700
600
Productivity (kg/ha)

Table 7.3

500

471

527

581
496

514

497

400

339

513

555

387

300
200
100
0

Higher productivity associated with higher service intensity
The more services UTZ farmers received, the higher their yield in 2017.
Regression analysis indicates that yield is higher for UTZ farmers who received
more services in 2017, when controlling for various household and farmcharacteristics, shown in Figure 7.3, with no statistical difference between
2013 and 2017. The most intensive package is positively associated withhigher yields. Training adds value to the provision of inputs, shown in
Figure 7.4. For the farmers receiving the highest service package intensity, the

2013

2017

No agro services 27

Agro training, no fertilizers or pesticides 42

Pesticides and/or fertilizers, no agro training 27

Agro training and pesticides or fertilizers 91

Agro training, pesticides and fertilizers 86

Figure 7.4

Cocoa productivity per hectare related to agricultural service

packagesdifference between 2013 and 2017 is statistically significant compared to thechange of farmers receiving no services.
Farmer household data shows lower levels of productivity than focus
groups and management interviews

Productivity (kg/ha)

600
500

470

508

540

548

525
468
415

400

358

different than figures discussed in focus groups and by cooperative managers.
Cooperative managers mostly reported progressive increases in productivity,
production and one non-UTZ cooperative reporting no change. Increases in
productivity were attributed to increased training, knowledge and application of

200

GAP (pruning, inputs, cleaning and sanitary harvest), favourable weather andthe use of inputs.

100

Figure 7.3

Farmers' reports of their productivity gathered in the questionnaire werewith one reporting a decrease as their cooperative switched to coffee

3000

The data sources reported different productivity rates, shown in Figure 7.4.

2013

2017

UTZ - no service 13

UTZ - 1 service 22

UTZ - 2-4 services 108

UTZ - 5 services or more 130

Cocoa productivity per hectare related to service intensity

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 49

Table 7.4

Cocoa productivity per hectare

Data source

7.4 Income and profitability

Number of

Average

Average

responses

Kg/ha

Kg/ha

2017

2013

Range kg/haClarifying cocoa and household income

Focus groups

10/14

650

446

500-1,000

Cooperative managers

6/14

610

453

500-800

UTZ farmers

339

497

527

35-1,583

Non-UTZ farmers

79

402

259

11-1,333

Cocoa income refers to income from cocoa farming. Gross cocoa income refers
to income from cocoa from which no costs have been deducted. Net cocoa
income refers to gross cocoa income minus costs for hired labour paid by thefarmer and farm input costs. Net cocoa income does not include a farmer’s
own labour and labour by other adults that is unpaid and therefore does notdirectly affect the cash income received by the farmer (see the Glossary in

Explanations of the differences between data sources provided by stakeholders
and in the verification meeting include:
New members joining cooperatives – giving cooperative managers a higher
perception of productivity.
Over reporting caused by the focus group discussion technique.
Fatigue as the older certified farmers are less motivated than the younger
ones (this was not confirmed by regression analysis).
Spill-over caused by farmers training others after they have received
training, as 60% of UTZ farmers reported training others in 2017 and 83%
in 2013.
Non-UTZ farmers' productivity is catching up to the level of UTZ farmers
because they have also received training + services.
Most farmers only plant ‘Cacao Ghana'; one fourth combine it withother varieties
About 26% of farmers said they plant more than one species of cacao tree –there is no difference between certified and non-certified farmers. The
proportion of farmers planting more than one cocoa tree species has notchanged. In comparison to 2013, 30% and 25% of non-UTZ and UTZ-farmers
respectively planted more than one variety. 'Cacao Ghana' was the mostcommon species, planted by 64% of UTZ and 70% of non-UTZ farmers,
followed by 32% of non-UTZ farmers and 17% of UTZ farmers using 'Cacao
Francais', Mercedes by 26% and 34% respectively, 2% and 1% using 'Cacao
Brésil' and one farmer planted 'Satmaci'. The dominance of one species has
possible negative implications concerning vulnerability to disease andadaptation to climatic changes (Läderach 2011, Medina and Laliberte 2017,
Medina, Meter et al. 2017).

50 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Appendix 1 for more details). Household income refers to all sources of income
generated by the farmer household from agriculture and other sources. Costs
for farm inputs and hired labour were reported for the main farm and thenextrapolated to calculate costs for the total farm in production (by first
calculating input costs per hectare and then multiplying this by the total farm
size in production).
As the baseline data regarding hired labour shows lower amounts of labour
used for most farming activities, a comparison between 2013 and 2017 for UTZ
and non-UTZ farmers has not beem made and net income is reported for 2017
only.
UTZ farmers have significantly higher net cocoa income per hectare
The average gross cocoa income was CFA 1.5 million in 2013 and CFA 2.4
million in 2017 (based on cocoa production from all farms). Net cocoa income
in 2017 was on average CFA 2.3 million. The accumulated inflation rate overthe period was about 1%. The net income difference between UTZ and nonUTZ farmers (shown in Figure 7.5) is not statistically significant, but UTZ
farmers had significantly higher net incomes per hectare in 2017, on average
CFA 83,000 per ha more. Factors that are logically (and statistically strongly)
related to net cash income are total farm size, household size and share ofland devoted to cocoa. please rephrase to make this clearer. Older farms tend
to have a lower income per hectare.

2,429,110

2,500,000
2,000,000

1,651,614

1,500,000
1,000,000
396,000

500,000
0

Net income CFA

600,000

UTZ

Net cocoa income and net cocoa income per hectare, 2017

560,000

500,000

454,000
397,000

400,000

339,000

300,000
200,000
100,000
0

Net income CFA per ha
Non-UTZ

Figure 7.5

494,000

Net income UTZ farmer (CFA/ha)

Net cocoa income 2017

3,000,000

Net income CFA per ha

utz - no service 14

Figure 7.6

utz - 1 service 25

utz - 2-4 servic 114

utz - 5 services 136

UTZ farmer’s net cocoa income associated with service package

intensity
Productivity, higher prices and lower costs contributed to higher net
incomeTotal net cocoa income per household member/day for 2017 is similar

The differences in cocoa income between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers werefor UTZ and non-UTZ farmers

attributed by stakeholders in the verification meeting to the price increases as

On average farmer household members have a net cocoa income of USD 1.25

part of the reform, and that non-certified farmers also had access to inputs,

per day, with UTZ and non-UTZ cocoa income being similar with a weak

services and training. In the focus group discussions, 35% of groups attributed

statistical significance. Net cocoa income per family labour day for 2017 isincreased income to productivity increases, as did 71% of cooperative

similar for UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. Factors positively related to net cocoa

managers, but 50% of groups also reported increased costs of production,

income per household member include total farm size and share of land

mainly labour and inputs. The price decrease was not mentioned as the

devoted to cocoa, whilst household size is negatively related (as income ismajority of interviews with farmers occurred prior to the price decrease.

divided amongst a larger number of household members). The good agroecological (zone 2) and marginal agro-ecological (zone 3) are negatively

UTZ farmers with higher service intensity have significant higher net

correlated, meaning that when a farmer is located in zone 2 or 3, they tend tococoa income and net income per ha in 2017

have a lower net income per family labour day than farmers in zone 1

There are strong, significant differences between UTZ farmers' net cocoa(excellent zone). This is logical as these zones are less suitable for cocoa

income and net cocoa income per hectare related with higher service

growing than the excellent zone.

intensities, shown in Figure 7.6. The same is true for UTZ farmers with a fuller
agro-service package (agro training and one input, agro training and pesticides

Other studies have different results of cocoa income per household in theand fertiliser). This is a result of the higher cocoa productivity per hectare.

similar time period, which can only be compared if the methodology andexchange rates are presented. Using a similar methodology to this study,
Hamelink (2015) reported a net cocoa income household member/day of USD

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 51

1.14 for a cocoa farmer in Soubre region based on a 6.8 person household,number of categories they invested in slightly increased over time. The number

whereas a living income has been calculated as USD 2.15 a person/per day,of farmers investing in agriculture (cocoa and other crops) is low in bothand the World Bank poverty line is just under USD 2.00 a person/per da. In

periods. This may be explained by farmers having other priorities, such as theircontrast, Foblets and de Groot Ruiz (2016) reported that a cocoa farmer

basic household needs, shown in Table 7.5.

household (not a household member) in Côte d’Ivoire earns on average€3.5/day from cocoa, equivalent to an annual income of around 40% of the

UTZ farmers spending more on labour and inputs in 2017living income. The annual living wage for an Ivorian worker, also as reported

Shown in Table 7.5, in comparison to 2013, more UTZ farmers madeby True Price and IDH is €2,869 (Fobelets and Ruiz 2016).

expenditures related to hired labour and inputs on crops other than cocoa, andfewer made expenses on mobile phones or other equipment. The focus group

Total net income per household member/day for 2017 is higher for

discussions indicated that hired labour costs had increased since 2014, costing

farmers receiving complete agro-service packagearound CFA 150,000 to 240,000/team/season or CFA 15,000 to 25,000/day,

For UTZ farmers, those receiving a higher service intensity have higher net

and that the increase was related to the availability and willingness of labour,

income USD/household member/day (weak significance). The net cocoa

rather than certification. Investments are low for both UTZ and non-UTZ

income USD/member/day significantly increases by USD 1.0 when farmers

farmers.

receive more complete agro-services (agro training plus one or both inputs).
For UTZ farmers receiving low intensity service packages, spending on
Cocoa continues to be main source of household income

livelihoods was significantly higher over the period 2013 to 2017, but forIn 2017, the cocoa farmers had on average one other source of income,farmers in more intense service groups no change was found. Both UTZ andranging from one to a maximum of four sources, with 72% of farmers having a

non-UTZ farmers reported spending most on food, medicine and children's

second source of income. In 2017 on average farmers earned CFA 569,895

school fees and between 2013 to 2017 UTZ farmers' spending increased infrom other income sources. There were no differences between UTZ and nonecomparison to non-UTZ farmers, with weak statistical significance. In 2017

UTZ farmers in terms of the number of income sources and amount per source.

UTZ farmers reported significantly increased spending compared to non-UTZ

The most important source of income on average was cocoa (91% of farmers),

farmers, while in 2013 UTZ and non-UTZ farmers spent around the same.

rubber (6%), food crops (2%) and others (1%). The second most important
income sources were food crops (43%), rubber (20%,) coffee (14%) and cocoa(11%).
Expenditures and investments remain similar over time
Farmers were asked about how they spent cocoa incomes in the last year (seeappendix 5 for details) and if expenditures stated the same, increased or
decreased. There was no change in the type of agricultural expenditures(purchasing inputs and equipment for cocoa and other crops, and paying hiredlabour for cocoa and other crops) by either UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. UTZ
farmers who received a low intensity service package significantly increased
agricultural spending compared to UTZ farmers receiving no services. For
farmers receiving more intense services, no change was found and they havenot increased their spending. In general, shown in Table 7.5, UTZ farmers'
investments are slightly (not significantly) different than non-UTZ and the

52 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Table 7.5

Expenditure category#

Agriculture

more satisfied in 2017 than non-UTZ farmers: 47% versus 10%. There is no

Cocoa household expenditure and changes 2013-2017% farmers 2017

statistical evidence that satisfaction about livelihoods changed since 2013

% change 2017-2013
UTZ

UTZ

Non-UTZ

Inputs and equipment (cocoa)

73

71

13

7

Inputs and equipment (other

21

31

4

14

Hired workers (cocoa)

29

37

13

-1

Hired workers (other

15

22

10

15

Farmers may also be more aware of cocoa farming potential than four years

14

15

-8

-9

farmers: 47% versus 10%. There is no statistical evidence that satisfaction on

crops/livestock)Non-agric.

crops/livestock)

Livelihoodusing this livelihood indicator.

Non-UTZ

Investment in businessOverall farmer’s satisfaction decreased from 53% in 2013 to 40% in 2017.
Among UTZ farmers satisfaction decreased by 14% and for non-UTZ farmers
increased by 1%. This may be related to the lack of increased productivity.
ago. UTZ farmers were significantly more satisfied in 2017 than non-UTZ
livelihood changed since 2013 using this livelihood indicator.

Food

94

95

1

9

Family healthcare

93

96

-2

1

Children school fees

85

91

-9

-3

Mobile phone

16

30

-31

-31

Electrical goods radio/TV/solar

7

16

-20

-27

Household & house

18

30

-12

-14

Motorcycle

21

29

-8

-5

Funerals

53

64

53

64

Other

24

24

4

-4

#Percentages do not total 100 as multiple answers possible.

Literature indicates that in 2017 hired workers received an average wage of€1.6/day, about 20% of the living wage and that the annual wage earned by
on-farm workers is €477, while the legal minimum wage is €659/year. The
annual living wage for an Ivorian worker, as calculated by True Price, should

In general, the average number of categories for which farmers were satisfied
or very satisfied is 2.2 for non-UTZ and 4.3 for UTZ farmers. This difference isstatistically significant. However, there is statistically weak evidence that the
average satisfaction for UTZ farmers decreased from 4.8 in 2013 to 4.3 in2017. This may be related to the lack of increased productivity or farmer’shigher awareness of cocoa farming potential.

7.5 Long-term viability of farmers and farmergroups
Farmers plan to continue cocoa farming but don't want their children
to become cocoa farmers
Similar to 2013, in 2017 74% of UTZ farmers plan to continue cocoa farming in
the next five years. This ratio is statistically similar for non-UTZ farmers (70%)

be €2,869 (Fobelets and Ruiz 2016).

in 2017. However, more non-UTZ farmers want to continue in cocoa compared

Certified farmers are more satisfied with their livelihood than non-their children to continue cocoa farming than in 2013, when 31% did, which is

certified but satisfaction has decreased
Farmers were asked about their satisfaction concerning eight livelihood
categories: knowledge of good practices on cocoa production; farmer groupmanagement; access to price information on agricultural products; type andnumber of sources of income; housing condition and access to electricity,water; family health; children's education; and household income. Farmers
who are satisfied or very satisfied for at least 5 out of 8 categories wereconsidered satisfied about their life. In general, UTZ farmers were significantly

to 2013 (a significant increase of 8%). In 2017, more farmers (46%) wanted
a significant increase of 15%. There are no differences between UTZ and nonUTZ farmers, in either years. More than half of UTZ farmers want their children
to go into other jobs, such as becoming a doctor or government official.
A stronger, but similar message was given in the focus group discussions,where 13 of the 14 groups didn't want their children to go into cocoa. In ninegroups (7 UTZ and 2 non-UTZ) farmers have reduced the number of cocoa
trees. However farmers in UTZ groups tended to think that cocoa is a good,

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 53

stable activity. Cooperative managers agree, believing most farmers (13/14)
plan to continue investing in cocoa but the majority (12/14) do not want theirchildren to continue in cocoa.

Table 7.7

Changes in UTZ and non-UTZ farmer’s access to inputs

Farmers

UTZ farmers perform slightly better at record keeping and improveover time

Input supply

Input supply

Access % toreason for

as motivation

input 2017

membershipfor cooperative2017 % ofmembership

farmerschange %The UTZ Code of Conduct requires that farmers and cooperatives keep records

Change %access to
input 20172013

2017 to 2013

to enable traceability. Shown in Table 7.6, UTZ farmers score above average

UTZ(75%) and UTZ farmers who receive more services have better knowledge on

Non-UTZ

6

-9

57

2

47

18

advantages of record keeping. The knowledge score for record keeping issignificantly higher among UTZ certified farmers in both years, but increased
more among non-UTZ farmers. Knowledge on record keeping also increased

UTZ farmers who received a higher intensity of services receive more input

for UTZ farmers receiving a higher intensity of services, but did not change

related services, as could be expected. The level of satisfaction also increases

since 2013 except for the group receiving no services, which seems to havesignificantly as intensity increases, shown in Table 7.8.

caught up by 2017.
Table 7.8
Table 7.6

Knowledge about record keeping, 2013-2017

Knowledge
Advantages of keeping records

Score % 2017

Group

Change % 2017-2013

UTZ

Non-UTZ

UTZ

Non-UTZ

75

67

6

33

**

UTZ farmers' access to inputs correlated with service intensity

***

***

***

% min. 1% min. 1 input% min. 1 input% min. 1

input access

access service,access service

input accessservicediff to 2013service, diff to
2013

UTZ - No services
UTZ - 1 service

48

-43

41

-20

***

UTZ farmers indicate to have increased access to some inputs
Shown in Table 7.7, compared to 2013, in 2017 UTZ farmers report anincrease in access to certain inputs (pesticides, ANADER services and priceinformation), but not for nurseries and fertilisers. Satisfaction levels for all

UTZ - 2-4 service
UTZ - 5 services

91

4

69

35

***

*

**

**

99

14

87

58

***

*

**

**

services increased for UTZ farmers. Non-UTZ farmers also report an increase inaccess to inputs, however this is a small group (n=16, 20% of total control
group). Non-UTZ farmer's satisfaction with access to inputs has declined, but
this may be biased as 2013 data were based on a very small sample, withsometimes only one non-UTZ coop farmer accessing a service.

No change in access to price information but satisfaction increased for
UTZ farmers compared to non-UTZ farmers
In 2017 there was no significant increase in number of farmers that haveaccess to market information on sales. The level of satisfaction increased for
UTZ farmers from dissatisfaction to slight satisfaction, shown in Table 7.9.

54 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Table 7.9

Change in access to market information and timely payment by

Access/use %2017

Access/use %Satisfaction with

Change 2017-2013

access to2013

information

satisfaction

2017*

with access to
information

non-UTZ
Market priceUTZ non-UTZUTZ non-UTZUTZ non-UTZ

19

29

-50

-49

-1.0* 0.56***

80***

68

50

31

0.15

UTZ

-2.0**

1.8*

0.00

0.32

provided to members and farmer's satisfaction with them. This is based on theassumption that professionalisation leads to stronger, well run and transparent
organisations in terms of profitability, accessing markets and efficiently andeffectively providing services required by members (Moulianitaki and Laven
2016, SwissContact 2016, Lindt Cocoa Foundation 2017, Cocoa Abrabopa
2018, Source Trust 2018).
UTZ farmers becoming more professional

information
Payment on

A measure of farmer organisation professionalism is that these groups support
members to become (more) professional, this may be through the services

buyer 2013-2017

0.62**

Four of the 12 UTZ cooperative managers interviewed reported that theytime by buyer

perceive farmers were becoming more professional, with one UTZ cooperative

Satisfaction is measured on a 5 point scale of -2, -1, 0, 1 and 2.

manager noting that 'certification changed the perception of farmers to invest
in cocoa and become more professional'. Another cooperative manager
reported that 'the advantages of certification are that the way of living changed
and the mentality of farmers changed, they have become more professional'.

The focus group discussions indicated that for UTZ and non-UTZ farmers
information on prices was obtained from lead farmers (paysan relais),

Shown in Table 7.10, UTZ farmers were generally more satisfied than non-UTZ

community or government radio (mainly) or TV, and extension officers. Also

farmers on all indicators - except for access to inspection information andthat there were no changes in information sources since 2013. Information on

timely payment - and were generally more satisfied in 2017 with theseprices of inputs and technical advice was obtained from cooperatives,

services than in 2013. Farmers' satisfaction that payment by their cooperative

companies and pisteurs.

is on time has not increased compared to 2013, but it is more positive for UTZ

Increased farmer and cooperative professionalism

farmers in 2017.

A measure of farmer professionalism is that farmers know and implement,
adopt or apply good agricultural, environmental, social and business practices,
inputs, tools and labour to manage their farms as a (professional,
entrepreneurial) business and conduct monitoring of improvements in farmer
practices. This definition is based on the assumption that professionalisation
leads to improved livelihoods through the route of a combination of higher
productivity and quality, crop diversification and improved market access, withboth technical and life skills enhancing the increased adoption of new
knowledge and eventually, long-term behavioural change, making them more
likely to perform better as professional farmers thus turning low-yield andincome farms into profitable ventures. Professionalisation refers to bothagronomic as well as leadership, social, financial and entrepreneurial skills.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 55

Table 7.10

UTZ cooperatives becoming more professional

Farmers' access to and satisfaction with services provided by

The organisation of cooperatives was seen as becoming more professional by

their cooperative
Type ofAccess & use

Access & use

service#services 2017services 2013

UTZ

Non-

UTZ

UTZ

Non-

Satisfaction 2017

7 UTZ cooperatives of the 14 cooperative managers asked, aiding them toSatisfaction

provide services, the premium, access to credit, development projects, cocoa

2013
UTZ

UTZ

Non-

UTZ

UTZ

NonUTZ

quality and access to different types of services and buyers. A cooperative
manager also mentioned that a sign of professionalisation was increased
bargaining power and that 'the exporters listen to us more'.

Access to training

86%

74%

11%

25%

0.83

0.54

-15

1.00

Information on

53%

26%

45%

75%

0.77

-0.20

35

1.00

29%

19%

-49%

-50%

0.56

-1.00

1.8

-2

cooperatives were perceived as well run. The provision of services such as

***

*

*

**

input programmes and training were seen as the major incentives to become

0.56

0.60*

0.82

0.60

certified and remain cooperative members. Non-UTZ cooperatives were seen

input prices
Marketinformation
Share information

32%

from internal

38%

55%

88%

***

as less well run. Eight cooperative managers were satisfied with quality ofinspections
Share information

48%

from external

38%

49%

88%

0.60

0.33

0.67

0.33

***
62%**

38%

43%

services they provide to farmers and 10 (all UTZ) managers indicated that
their members are satisfied with their services, stating indicators such as
farmer loyalty, increases in membership, that the premium was paid (on time),

inspections
Information about

In the focus group discussions similar results were reported: the majority ofservices up-taken, and collaborating with additional partners to provide

42%

38%

0.78

0.40

0.50**

-0.33

11%

83%

100%

0.85

0.50

0.23

1.00

51%

26%

60%

100%

0.84

0.75

0.26

1.00

74%

47%

37%

75%

0.83

0.13

0.29

1.00

implementing a broad set of best practices (maintenance and pruning of theAccess to credits

53%

37%

71%

75%

0.73

0.20

0.30

1.00

mineral fertilisers sometimes enhanced by timely application of organic

Insurance

10%

0%

93%

75%

0.76

.

0.19

1.00

manure, insecticide and fungicide treatment (EMC 2016).

13%

11%

88%

75%

0.65

1.00

0.51

1.00

UTZ cooperatives facilitate cocoa sales

ANADER services
Access to***

fertilisers
Access tonurseries / pod
Access topesticides

services.
Benchmarking professionalism
In a study of 1,530 cocoa farmers across Côte d’Ivoire farming over 2 ha ofcocoa in 2016, 5% were classed as 'professional farmers': those who arefarms, alternation of manual and chemical weeding, regular application ofsystems
Assistance
relations withShown in Table 7.11, in 2017 90% of UTZ farmers stated that theirservice providers
Commercial

30%

42%

81%

100%

0.39

0.25

0.51

0.75

68%

80%

31%

50%

0.63

0.27

0.34

0.50

32%

67%

0.89

0.92

0.39

1.00

activities
Payment on timeby buyerGet a good price

***
77%

68%

# Reported only for farmers reporting to have received services, Satisfaction measured on a scale from -2 (veryunsatisfied) to 2 (very satisfied). As the number of observations are low when the scores are not statisticallysignificant, these should be interpreted with care.

56 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

cooperative facilitates selling their cocoa, compared to 75% of non-UTZ
farmers, with no statistically significant change compared to 2013. However,UTZ farmers satisfaction with this service increased in 2017 and is higher than
non-UTZ.
Eleven per cent of UTZ farmers received assistance selling to pisteurs in 2017, amajor decrease compared to 2013 and no non-UTZ farmers received assistancein 2017. However, the satisfaction score for UTZ farmers in 2017 is 0.66, which
implies farmers are mildly satisfied and appear more so than in 2013.

Table 7.11

5 to 25). This suggests that market rewards have a long time delay as

Farmers' perceptions and satisfaction of cooperative services

investments in cocoa production may have occurred years previously.

Type of% of farmers inChange %Satisfaction

Satisfaction

service2017

2017-2013

score 2017*score change

Cooperatives formed as a vehicle to certification

2017-2013
UTZ

Non-

UTZ

UTZ
Cooperatives

90

75

sell members'

**

***

11

0

Non-

UTZ

UTZ
50

76

Non-

UTZ

UTZ

NonUTZ

selling toprogramme activities since 2008. The formation and support of cooperatives

0.86

0.5

0.82

-2

has been one of the major activities accompanying certification by five of the

**

***

***

*

companies participating in the UTZ programme. Farmers indicate high levels of

0.66

n.a.

0.14

n.a.

satisfaction with the types and level of services provided by their cooperative.

cocoa
Assistance

The majority of cooperatives (75%) have been formed as part of the

-82

-100
***

pisteurs

They also point out that their cooperatives need to be more transparent andaccountable, particularly in providing information on prices and benefits, on
how premiums are used by the cooperative and the need to train managers.

Due to few observations scores on satisfaction levels should be interpreted with care.

Improvements in information for farmer's decision making
One of the indicators of professionalism is how farmers perceive thetransparency of the Internal Management System, information on audits andinformation about services provided by their coop. For the first two services,
38% of farmers said their cooperative provides this service –with no difference
between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. Sixty-two per cent of UTZ farmers
received information from ANADER about cocoa farming versus 38% of nonUTZ farmers, with no significant changes compared to 2013.
Since few farmers reported their satisfaction level, the scores are notsignificant in a statistical test and should be interpreted with care. One
exception is that UTZ farmers are significantly more satisfied about the
information on ANADER services in 2017 than in 2013.
Mixed picture of market incentives for sustainable cocoa
Cooperative managers presented both positive and negative responses
regarding the rewards for producing sustainable (certified) cocoa. Three of the
14 interviewed had linked up with more buyers since 2016 and 50% have had
long-term buying commitments since 2016. Six indicated that the premium
doesn't cover certification costs and 7 that the buying price had not changed
due to certification. Ten managers indicated that cooperatives are not in astrong bargaining position and cannot influence the premium value, which isset by the 'company or UTZ'. Producing cocoa takes time: farmers reported
that it takes average 20 years for cocoa to be profitable (with a wide range of

Cooperative capacity building has been one of the main activities conducted bycompanies in conjunction with the UTZ certification programme, with 80% ofgroups sampled having received support to professionalise. This support
included mainly training but also financial support to become legalised,provision of transport, equipment, and payment of the salaries of support staff.
Well-functioning UTZ cooperatives
The cooperatives in the UTZ certification programme appear to function
relatively well, as between 59 and 74% of farmers feel represented by theirofficials. Farmers experienced that complaints lead to action and note that
officials are replaced when they do not function properly. Even though UTZ
farmers are relatively satisfied with the functioning of their cooperative, about
two-thirds made suggestions for improvements. Similar observations weremade in the focus groups and other stakeholder interviews: 33% mentionedthat the need to improve transparency of information on prices and benefits;
20% indicated the need for (more) information on how the proportion of thepremium retained by the group is used, that accountability should be improved
and that managers should be trained.
Cooperatives generally provide packages of four services to members
Cooperatives reported providing between one to six services, with on average
four, shown in Figure 7.7. Two cooperatives provided services since 2010,
most since 2014. In eight of the 12 focus groups, an increase in services
provided was mentioned by the UTZ certified cooperatives. Ten of the

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 57

12 stated that services are a major motivation for farmers to become and stay

Knowledge of use of personal protective equipment declines

certified.

There appears to be a discrepancy between knowing the reasons for using
protective equipment, and using them, as farmers with low knowledge doreport using protective clothing. Farmers seem to know significantly less about

Number of cooperatives

12

the reasons for using protective equipment than in 2013. Farmers were asked

10

to name up to four advantages of using protective equipment. These answers

8

were converted into a score between 0 and 1. Both UTZ and non-UTZ farmers

6

know less about the advantages of protective clothing than in 2013, a
significant decline. UTZ farmers outperform non-UTZ farmers in terms of4knowledge with strong significance: their knowledge is very low at 0.057

2compared to 0.161 in 2013. This finding suggests that UTZ certification initially0helped to increase the knowledge of farmers in 2013 but that this effect has
not been sustained over time. This finding is in line with a recent review of the
adoption of farming practices (Petrokofsky and Jennings 2018).
Use of personal protective equipment improves
UTZ farmers reported better implementation of GAPs on protective clothing
than non-UTZ farmers, with no differences between UTZ farmers related to

Figure 7.7Services provided by cooperatives to members in 2017

Source: Cooperative manager questionnaires (n=14)

service intensity. UTZ farmers scored 0.117 points (on 0-1 scale). However,there is room for improvement as farmers do not use all protective items.
Personal protective equipment use was assessed for seven items, assigned ascore of minimum 0 and maximum 1. Figure 7.8 shows the average scores of
UTZ and non-UTZ farmers.

Better life
7.6 Healthy and safe living and working conditions
Improvements in access to social services
Four of the 14 UTZ cooperative managers and eight of the 14 focus groups
reported improved access to social and community services - such as schools,
health, school kits - which were provided by cooperatives and/or partners.
UTZ farmers' knowledge on GAPs on protective clothing is better than
non-UTZ farmers but did not improve over time
UTZ farmers have higher knowledge about protective equipment than non-UTZ
farmers. There were no differences among UTZ farmers when the relationshipwith service intensity was analysed.

58 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

In 2017 UTZ farmers use protective equipment significantly more than nonUTZ farmers, after correcting for household characteristics, although theaverage score of 0.133 (strongly significant) is low compared to the desired
outcome (i.e. using all 7 items). The difference over time (2017-2013) is alsosignificant at 0.117 for UTZ farmers. The regression analysis leads to theconclusion that UTZ farmers are implementing the use of protective equipment
better than non-UTZ farmers.

being or interfere with their schooling. In addition, children should not conducthazardous or unhealthy work (e.g. at night, or with dangerous substances or

0.9
0.8

equipment) and should always be accompanied by an adult relative. Figure 7.9

0.7

shows that the proportion of UTZ farmers reporting using child labour has

0.6

decreased from 2013 to 2017 but that 16% of UTZ farmers report that their

0.5

children conduct activities which are prohibited by the Code of Conduct. This

0.4

indicates that compliance with the UTZ Code of Conduct increased for UTZ

0.3

farmers from 75% to 84% and non-UTZ farmers from 82% to 86% between

0.2

2013 and 2017.

0.1
0.0

2013

2017
Non-UTZ

Figure 7.8

Difference

UTZ

Use of personal protective equipment

Impact of community development/social projects
In the focus group discussions, participants indicated that certification had
helped improve working conditions for labourers and for sharecroppers (abusan
and abunun, see glossary in Appendix 1). Although wages had increased, thiswas not seen as related to certification. Five cooperative managers alsoChild labour reported (% of farmers)

Mean score of using protetciveequipment

1.0

30
25
25
20
15

18

16

14

10
5
0

reported improved working conditions attributed to certification, such as theuse of spraying gangs for the application of farm chemicals, GAP training and

2013

2017
Non-UTZ

the presence of first aid kits. Eleven managers of the 14 UTZ cooperatives
interviewed noted that they had invested in community projects, such as

Figure 7.9

schools, health centres, community halls and markets. Investments byactivities

UTZ

Percentage of cocoa farms where children conduct hazardous

companies were also evidenced in interviews with companies, at levels slightly
higher than in 2013.

7.7 Child labour and rights

Table 7.12 shows the number of days spent by children on cocoa farming
activities, as reported by all farmers. Notable is that for most activities except
pod breaking, harvesting and drying, only a very small number of respondents
reported that these activities were conducted by children. The hazardous or

Decreased but continuing practice of children conducting hazardous

unhealthy activities where a larger number of children, aged between 15 andwork by UTZ and non-UTZ farmers since 201318, work a considerable number of days are the application of fertilisers,

According to the UTZ Code of Conduct, children and minors (below 18) are

herbicides and pesticides and pod breaking.

only allowed to conduct light work on family farms for a limited number ofhours as long as the work does not jeopardise their physical and mental well-

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 59

Table 7.12

Activities conducted by children on cocoa farms 2017

Number of days in 2016/2017 cocoa season worked by childrenChildren <15 years of age

Children (15-18 years)

UTZ

Non-UTZ

UTZ

Non-UTZ

Number of

Days

Days worked

Number of

Days

Days

Number of

Days

Days worked

Number of

Days

Days worked

farmerworked byby children

farmerworked byworked byfarmerworked byby children

farmerworked byby children

respondents

childrenper HA

respondents

children <children HA

respondents

childrenper harespondents

childrenper haLand/soil preparation

1

90

10

0

0

weeding

2

81

64.8

0

0

Pruning#

1

12

1.2

9

0

0

Fertiliser application#

1

0

0

1

21

42

14

31.7

11

6

27.7

10.5

18

3

14

3.7

0

0

0

0

8

7.4

2.6

4

8.5

3.6

Insecticide use#

1

9

0.9

0

0

3

3

2.0

1

3

0.9

Herbicide use#

1

9

0.9

0

0

14

5.1

1.4

2

2.5

0.8

Harvest

2

71.5

28.3

0

0

23

27.2

12.0

7

33.1

13.3

Pod breaking#

2

22.5

11.7

0

0

45

21.4

8.7

11

19.5

10

Fermentation

1

20

2

0

0

9

27.7

12.6

4

32.2

12.2

Drying

3

34.3

28.9

0

0

21

40.5

15.7

5

38.2

20.5

Sorting

2

30.5

18.5

0

0

5

17

4.8

2

11

15.1

Transport to cooperative

0

0

0

3

6

1

4

4.0

3

8.7

6

Transport farm to village

2

22.5

11.7

0

0

9

13.4

6.1

5

7.2

4.3

#Cocoa farm activities prohibited by the UTZ Code of Conduct for children under 18

60 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

1

UTZ farmers have better knowledge on child labour rights, but overall

UTZ farmers score the same as non-UTZ farmers on their knowledge of whatknowledge on rights is low

children can and cannot do on the farm in 2017. In 2013 there was a

Farmers were asked whether they knew the minimum age children are allowed

statistically significant difference with UTZ farmers having higher knowledge

to work on the farm. We calculated the knowledge score based on the activities

levels than non-UTZ farmers. There is no difference in knowledge levels of

which children can and cannot do on the farm according to the UTZ Code offarmers receiving more intense services and no difference for farmers receiving

Conduct. This knowledge score on child labour activities is scaled from 0-1, 1

different levels of agro training and fertilisers or pesticides.

being the highest attainable score (Figure 7.10).
Eleven of the focus group discussions and 5 of the 14 cooperative managers
Thirty-five per cent of UTZ farmers know the minimum age for children to work

reported improved knowledge about child labour rights and schooling children.

on the farm, compared to 18% of non-UTZ farmers. On average 32% knew thecorrect minimum age. Knowing the minimum age is weakly correlated withChild labour awareness campaigns

being an UTZ certified farmer. In 2013 UTZ farmers had a higher level of

Increased general knowledge and awareness of child labour rights, particularly

knowledge than non-UTZ farmers on the activities which children are notfor non-UTZ farmers, is attributed to wide scale campaigns by the government,

allowed to do on the cocoa farm, this difference diminished in 2017.

but also ANADER training and NGOs, raising awareness about child labour on

Considering the difference over time compared to non-UTZ, UTZ farmers'

cocoa farms (see the Context section in chapter 2 for more information).

knowledge statistically significantly decreased by 0.225.
Increased contact with local community representatives for labour

Knowledge score child labour age

rights1.0

In 2017 38% of UTZ farmers and 9% of non-UTZ farmers indicated an

0.8

was an increase of 5% for non-UTZ, and 11% for UTZ farmers.

inspection regarding (child) labour had taken place. Compared to 2013, there

0.6
0.4

Fewer UTZ farmers are satisfied about the status of children's

0.5
0.3

0.4

0.4

In 2013 73% of UTZ farmers were satisfied or very satisfied about
improvements in their children's education, in 2017 this decreased to 57%. In

0.2
0.0

education than in 2013

contrast, in 2013 28% non-UTZ farmers were satisfied while in 2017 this

0.1

2013

2017

increased to almost 38%. Due to small sample sizes no firm conclusions can be

Difference
-0.1

-0.2
Non-Utz

drawn. Seventy-six per cent of UTZ farmers perceived a positive change and
24% were neutral or reported a negative change. These statistics could not becompared to 2013 as there were too few responses.

Utz

Figure 7.10 Knowledge of child labour rights and activities on cocoa farms

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 61

Better environment

Table 7.13

Mean scores for GAP implementation

GAP

7.8 Soil and water quality
Farmers use more compost, but overall level is low
More farmers use compost than in 2013, with on average 21% of UTZ and
18% of non-UTZ farmers using compost in 2017, compared to 14 and 4%

Score % 2017

WeedingPruning
Handling diseased pods

respectively in 2013. There is no statistically significant difference between
UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. Cooperative managers confirmed the low levels ofHarvesting at the right timecomposting. Although five cooperative managers had received composting

Change % 2017-2013

UTZ

Non-UTZ

UTZ

97

90

0

Non-UTZ
0.4

***

***

***

***

60

45

12

-9

***

***

**

36

13

8

5

***

***

91

95

15

7

*

***

*

*

training and attributed soil improvements to this training, the effort involved incomposting was often not seen as viable and too much work.
Farmers receiving a higher intensity of services score better and have
GAP and community projects contribute to soil and water quality

improved their practices more from 2013 to 2017

Eleven cooperative managers (10 of which were UTZ) and 13 of the focus

The scores for these four GAP were combined into one average score andgroup indicated that water quality had improved since 2013, due to better

analysed for UTZ farmers. Table 7.14 shows that UTZ farmers receiving morewater pumps, in part provided by cooperatives, companies and ANADER. Half

services scored better on the implementation of GAP. While the score for theof the managers and half of the focus groups reported improved soil quality –two lowest service groups is the same in 2013 and 2017, farmers receiving

mainly due to less or better input use and implementation of GAPs. In non-UTZ

more services in 2017 had higher scores compared to 2013.

cooperatives no differences were noted.
UTZ farmers continue to score better on GAP, but there is still room for
improvement
The UTZ Code of Conduct requires GAP regarding weeding, pruning, handlingdiseased pods and harvesting that in turn affect soil and water quality. Farmers
could score a maximum of 1 point, or 100%, for indicating that they applied
the correct practices. Table 7.13 shows that scores on handling diseased pods
and pruning are low, but for weeding and harvesting UTZ farmers score above
90%. The scores are significantly higher among UTZ certified farmers in 2017,with the exception of harvesting, where scores for UTZ and non-UTZ farmers
are similar. Practices regarding pruning and handling diseased pods indicate
there is room for improvement.

62 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Table 7.14
intensity
UTZ farmers
UTZ - No services

Mean scores GAP implementation correlated with service

Score % 2017

Change % 2017-2013

59

3

***
UTZ - 1 service

68

3

**
UTZ - 2-4 services
UTZ - 5 services

71

8

***

**

73

11

***

***

GAP for use of chemical inputs increased over time, but there is still

UTZ farmers plant more shade trees, but about half of the farmers

room for improvement

does not know the appropriate shade tree density

Farmers could score a maximum of 1 point, or 100% regarding their reported

In 2013, 19% of UTZ farmers reported they had planted shade trees in thepractices using chemical inputs (pesticides, fertilisers and herbicides).

previous two years (compared to 0.5% of non-UTZ). In 2017, 27% UTZ and

Table 7.15 shows that regarding timely application of fertiliser and the

2% non-UTZ farmers reported planting shade trees in the previous two years.

frequency of application, UTZ and non-UTZ farmers score the same, with low

In 2017, 18% of all farmers combined (of which 85% UTZ farmers) did notscores of 30% and 49% respectively, and improvements since 2013. Correct

plant shade trees because they have already enough shade trees on the farm.

storage is practiced more by UTZ farmers, although in comparison to 2013 thisscore decreased by 18%. UTZ farmers outperform non-UTZ farmers on input

Meeting the UTZ Code of Conduct requires that farmers maintain at least

storage.

12 shade trees distributed evenly per hectare of their cocoa plot. Shade trees,
especially diverse and indigenous trees, increase vegetation on farms andalong water courses, contributing to the protection of natural habitats andTable 7.15

biodiversity conservation. Farmers were asked a knowledge question on how

Mean scores for GAP chemical inputs implementation

GAP re chemical input

Score % 2017

far apart shade trees should be planted. The best practice is between 2.8 andChange % 2017-2013

UTZ

Non-UTZ

UTZ

Non-UTZ

23

30

14

18

Timely application

***
49

***

Frequency of application

48

18

Chemical storage

49

28

-18

***

***

***

***

28
***
6

4 metres. A large proportion of farmers did not answer or did not know know
(12 or more per hectare 45% in 2013 and 40% in 2017, every 4 metres
respectively 58% and 43%). The data on shade tree spacing is thus unreliable
for statistical analysis because most farmers failed to respond. Shown in
Table7.17, 2% of farmers (all UTZ) in 2013 correctly answered that spacing
should be every 4 metres, which increased to 7% in 2017. More UTZ than nonUTZ farmers correctly answered that there should be 12 or more shade trees
per ha. However, the ratio has not changed since 2013.

Service intensity hardly affects GAP relating to chemical inputs
The scores of these three practices were combined into one mean score and for
UTZ farmers, tested for service intensity, shown in Table 7.16. UTZ farmers in

Table 7.17

Shade tree density

higher service groups have not improved their practice score and also not in

Shade tree density

Year

UTZ

Non-UTZ

Total

comparison to 2013: UTZ farmers scored 0.34 out of 1. This suggests that UTZEvery 2.8-4 metres

2013

2

0

2

2017

6

1

7

2013

23

4

26

2017

22

3

25

farmers who have received more intense levels of services do not practice

12 or more per hectare

GAPs related to inputs any better.
Table 7.16

Mean scores for GAP implementation for inputs and service

intensity packages
UTZ farmers
UTZ - No services

Implementation Score % 2017

Change % 2017-2013

34

-4

***
UTZ - 1 service

40

7

UTZ - 2-4 services

40

2

UTZ - 5 services

41

5

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 63

UTZ farmers maintain a higher and stable good practice regarding
agrochemical use and waste chemical management
The scores on five questions regarding how farmers apply and manage
agrochemicals and chemical waste have been converted into a score between 0
and 1, 1 being the highest and indicating 100% compliance with good practice.
Shown in Figure 7.11, UTZ farmers score higher in both years, although thisdifference has decreased over time as non-UTZ farmers are catching up. UTZ

1.0
Mean implementation scoreagrochemicals

7.9 Waste management and reduction

0.9
0.8

0.7

0.7

0.55

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.1

0.2

0.04

0.1
0.0

farmers score 7 out of 10 on average, on handling agrochemicals and waste

2013

well. In the focus group discussions 12 (11 of which were UTZ) noted improved

2017

Differencen= 78 non-UTZ n=337 UTZ

waste management and attributed this to training from ANADER – both as partof certification and for non-UTZ cooperatives. Nine of the 14 cooperative

Non-UTZ

managers, 8 of which were UTZ, noted that farmers had improved waste
management.

0.72

0.7

UTZ

Figure 7.11 Mean scores GAP implementation of agrochemicals and waste

2017

No agro services 36

Agro training 48

Only inputs 41

Agro training + pesticides 106

Agro training + inputs 106

Figure 7.12

UTZ farmers’ mean scores for implementation of

agrochemicals and waste with agroservice packages

64 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

0.1

Difference

0.02

0.74

0.74

0.73

0.69

0.72

0.72

2013

0.01

significantly compared to 2013.

0.04(see Figure 7.12), and these UTZ farmers also improved their score

0.03

pesticides performed better in 2017 than UTZ farmers with no training at all

0.70

management. However, UTZ farmers receiving agricultural training and

0.70

difference in between their scores on agrochemical use and waste chemical

0.67

For UTZ farmers experiencing high and low service intensity, there is no

Mean scores implementation agrochemicals

best implementation of GAP

0.79

Receiving agro training in combination with pesticides results in the8Conclusions &Recommendations
Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 65

Conclusions & Recommendations
We conclude here on the contribution of UTZ certification and related activities

Harvesting: 91% of UTZ and 95% of non-UTZ farmers harvest at theby companies to the socio-economic development of cocoa famers.

correct time.
Weeding: 97% of UTZ farmers and 90% of non-UTZ farmers use

8.1 To what extent do farmers gain knowledge andimplement GAP, and why (or why not)?

recommended weeding techniques.
Implementation rates generally higher than knowledge
Knowledge and adoption are not always connected. When farmers were

Certified farmers show improved knowledge and implementation rates

questioned about both, implementation rates were often higher thanbetween 2013 and 2017. Non-UTZ farmers are catching up

knowledge rates, such as for the following practices:

Figures 8.1 to 8.4 show that knowledge and implementation rates for UTZ• Child labour and farm activities

farmers have improved since 2013 for harvest practices, personal protective• Protective clothing

equipment, labour rights, child labour, and waste management. Non-UTZ• Harvesting at the right time

farmers scored lower than UTZ farmers both 2013 and in 2017, but have

• Weeding

generally seen bigger improvements (statistically significant) in both their• Pruningknowledge and implementation in this period. This finding suggests that UTZStudies indicate this result is common: farmers can implement practices wellhas had an added value in raising knowledge and practices, but has levelled

even if they can't articulate why. This can be explained by farmers copying

out, and that non-UTZ farmers are catching up to similar levels as UTZpractices that appear productive, or when farmers have different, often

farmers.

indigenous explanations and perceptions of practices and resulting outcomes(Birkhaeuser, Evenson et al. 1991, Ayenor, Röling et al. 2004, Blackie 2006,

But knowledge and implementation rates are still low for both UTZ and

Wartenberg, Blaser et al. 2018).

non-UTZ farmers
However, despite increases over time, knowledge and implementation scores

Knowledge rates are higher than implementation rates for fertiliser

are generally low, averaging under 50%. A knowledge and implementation rateapplication and handling diseased podsof 100% is difficult to obtain with large groups of farmers with different socio-

This finding implies that there are barriers to adoption of these GAPs.

demographic characteristics, challenges and choices. Scores of 80% or higher

Explanations include accessibility, affordability and timely availability ofwere found for 3 of the 22 knowledge and practice measures:

fertiliser, knowledge of correct fertiliser dosage for specific agro-ecologicalChild labour: percentage of farmers whose children do not conductconditions, of the productive efficiency of treating diseases and pests, and thehazardous activities on the cocoa farms (84% for UTZ and 86% non-UTZ

capacity and willingness to invest additional labour and inputs related tofarmers respectively). This means that 16% of UTZ certified farmers still

payback time (Ruf, Tanoh et al. 2016, IDH 2017, Wartenberg, Blaser et al.

do not comply with the UTZ Code of Conduct on this requirement.

2018).

66 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

2013

2017

0.0

2013

UTZ

Figure 8.1

2017
Non-UTZ

Source planting material

Timely fertilizer application

Source planting material

Timely fertilizer application

Frequency fertilizer application

Application of compost

Frequency fertilizer application

Application of compost

Knowledge and implementation of GAPs concerning input use

No significant differences between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers over time for these practices.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

| 67

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

2013

2017

0.0

2013

UTZ

Figure 8.2

2017
Non-UTZ

WeedingPruning

WeedingPruning

Record keeping

Handling of dead pods

Record keeping

Handling of dead pods

Harvesting at the right time

Shade tree density

Harvesting at the right time

Shade tree density

Knowledge and implementation of GAPs on farm management

Significant differences between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers over time for harvesting at the right time (positive), pruning (positive), weeding (negative but weeding
can hardly be improved for UTZ farmers, they scored very high already in 2013), record keeping (negative).

68 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

2014

2017

0.0

2014

UTZ

Figure 8.3

2017
Non-UTZ

Handling surplus chemicals

Handling surplus chemicals

Handling agrochemicals and waste

Handling agrochemicals and waste

Protective clothing

Protective clothing

Storage of agrochemicals

Storage of agrochemicals

Knowledge minimum age

Knowledge minimum age

Knowledge farm activities children

Knowledge farm activities children

Complaince with child labour practices

Complaince with child labour practices

Knowledge and implementation of GAP (relating to child labour, healthy and safe working conditions)

Significant differences between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers over time for knowledge on the minimum age for children to work (positive), storage of agro-chemicals(negative, a reason is that the UTZ farmers already have a high score in 2013 which remains high in 2017) and knowledge of what activities are not allowed to do on
the farm (negative).

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

| 69

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

2013

2017

0.0

2014

UTZ
How cocoa is fermented

How often the cocoa is turned

How the cocoa is dried

Figure 8.4

2017
Non-UTZ

How cocoa is fermented

How often the cocoa is turned

How the cocoa is dried

Knowledge and implementation of environmental and cocoa quality related practices

Significant differences between UTZ and non-UTZ farmers in evolution over time for how often the cocoa is turned (negative), but this is because UTZ farmers
implemented this already quite well in 2013 with some improvement towards 2017. While the non-UTZ farmers improved this practices quite much between 2013
and 2017, having a much lower score in 2013 than the UTZ farmers.

70 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

8.2 To what extent do cocoa farmers implement
these good agricultural practices, and why (orwhy not)?
UTZ Certification + service packages have not resulted in changing
farmer practices to the extent expected
The results suggest that the extent to which certification, training and otherservices have influenced the implementation of GAP, as foreseen in the UTZTheory of Change, has been mixed and limited. To address this, anunderstanding of the multiple barriers to adopt GAP is needed. As farmers
have diverse demographic, economic and farm characteristics, more targeted
and tailored service packages that focus on specific needs and the problematic
GAPs of child labour, input use, shade trees and waste is needed.
The intensity of training and services decreases over time, levellingout knowledge and implementation improvements
UTZ farmers have in general received more intensive service packages since2013 – particularly training, which following the impact logic, leads toimproved knowledge and practices. However, evidence from the farmer
questionnaires, companies and UTZ and the verification meeting all suggestthat farmers who have been certified longer, either received a lower intensityof services in 2016 and 2017 or participate less in training and services. Thisfinding helps to explain the lack of a significant increase (and even decreasefor 4 practices) in GAP knowledge and implementation rates for UTZ farmers
compared to 2013.
Non-UTZ farmers have also benefitted from training and services
between 2013 and 2017
Since 2013 non-UTZ farmers have had increasing access to training andservices (shown in Section 6). These have often been provided by service
providers (notably ANADER) who have replicated training provided as part ofcertification beyond certified farmers. ANADER and other service providers
have also increasingly adopted UTZ-style GAP training content as theirstandard. Child and labour rights is an example of where both certified andnon-certified farmers have been targeted by numerous initiatives across thecocoa zone in Côte d’Ivoire (see Appendix 2) to increase awareness of childand labour rights, monitor the situation and implement actions to address
underlying structural problems.

8.3 Do adopted practices lead to better lives,incomes, crops and environment?
The extent to which good practices embedded in the UTZ Code were adopted
and implemented was foreseen to lead to improved livelihoods, increased
income, improved working conditions, better environmental protection.
Farmers receiving high intensity service packages most impacted
Better crop: Shown in Figure 8.5, UTZ farmers continue to have significantly
higher cocoa productivity than non-UTZ farmers, but this decreased slightly in2017. Farmers attribute changes in production in 2016/2017 mostly toweather. Over time the non-UTZ farmers are catching up with UTZ farmers.
Both groups however produce under the potential yield, on average 480 kg/ha,
indicating there is room for major improvements. That some farmers in thissample have reached productivity rates of up to 1,400 kg/ha indicates thathigher productivity is possible. Farmers receiving more intensive service
packages have higher productivity levels. Input provision combined withtargeted training appear to be the most effective interventions. The dominanceof low-yielding cocoa varieties may be contributing to low yields, and increases
the risk of vulnerability to pests and diseases.
Better income: UTZ farmers had significantly higher net cocoa income perhectare in 2017 than non-UTZ farmers, shown in Figure 8.5. Total cocoa
income per household member/day for 2017 is similar for UTZ and non-UTZ
farmers. But cocoa incomes remain low, at USD 1.25 per day. Increases inincomes in 2016/2017 were due in part of productivity increases for some
farmers, but largely to external factors, such as the price reform in 2013 andfavourable weather for some farmers. UTZ farmers receiving complete
agricultural service packages are more efficient – generating higher grosscocoa income compared to total production costs, implying that complete
agricultural service packages work well. The certification premium is still highly
valued by farmers, despite constituting 4.2% of the buying price on average.
Over time the non-UTZ farmer cocoa incomes have been catching up to thelevel of UTZ farmers. Cocoa continues to be main source of household income,Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 71

the first main crop for 96% and the second most important crop 11% of

and organisational support, although not in same intensity as the UTZ

farmers. Factors positively related to net income per household member

cooperatives. Services are now also being offered to non-UTZ farmers by

include total farm size and share of land devoted to cocoa, whilst household

pisteurs and traitants as an incentive to ensure farmer loyalty. Cooperatives

size is negatively related. This may contribute to the feeling of UTZ cooperative

have been created and certified as a means to access markets, rather than inmanagers that their farmers were becoming more professional.

the cooperative spirit common in the early years of the UTZ and company
programmes. These aspects help explain why farmers are less satisfied with

Better life - working and living conditions: UTZ farmers have seen

their cooperatives. However, farmers are still happy to have received 'new'

improvements, whereas non-UTZ farmers have experienced fewer changes.

services.

Cooperatives have provided services that improve living and working
conditions. Labour rights and children's work continue to be issues of concern,

UTZ Certification and related activities valued by farmers

as although the proportion of UTZ farmers reporting using child labour

Certification has provided a means to rapidly upscale sustainable cocoa

decreased from 2013 to 2017, 16% of UTZ farmers report that their children

production and allow farmers to access to certified markets where they canconduct activities which are prohibited by the Code of Conduct. UTZ farmers

benefit from premium prices, a reward for sustainable good agricultural

are making more investments in hired labour and inputs, although labour costs

production practices. Certification has promoted more professional producer

have increased. Farmers plan to continue cocoa farming but don't want theirassociations, which farmers perceive as providing a wider range of benefits,children to be cocoa farmers. In general farmers' satisfaction with their lives

although as in 2013, services can still be improved. Farmers perceive that thedecreased. This could be due to multiple factors, ranging from the price reform

UTZ programme leads to increased productivity and income.

and weather affecting productivity, and incomes – as well as changing
expectations.

Unanticipated outcomes at producer and company level
The adoption of UTZ certification since 2008 has stimulated changes at farmer

Better environment: UTZ farmers perceive improvements in water and soil,

group level, including:but non-UTZ farmers note few changes. There is a continued very low rate of• Professionalisation of farmers and cooperatives

adoption for composting, despite knowledge. Shade trees appear to have been

• Increased intensity and broader service package alongside certification

extensively planted in the period up to 2013, but planting shade trees has• Increased farmer satisfaction with cooperatives

decreased, may be due to having sufficient on-farm tree cover.

UTZ certification has created ripples at company and service provider level,
creating a ‘cooperative + service package' model that is now common in both

Productivity and income increases are levelling off

the corporate cocoa sector as well as in government extension service

UTZ farmers have reached a ceiling in terms of production and income, aided

provision. As illustrated in Figure 8.1, certification can be seen as a vehicle toby a package of training and high intensity services. The results suggest that it

which services have been attached, enabling an increased intensity andis difficult to go beyond this ceiling to achieve significant income improvements

broader package of services to be provided.

with the current approach. Also that scaling up to move a larger group of
farmers towards a higher income and profitability has not been possible,
although non-UTZ farmers are catching up to this celling. Their increases in
productivity are explained by the fact they have also received similar services

72 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Difference 2013-2017

Difference 2013-2017

Significant difference

Influence of service

Influence of service

UTZ

non-UTZ

in evolution

intensity?

packages?

2013: 527 kg/ha

2013: 259 kg/ha

The more services the

Only package

2017: 497 kg/ha

2017: 402 kg/ha

higher the yield‘Agro training +UTZ vs non-UTZ
Yield in kg/ha

2013-2017

pesticides + fertilizer’
Diff. -30 kg/ha

Diff. +143 kg/ha

-6%

+55%

Net income per2017: 494,000 CFA

2017: 396,000 CFA

hectare2013: *

2013: *

2017

(UTZ) The more services,(UTZ) full package

higher income‘Agro training +pesticides + fertiliser

Net income per2017: 1.39 $2017: 1.63 $household member

2013: *

2013: *

2017

Could not analyse (labour costs 2017 higher compared to 2013 without a reasonable explanation
LegendPositive significant change
No significant change
Negative significant change
Figure 8.5

Impacts on better crops and incomes

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 73

Positive spill-over effects

also higher for UTZ farmers who received a fuller agricultural service package

The growth of cocoa certification across Côte d’Ivoire since 2013 has meant(agricultural training + one input, agricultural training + pesticides andthat there is more chance that non-UTZ cooperative members and plausibly

fertiliser). UTZ certified farmers receive more intensive service packages: thealso farmers who are not members of cooperatives come into contact withmajority received more than two services. However, 47% of UTZ farmers

certified farmers. This was evidenced by the UTZ data on cooperative growthexperienced a decreased intensity of services in 2017 compared to 2013, which

and locations, the qualitative data and verification meeting. This means that

has implications for their productivity and income in the short term future,

the chance of spill over of knowledge and practices from certified to non-which could be expected to remain static.

certified farmers has increased. Farmer data also indicates that both UTZ and
non-certified farmers share lessons from training they have received with other

Contribution of UTZ

farmers, though less UTZ farmers did so less than in 2013 (60% compared to

The wide variety of support and services provided by UTZ and partners did not

83% in 2017). When farmers share knowledge, they notice that others

permit us to estimate total programme effects. The main reason is that due tochanged their practices. Therefore although not anticipated in UTZ theory of

the relatively small variation in services provided and farmer characteristics,

change, spill-over effects contribute to the impact of certification.

we cannot correlate services with farmer characteristics.
Confirming the theory of change: pathways to impacts as foreseen
The Theory of Change (ToC), described in Chapter 3, foresaw that UTZ andtheir partners interventions would have specific, intended impacts. The impact
logic (shown in Figure 3.3) assumes that training and adherence to the code of
conduct will lead to better crops, income and environment outcomes andknowledge is turned into practice.
Figure 8.2 shows that in general the pathways to impact are confirmed.
Regression analyses of all farmers (UTZ and non-UTZ) were conducted to test
if the assumptions of relationships are statistically significant. Farmer's
knowledge of GAPs is positively correlated with the overall implementation of
GAPs, and positively correlated with higher productivity per hectare and anincrease in gross income per hectare. Knowledge is partly associated with

Figure 8.6

Certification as a vehicle for services

Service packages
Service packages appear to work, with specific packages (the 'agriculturaltraining + one input' package, and the 'agricultural training +pesticides andfertiliser' package) being significantly associated with increased productivity
and net cocoa income improvement for UTZ farmers. UTZ farmers with acomplete agricultural service package earn a significantly higher net cocoa
income and a higher net cocoa income per hectare in 2017. Cocoa income is

74 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

implementation: good agricultural and environmental practices are positively
related to knowledge but social practices are not correlated.

who have been certified for a shorter periods (five to 7 years), and farmers
with a higher share of cocoa in their total income have been more positively
affected.
• Although certification falls short of general expectations, it has generally
contributed to improving farmer's knowledge and implementation of good
farmer agricultural, social and environmental practices over time.
• However, despite certification and having received associated services andinputs for between 3 and 8 years, farmers have not achieved high levels ofknowledge on key aspects of the UTZ Code of Conduct.
• High knowledge is associated with high adoption of practices. A knowledge
and implementation rate of 100% is difficult to obtain with large groups of
farmers with different sociodemographic characteristics, challenges andchoices. Scores of 80% or higher were found for 3 of the 22 knowledge andpractice measures on child labour, harvesting and weeding. Implementing
such practices is challenged by a vicious circle of poverty as farmers
compromise on activities which cost time and cash to implement.
• Non-UTZ certified farmers have been catching up in terms of productivity
and incomes, knowledge and implementation of good practices. This reflects
Figure 8.7

Confirming UTZ impact pathways

Key: + significant positive correlation between indicators, 0 no significant correlation between
indicators.

the certification model (grouping farmers, training on GAP and providing
access to services and inputs) has also increasingly been adopted outside of
the realm of certification - but not as intensively as the model provided by
UTZ certification and associated services and inputs by companies.
• Whilst the premium for certification and services associated with certification

8.4 Conclusions
Although the pathways to impact and change are largely confirmed, there
remains a gap between what certification is expected to deliver and what it

and stronger cooperatives are valued by farmers, it does not provide
sufficient incentive to invest in all the sustainable practices seen as desirable
for sustainable cocoa production by UTZ. The rate of the premium has notincreased over time and continues to form a small proportion of the selling
price, providing only a minor economic incentive.

actually has delivered. Impacts have not been felt by all UTZ farmers, and thelevel of impacts has generally been marginal for crop productivity, incomes andthe environment. Lessons learnt from this study are that:• UTZ certification alone has not led to impacts such as improving farmers'
livelihoods beyond poverty levels and assuring social risk-free cocoa.
• However, certification plus training and a high intensity package of services
has led to higher levels of productivity and incomes.
• Most farm and farmer characteristics do not appear to influence theoutcomes of certification plus training and services received, however

8.5 Recommendations
The topics which matter
As farmers have diverse demographic, economic and farm characteristics,
more targeted and tailored mixes of service packages that focus on farmer's
specific needs and the most problematic practices relating to child labour, input
use, shade trees and waste management are needed.

farmers who are younger, in excellent or good agro-ecological zones andWageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 75

Barriers and enablers to improve sustainable cocoa production andComplementary interventions based on evidence of what works

livelihoods

This report provides evidence of the growing acknowledgement in the cocoa

The incentives currently created by certification and associated services havesector that certification needs to work alongside complementary interventions

been insufficient to motivate all value chain actors – farmers, companies, local

to deliver impact. The data collection efforts for this study highlighted that

authorities and consumers – to make the investments needed to close

most companies are collecting similar types of data on farmers characteristics,

sustainability gaps. The existing tools (standard, assurance and training) areproductivity and their interventions and impacts. Whilst companies are

insufficient and/or inadequately implemented and unable to diagnose andimplementing similar types of interventions, these are in different

address the existing sustainability gaps and the underlying root causes.

combinations, focuses, level of detail, delivery modes, targeting and frequency,

The persistent problems of poverty, human rights and environmental

the details of which could not be captured in this study. Yet information of adegradation in cocoa production, extend beyond cocoa farming. Enablers

pre-competitive nature on how effective these interventions and services areinclude:remains largely unshared on a national or value chain level. Thus valuable• Finding solutions to avoid the ongoing tensions of (over)supply and low

lessons of what does and particularly what doesn't work, and the near real-

prices which harm farmer incomes and not dis-incentivising farmers to taketime outcome metrics that are increasingly collected, are generally not shared.

actions to increase productivity, such has replanting with improved genetic

As a result, complementary interventions based on new evidence of whatstock, and improving soil fertility.

works trickle down slowly or only in an ad-hoc fashion into the cocoa sector.

• Supporting farmers to be able to select from a mix of mechanisms to help
them to foresee, take action and mitigate the risks of global market price

Facilitating the meeting of bottom up farmer and top-down industry

shocks and variability. This can include: support for diversification and/or

and government visions

professionalisation taking into account individual farmer's farm andWhilst the increasing number of platforms and joint initiatives via thedemographic characteristics; accessing and developing value chains forgovernment, the Interprofession and organisations such as the WCF mean thatcocoa beans not linked to global commodity prices such as fine flavour or

a common sustainability vision and indicators for the sector in Côte d’Ivoire isbean to bar markets.

being developed, this is largely top-down. Farmer organisations are not• Enabling access to credit so that farmers can invest in farm
professionalisation and diversification to weather future price fluctuations.

empowered sufficiently to have a unified, national farmer voice that informs
advocates and from farmer level upwards about the interventions and services
most needed, that work effectively.

Which service packages and how many?
Given that higher cocoa productivity and net cocoa incomes is associated with

A transformational approach neededa higher number of services and the combination of certification withThis results of this study suggest that systemic change and transformation inagricultural training, pesticides and fertilisers – this package of service isthe sector is urgently needed, and that UTZ's sectoral

recommended. The frequency and topics need to be tailored to the length ofstrategy is timely. Sector transformation implies that structural unsustainable

time a farmer has been certified- providing periodic refresher training whenpractices (environmental, social and economic) are dramatically reduced andknowledge or adoption levels indicate this is needed, and updating curricula

where they persist, adequate mechanisms are in place to address them.

based on new evidence and insights into GAPs. Services which also fulfil

Sectoral transformation requires structural interventions that go beyond thefarmers most stated need for access to credit, reduce labour costs and which

scope of the certification offering and beyond the unit of the farm. Achieving

deliver easy gains in soil quality are also important.

this is a major challenge, requiring new ways of thinking and working, withmultiple actors collaborating across and beyond the value chain, with each
implementing distinct but mutually reinforcing activities, guided by a common
vision that can be measured with commonly agreed metrics of success. Based76 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

on this study, the outcomes and impacts of what certification has and canrealistically achieve in the future are clearer. Other interventions are needed toachieve the desired, positive impact. Given the traction certification has in Côte
d’Ivoire, UTZ could act as a catalyst for sector transformation by working toalign stakeholders and take more evidence-based decisions. Co-creating
sustainability with all stakeholders – notably the farmers and the government will mean agreeing on real and appropriate incentives with long-term, multistakeholder programmes to address these systemic issues.
A transformational approach means shifting from certifying compliance to a
standard towards implementing and measuring improvements against priority
sustainability objectives based on local context and farmers' needs being
integrated into international commodity chains. The current farm level focus
also needs to change to a landscape level to capture off farm impacts- notably
environmental impacts such as deforestation. A new focus on supporting legal,
jurisdictional framework and its enforcement to create a strong fundament forfarmers rights, can provide a stronger basis for voluntary commitments madethrough certification.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 77

References and websites
Angelsen, A., H.O. Larsen and J. Lund (2011). Measuring livelihoods andenvironmental dependence: Methods for research and fieldwork,
Routledge.
Ayenor, G., N. Röling, B. Padi, A. Van Huis, D. Obeng-Ofori and P. Atengdem

Conseil Café- Cacao (2016). Evolution de la filiere Café- Cacao, de 2012-2016.
Journees Nationales du Cacao et du Choclate. Abidjan.
COSA (2012). Côte d'Ivoire Cocoa: COSA Survey of Rainforest Alliance
Certified Farms - 2009-2011. New York, Rainforest Alliance, COSA.

(2004). 'Converging farmers' and scientists' perspectives on researchable

Crook, R.C. (2001). 'Cocoa booms, the legalisation of land relations and politics

constraints on organic cocoa production in Ghana: results of a diagnostic

in Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana: Explaining Farmers' Responses.' IDS Bulletinstudy.' NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 52(3-4): 261-284.
Baah, F. (2010). Cocoa yields on research farms and how to close the gap with
farmers. IITA, Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (COCOBOD).
Balineau, G., S. Bernath and V. Pahuatini (2016). Cocoa farmers' agricultural

32(1): 35-45.
Daniel, R., D. Guest, J. Konam, Y. Namaliu and C. Lemerle. (2011). 'Enhancing
Papua New Guinea smallholder cocoa production through greater adoptionof disease control practices.' frompractices and livelihoods in Côte d'Ivoire. Notes Techniques/ Technical

http://aciar.gov.au/files/node/13339/enhancing_papua_new_guinea_small

Reports. Paris, AFD. No 24.

holder_cocoaproduc_99483.pdf.

Binam, J. N., J. Gockowski and G. B. Nkamleu (2008). Technical efficiency andEberhard Krain, E.M., E. Konan and E. Servat E. (2011). Trade and Pro-Poor

productivity potential of cocoa farmers in West African countries. The

Growth: Introducing Rainforest Alliance Certification to Cocoa Production in

Developing Economies 46(3): 242-263.

Côte d'Ivoire. Project, AfT category 2 (CRS code 25010). Eschborn,

Birkhaeuser, D., R.E. Evenson and G. Feder (1991). 'The economic impact ofagricultural extension: A review.' Economic development and culturalchange 39(3): 607-650.
Bitty, E.A., S.G. Bi, J.-C. K. Bene, P.K. Kouassi and W.S. McGraw (2015).
'Cocoa Farming and Primate Extirpation Inside Cote D'ivoire's Protected
Areas.' Tropical Conservation Science 8(1): 95-113.
Blackie, M. J. (2006). Indigenous knowledge, African voices and transformationof Southern African agriculture, University of Zimbabwe (UZ) Publications.
Cocoa Abrabopa. (2018). Profesisonalisation of Farmers. Retrieved 3 March
2018, 2018, from http://cocoabrabopa.org/cabrabopa/index.php/16about-us?start=4
http://cocoabrabopa.org/cabrabopa/index.php/ourservices/professionalisation-of-farmers.
Comoé, H. and M. Siegrist (2015). 'Relevant drivers of farmers' decision

Germany, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)GmbH.
Elbers, C., J.W. Gunning and K. De Hoop (2009). Assessing sector-wide
programs with statistical impact evaluation: A methodological proposal.'
World Development 37.2: 513-520.
Elbers, C. and J.W. Gunning (2014). Evaluation of development programs:
randomized controlled trials or regressions?. The World Bank Economic
Review 28.3: 432-445.
EMC (2016). Ce Qu'il Faudrait Anticiper. Abidjan
Fan, S., J. Brzeska, M. Keyzer and A. Halsema (2013). From subsistence toprofit: Transforming smallholder farms, Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Fobelets, V. and A. d. G. Ruiz (2016). The True Price of Cocoa from Côte
d’Ivoire. Amsterdam, IDH & True Price.
Fountain, A. C. and F. Hutz-Adams (2015). Cococa Barometer 2014. The

behavior regarding their adaptation to climate change: a case study of two

Netherlands, VOICE Network, FNV Mondiaal, Südwind, HIVOS, Solidaridad:

regions in Côte d'Ivoire.' Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global

48.

change 20(2): 179-199.

78 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Fountain, A. C. and F. Hutz-Adams (2018). Cococa Barometer 2018. The

Ingram, V., Y. Waarts and F. van Rijn (2018). Cocoa sustainability initiatives:

Netherlands, VOICE Network, FNV Mondiaal, Südwind, HIVOS, Solidaridad:

The impacts of cocoa sustainability initiatives in West Africa Achieving

78.

sustainable cultivation of cocoa. P. Umaharan. Sawston, UK, Burliegh

GEFAK (2015). Study on the state of farmer cooperatives in the cocoa sector of
Côte d'Ivoire. As part of the future collaboration between cocoa farmers
and the GISCO-planned project PRO PLANTEURS in Côte d'Ivoire For
GISCO Secretariat at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Marburg, Germany, GEFAK: 90.
Gockowski, J. and D. Sonwa (2007). 'Biodiversity conservation and smallholder
cocoa production systems in West Africa with particular reference to theWestern Region of Ghana and the Bas Sassandra region of Côte d'Ivoire.'
Draft paper, Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. http://www.
odi. org. uk/events/2007/11/19/434-paper-discussion-biodiversity-

Dodds Scientitifc Publishing. 2, Part 5 Sustainability.
International Cocoa Inititative (2017). Education And Child Labour Risk For
Older Children In Côte D'ivoire. Switzerland.
Kolavalli, S., M. Vigneri, H. Maamah and J. Poku (2015). 'Price setting in thecocoa sector.'
KPMG (2012). Cocoa Certification A study on the costs, advantages anddisadvantages of cocoa certification The Netherlands, The International
Cocoa Organization (ICCO): 99.
Kroeger, A., H. Bakhtary, F. Haupt and C. Streck (2017). 'Eliminating
Deforestation from the Cocoa Supply Chain.'conservationsmallholder-cocoa-production-systems-west-africa. pdf.

Läderach, P. (2011). Predicting the Impact of Climate Change on the Cocoa-

Hamelink, J. (2015). Applying the Living Income Concept in Cocoa in West

Growing Regions in Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire Final report. Decision and

Africa: Fairtrade International Household income of Fairtrade cocoa

Policy Analyses (DAPA) program at the International Center for Tropicalfarmers in Cote d'Ivoire. SFL Webinar June 2015.

Agriculture (CIAT). Managua, Nicaragua, Climate Change Agriculture andHatløy, A., T.A. Kebede, P.J. Adeba and C. Elvis (2012). Towards Côte d'Ivoire
Sustainable Cocoa Initiative (CISCI) Baseline Study Report, FAFO.
Higonnet E., M. Bellantonio and G. Hurowitz (2017). Chocolates's Dark Secret.
How the Cocoa Industry Destroys National Parks. Mighty Earth.
Hütz-Adams, F., C. Huber, I. Knoke, P. Morazán and M. Mürlebach (2016).

Food Security, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture CIAT: 35.
Laven, A., R. Bymolt, M. Tyzler, C. Steijn, A. Friedel-Huetz and F. Ruf (2017).
Demystifying the cocoa sector. Report for UTZ and Lindt Cocoa Foundation.
KIT. Amsterdam.
Lindt Cocoa Foundation. (2017). Rural Service Delivery Models for theStrengthening the competitiveness of cocoa production and improving theProfessionalization of Cocoa Farmers Ghana. Project Factsheer Retrieved

income of cocoa producers in West and Central Africa. Sudwind eV: Bonn:

3 March 2018, 2018, from

156.
ICCO (2017). Cocoa bean production, grindings and stocks. Cocoa year
2016/2017.ICCO Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics, Vol. No. 4, XI.I
III(2).
IDH (2017). Cocoa Fertilizer Initiative 2012 - 2017. Utrecht, IDH.
Ingram, V., Y. Waarts, L. Ge, S. van Vugt, L. Wegner, L. Puister-Jansen, F. Rufand R. Tanoh (2014). The IDH Cocoa Productivity and Quality Programme(CPQP) in Côte d'Ivoire. Impact assessment framework and baseline. Den
Haag, The Netherlands, LEI Wageningen UR: 198.
Ingram, V., Y. Waarts, L. Ge, S. van Vugt, L. Wegner, L. Puister-Jansen, F. Rufand R. Tanoh (2014). Impact of UTZ Certification of cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire
Assessment framework and baseline. Den Haag, The Netherlands, LEI
Wageningen UR: 174.

http://lindtcocoafoundation.org/files/factsheet_ghana_final_1.pdf.
Kroeger, A., H. Bakhtary, F. Haupt and C. Streck (2017). Eliminating
Deforestation from the Cocoa Supply Chain. World Bank Group,
Washington D.C.
Maro, G.P., J.P. Mrema, B.M. Msanya, B.H. Janssen and J.M. Teri (2014).
'Exploring the Nutrient Release Potential of Organic Materials as Integrated
Soil Fertility Management Components Using SAFERNAC.' International
Journal of Plant & Soil Science 3(4): 419-433.
Matissek, R., J. Reinecke, O. Von Hagen and S. Manning (2012). 'Sustainability
in the Cocoa Sector-Review, Challenges and Approaches.' Moderne
Ernaehrung Heute, Official Journal of the Food Chemistry Institute of the
Association of the German Confectionery Industry: 1-27.
Maytak, L. (2014). Discussion and Comparison of Farm Level Data Collection
Methods for Five Cocoa Studies in Cote d'Ivoire. Washington, Prepared for

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 79

Cocoa Collaborative Learning Group facilitated by the Sustainable Food
Lab: 26.
Medina, V. and B. Laliberte (2017). 'A review of research on the effects ofdrought and temperature stress and increased CO2 on Theobroma cacao

Ruf, F. (2001). Tree crops as deforestation and reforestation agents: the caseof cocoa in Côte d'Ivoire and Sulawesi. Agricultural technologies andtropical deforestation: 291-315.
Ruf, F. and J.-L. Agkpo (2008). Etude sur le revenu et les investissements desL., and the role of genetic diversity to address climate change.'

producteurs de café et de cacao en Côte d'Ivoire Rapport final, Mai 2008,

Medina, V., A. Meter, N. Demers and B. Laliberte (2017). 'Review of the

Cardno Agrisystems Limited – Lead Member of Agrisystems Consortium:

CFC/ICCO/Bioversity project on cacao germplasm evaluation (1998-2010).'
Moulianitaki, B. and A. Laven (2016). Executive summary Ideation of Small
Medium Enterprise (SME) services in cocoa growing communities in Ghana.
Muilerman, S. and S. Vellema (2017). Scaling service delivery in a failed state:cocoa smallholders, Farmer Field Schools, persistent bureaucrats andinstitutional work in Côte d'Ivoire. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability 15(1): 83-98.
N'Dao, Y. (2012). Rationalités, changements de pratiques et impacts desstandards durables sur les petits producteurs : le cas de la certification
Rainforest Alliance dans le secteur du cacao en Côte d'ivoire. Master
Recherche 2 – A2D2 Agriculture, Alimentation et Développement Durable,
Universite Montpelllier 1.
Neale, B. (2016). True cost of cocoa production & a farm of the future.
Evaluating the true cost of cocoa production & the viability of Mondelēz
International's Farm of the Future model. Master of Environmental
Management degree Duke University.
Nkamleu, G.B., J. Nyemeck and J. Gockowski (2010). Technology gap andefficiency in cocoa production in West and Central Africa: implications forcocoa sector development, African Development Bank.
Noble, M.D. 2017. Chocolate and the Consumption of Forests: A Cross-National
Examination of Ecologically Unequal Exchange in Cocoa Exports. Journal ofWorld-System Research 23 (2):236-238. doi: 10.5195/JWSR.2017.731.
Ojo, A.D. and I. Sadiq (2010). Effect of Climate Change on Cocoa Yield: a caseof Cocoa Research Institute (CRIN) farm, Oluyole local Government Ibadan
Oyo State. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 12(1).
Oomes, N., B. Tieben, A. Laven, T. Ammerlaan, R. Appelman, C. Biesenbeek

118.
Ruf, F. and P. Siswoputranto (1995). Cocoa cycles: The economics of cocoa
supply. Woodhead Publishing.
Ruf, F., R. Tanoh and A.K. Galo (2016). Tests of fertilizers with and without
nitrogen on cocoa farms in Côte d'Ivoire. CIRAD.
Ruf, F. and Varlet F. (2017). The myth of zero deforestation cocoa in Côte
d'Ivoire.' ETFRN News (58):86-92.
Schroth, G. and F. Ruf (2014). Farmer strategies for tree crop diversification in
the humid tropics. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development
34(1): 139-154.
Source Trust (2018). Solidaridad. Retrieved 3 March 2018, 2018, fromhttp://www.sourcetrust.org/ solidaridad /.
SwissContact (2016). Cocoa Value Chain Development Transforming Cocoa
Farming into a Sustainable Business for Smallholder Farmers. Zurich: 32.
UTZ (2013). 10 Years In Coffee, Cocoa and Tea. From Good to Better. Utz
Certified Annual Report 2012. https://utz.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Annual_Report_2012-UTZ.pdf. Retrivied 30 April
2018
UTZ (2017). UTZ Cocoa Statistics Report Cocoa 2017.
https://utz.org/?attachment_id=13234. Retrivied 30 April 2018
Verter, N. (2016). Cocoa export performance in the world's largest producer.
Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 22(5): 713-721.
Vigneri, M., R. Serra, A.L. Cardenas and S. Wilson (2016). Researching the
Impact of Increased Cocoa Yields on the Labour Market and Child Labour
Risk in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. ICI Labour Market Research Study.
Châtelaine, Switzerland, International Cocoa Initiative (ICI).

and E. Buunk (2016). Market Concentration and Price Formation in the

VOICE Network (2012). Cococa Barometer. The Netherlands.

Global Cocoa Value Chain. Amsterdam, SEO Amsterdam Economics.

Waarts, Y., V. Ingram, V. Linderhof, L. Puister-Jansen, F. v. Rijn andPetrokofsky, G. and S. Jennings (2018). The effectiveness of standards indriving adoption of sustainability practices: A State of Knowledge Review.
Oxford, ISEAL Alliance, University of Oxford.

R. Aryeetey (2015). Impact of UTZ certification on cocoa producers in
Ghana, 2011 to 2014. Den Haag, LEI, Wageningen UR: 50.
Wartenberg, A., W. Blaser, K. Janudianto, J. Roshetko, M. van Noordwijk and
J. Six (2018). Farmer perceptions of plant–soil interactions can affect80 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

adoption of sustainable management practices in cocoa agroforests: a casestudy from Southeast Sulawesi. Ecology and Society 23(1).
Wilson, S., M. Vigneri, R. Serra and A.L. Cardenas (2016). Researching the
Impact of Increased Cocoa Yields on the Labour Market and Child Labour
Risk in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. International Cocoa Initiative (ICI).
Châtelaine, Switzerland.
Woods, D. (2003). The tragedy of the cocoa pod: rent-seeking, land and ethnic
conflict in Côte d’Ivoire. The Journal of Modern African Studies 41(4): 641655.
Zuidema, P.A., P.A. Leffelaar, W. Gerritsma, L. Mommer and N.P.R. Anten(2005). A physiological production model for cocoa (Theobroma cacao):model presentation, validation and application Agricultural Systems 84(2):195-225.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 81

Appendix 1

Glossary and definitions

Term

Definition

Changes in needs (income, food, water,

Farmer perception based on open questions with qualitative answers possible.

status, health, education, other)
Classified forest (foret classée)Classified forest is the property of the state and if cocoa is farmed in classified forest it is effectively illegal. In some cases is hoped that in time the state

Cocoa farm in production

The area of the cocoa farm in hectares that is planted with cocoa trees. Land out of production refers to fallow land, and/or where cocoa trees have been

Control or comparison

Denotes non-UTZ certified farmers used as a comparison to the UTZ farmers.

Cooperative

Cooperative is used to denote groups of farmers that are legally registered as an association or cooperative in Côte d’Ivoire.

Economic efficiency

See input-output ratio

Exchange rate

Monetary units are stated in the currency used in Côte d’Ivoire, the African Financial Community Franc (Communauté Financière Africaine) (CFA) andwill declassify and the farmer becomes the owner.
cut or land is being preapred for planting cocoa trees in the future.

euros. The prevailing exchange rate during the research period was CFA 655 to €1.
Farm input costs

Farm inputs refer to the costs of all these farm inputs together

Farm or agronomic inputs

Agronomic inputs include fertiliser, herbicides, pesticides and seedlings

Founder (fondeur)This implies ownership of both land and crops (i.e. cocoa, rubber, coffee, oil palm, etc.). Both Ivorian's and Burkinabe can own land and crops.

Gross cocoa income (gross cocoa

Yearly cocoa production from all cocoa farms multiplied by the average price per kg for cocoa paid to farmers in CFA per kg.

revenue)
Implementation of good agricultural

Farmers were asked 24 multiple choice questions on GAP. Correctly answered questions correspond to the requirements of the UTZ Code of Conduct. The

practices (cocoa)

answers were score related to the correctness of the answer. For each question a score was derived for each farmer on a scale between 1 and 10. The
overall score for the implementation of good agricultural practices was measured as an average of all scores for the individual scores.

Inheritance or inheritance with ownership(Héritier, propriétaire)

After division of land form inheritance, ownership is complete. Depending upon the region, women as well as men may inherit. In the South and SouthWest of Côte d'Ivoire women inherit more frequently, whereas in other areas only men tend to inherit. Burkinabe women generally have no inheritancerights. Whilst Burkinabe have purchased land in Côte d'Ivoire, generally this is customary and they do not have officially registered land title deeds.

Input costs of cocoa production

Includes all labour costs (both farmers own labour and family labour, and hired labour), plus farm input costs, in CFA.
Input costs are calculated by the number of times a product is applied multiplied by unit multiplied by price per unit of input (fertilisers and crop protection
products such as fungicide and pesticide)Time (opportunity costs) to become UTZ Certified and investing in PPE have not been taken into account in input cost calculations.

Input-output ratio

A farmer's average economic efficiency (also known as the ratio of output to inputs) is calculated as gross income from cocoa divided by total production

Knowledge of good agricultural practices

Farmers were asked 12 multiple choice questions on GAP. Correctly answered questions correspond to the requirements of the UTZ Code of Conduct. The(cocoa)more correct answers a farmer, the higher the score for the individual question. For each question a score was derived on a scale between 1 and 10. The

costs. The higher the ratio the more efficient the farmers are (more output with the same input).

overall knowledge score was measured as an average of all scores for the individual scores.

82 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Term

Definition

Labour costs of cocoa production

All reported time (in days) spent on specific named cocoa production activities worked by an individual in the cocoa year multiplied by an average price oflabour (CFA 2000 per day). Family labour costs are calculated using the same price as for hired labour. These data were aggregated for all tasks by type oflabour for men, women, children in the household, and different types of hired labour, and calculated, also as labour days per hectare and kg.
Not included are costs and time spent by farmers on training, communal ‘shared' labour gangs, non-paid work as a lead farmer, time spent on internalmanagement systems and on auditing. Farmers indicating zero labour costs were not included in the calculations.

Living income

Based on multi-stakeholder ‘Community of Practice' definitions, the concept refers to a living income for a household (not associated with one particularcrop) defined as total household income in cash and kind, net of taxes) required to afford a decent standard of living (food, water, healthcare, transport,
clothing, housing, education, and other essential needs including provision for unexpected events for all members of an average household.

Manager (Gestionnaire)

A manager of a field(s), which generally belongs to someone in their extended family i.e. father or mother or be managed after a parent's death while thefamily sorts out inheritance. Informally the manager receives one-third of the revenue. Generally higher amount of revenue is obtained when managed onbehalf of a father than a mother, due to cultural norms of respect and tendency not to negotiate with one's mother.

Net cocoa income

Yearly production of cocoa from the main farm, minus total production costs (hired labour and family labour and farm inputs) for the main farm. Net cocoa
income is calculated as gross income from cocoa minus farm input costs and hired labour costs, in CFA. Income is calculated based on the average pricepaid per kg in each season for the quantity sold in that season.

Net income per household member

Net income per household member is calculated based on net income in CFA divided by household size and 365 days and multiplied by the prevailing
CFA/USD exchange rate on 5 March 2017 of CFA 1 = USD 0.00187645.

Productivity

The quantity of cocoa in kg produced per hectare. based on farmers reports of their farm size (both measured and non-measured).

Profitability

Net cash income from cocoa farming per hectare, in CFA.

Satisfaction with interventions ofFarmer perception, 3-point Likert scale and open question

companies programmes
Satisfaction with livelihood

Farmer perception, 5-point Likert scale

Satisfaction with services of cooperative

Farmer perception, 3-point Likert scale

Sharecropper worker with 33% revenue

Workers on productive land with no ownership rights or claims. They receive 1/3 of revenues from the owner of the land worked, the owner keeps 2/3.

share (Abusan / main d'oeuvre en

The majority of workers are male. It is estimated that only a very small proportion of women work as abusan.

remuneration de 33%)
Sharecropper worker with 50% share ofWorkers on productive land with no ownership rights or claims. They receive 1/2 of revenues from the owner of the land worked, the owner receives 50%.

revenue

If the land is 'bad fields' abunun works with 50% of revenues and abunun also with 50%.

(Abunun / main d'oevre en renumerationde 50% utilisation de terre)
Statistical significance'Significant(ly)' refers to strong statistical significance. This means that the probability of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis is below 5% (p(α<0.05,
shown as ** in tables) or 1% p(α <0.01 shown as *** in tables) i.e. less than one in a thousand chance of being wrong. When the probability is 10% orlower the term weak significance p(α<0.10) is used (shown as * in tables).

Total cocoa production costs

Labour + input costs.
Not included in these costs are the costs of equipment and personal protective equipment, in-kind costs, such as of spraying gangs or communal ‘shared'labour.
Time (opportunity costs) to become UTZ Certified and investing in PPE have not been taken into account in cost calculations.

Total gross income

All sources of gross income for the household, including cocoa.

Under guarantee (Prise en garantie –An arrangement either between two farmers, between farmer and buyer or between farmer and somebody with financial resources, where the land andgarantie)

crop is used as a guarantee for a loan. The person who has received the farm as guarantee may use abusan workers to farm the land. Income from the

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

| 83

Term

Definition
land and crop is the property of the person who has the land in guarantee. Land under guarantee can become the property of the lender in the case of along-term loan and when an agreement is reached between the two parties. It is also possible that the owner works in the field and has no abusan.

84 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Appendix 2
2017
Table A2.1

Côte d’Ivoire cocoa programmes 2014-

Programmes, projects and initiatives in the Côte d’Ivoire cocoa sector

Name

Partners

Cargill, ADM, Barry Callebaut, Outspan,

Corporate programmes with consultants,

ECOM, CEMOI

cabinets, ANADER

Cocoa & Forests Initiative 'Cadre d'Action

private sector cocoa and chocolate companies,

Commune – Côte d'Ivoire'

WCF, IDH and the government

Period

2017-

Links

IDH https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/landscapes/wider-tai-area-cote-divoire/https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/landscapes/wider-tai-area-cote-divoire/
http://www.cocoasoils.org/
https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/11/CDI-Framework-Final.pdf
https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2018/02/Report-Launch-of-theactivities-of-the-Joint-Framework-of-Action-of-the-Cocoa-and-Forests-Initiative-inCôte-dIvoire.pdf

Cocoa Community Development Fund

WCF, ANADER, Winrock

2014(?)-?

http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/TOT-Blog-Post-

Cargill, ANADER

2008 –2017https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2008/11/06/Cargill-teams-up-with-(CCDF)
Cocoa Promise

FINAL1.pdf
ANADER-for-rural-development
http://www.fdbusiness.com/cargill-continues-to-support-cocoa-sector-in-cotedivoire/

COCOALINK

Nestlé, CCC, ANADER

Comité de gestion de la filière Café Cacao

Cocoa-related institutions

2013-2016

http://www.nestlecocoaplan.com/nestle-joins-cocoalink-in-the-cote-divoire/2017-

https://www.tfa2020.org/en/publication/forest-friendly-cocoa-cote-divoire/(CGFCC)
Fairtrade certification

Fairtrade + Agro Eco Louis Bolk Institute&
Rabobank, the Dutch structure Control Union fororganic certification and FAIR TRADE

Forest Friendly Cocoa, Côte d'Ivoire

Mondelez, MinSeDD, REDD+ Cote d'Ivoire, UNDP

German Technical Cooperation (GIZ)

PRODEMIR – Program de Développement
Economique en Milieu Rural

Green Commodities Facility

United Nations Development Fund (UNDP), CoteD´Ivoire Sustainable Cocoa Initiative NORAD,
World Cocoa Foundation (WCF), International
Cocoa Initiative (ICI), Echoes – Youth Educationand Livelihoods Program, UNDP and the

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

| 85

Name

Partners

PeriodLinks

2016-datehttps://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/initiative/farm-cooperative-investment-

Associations of Chocolate Manufacturers from
Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden
Farm & coop investment program

IDH, Conseil du Cafe Cacao, partners

International Labour Organisation (ILO)

International Cocoa Initiative

International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO)CNRA Centre National de Recherches

program/https://www.bioversityinternational.org/.../CFC_ICCO_Review.pdf

Agronomiques/CFC/ICCO/Bioversity Project on
Cacao Germplasm Evaluation
Kraft Foods, Hans Neumann Stiftung&Sustainability alliance, Market Oriented Promotion

farmers, Rainforest Allianceof Certified Sustainable Cocoa

Mars

Sustainable Cocoa Initiative (Cocoa Development
Centers (CDC) and Cocoa Village Clinics (CVC):
rehabilitation of old and aging farms with good
planting material, soil fertility management, solid
agricultural practices including pest and disease
control
IMPACT project with Government of CI, ICI,AIECA, AFRICARE, SOCODEVi, STCP,
RAINFOREST ALLIANCE, IFESH, INADES, BFCD

Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI)

Fonds Interprofessionnel pour la Recherche et leConseil Agricole (FIRCA)

Cocoa Life programme

Mondelez (Cadbury), Conseil du Café Cacao

National Agency for Rural Development

Extension services, promotion of farmer's skills(ANADER)and entrepreneurship by designing and(CCC), CARE, farmers

implementing appropriate tools and conducting
agricultural extension services.
Fight against disease Swollen Shoot (Pilot Project)
Project certified sustainable cocoa production
National Confectioners Association,

Regional Trade Associations and their

CAOBISCO, ECA& farmers

memberships

Cocoa Plan

Nestlé & CNRA

Nestlé Action Plan on WomenInternational Cocoa Initiative (ICI), ANADER

in the Cocoa Supply Chain

2013-2015

https://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/creating-sharedvalue/responsible-sourcing/women-cocoa-supply-chain-progress-report-jan2015.pdf

Alliance

Olam International and Blommer Chocolate&farmers

Organic certification

Organic + Agro Eco Louis Bolk Institute86 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Name

Partners

PeriodPlateforme de Partenariat Public-Privé

Over 100 members from national and2012-date(Private-Public Partnership Platform)

international public, private, civil society, NGO

Project Pro Planteurs

GIZ, DOPA-MINAGRI, CCC

Rainforest Alliance certification

Rainforest Alliance certificaiton, COSA

Signatories include governments andInternational Cocoa Initiative (ICI) to eliminate

representatives of the cocoa industry andthe worst forms of child labour and forced labour

witnesses include social activists, NGOs andand the Harkin Engel Protocol

Links

and research organisations
2015-datehttps://www.kakaoforum.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Studien/GISCO_COOP_Report_G
EFAK_final.pdf

labour unions
Survey of Child Labor in the Cocoa-Growing

Tulson Payson Center

2014-

Areas of Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana
Towards Child Labour Free Cocoa Growing

USAID

Communities in Cote d'Ivoire and. Ghana
through an Integrated Area Based ApproachUTZ Certification

UTZ, IDH

Vision for Change partnership

Mars Inc., ICRAF, CNRA, Agence Nationale

2011-2017

d'Appui au Développement Rural (ANADER)WCF African Cocoa Soil Fertility Initiative

CCC, ANADER, WCF, ICRAF, ANADER

World Cocoa Foundation (WCF)

Cocoa Livelihoods programme, Cocoa Link, WCF

https://www.worldagroforestry.org/project/land-health-surveillance-systemsmallholder-cocoa-ivory-coast

2014-?

http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/docs/pppp_2_session/Panel_1WCF_PPPP_presentation_San_Pedro.pdf
https://www.growafrica.com/groups/world-cocoa-foundation-cote-divoire

African Cocoa Initiative (WCF/ACI), Grow Africa

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 87Appendix 3
Table A3.1

Descriptive and statistical outcomes

Descriptives

Indicator

Unit of measurement

Results – total sample (UTZ & non-UTZ)

Significant
difference a

MeanMedianStandard

Minimum

Maximum

deviation

Number of

between UTZ

respondents

certified & non-UTZ
certified farmers

Age

Number of years

Gender% male97%

Household size

Number

8

8

3.39

0

18

418

0

Number of persons the

Number

12

11

6.63

0

52

418

0

423

Not analysed

176 B

Not analysed

623 B

Not analysed

623 B

Not analysed

50

50

11.52

27

92

418

0

418

Too few women formeaningful analysis

farmer takes care of
Position HH

91% household head, 4%: wife, 2.2% other adult,
3.1% childParticular position in

Traditional authority 63%, religious leader 9%,

community

family or clan head 1%, cooperative 9%, leadfarmer 4%, company 1%, youth group leader 14%,
School teacher 1%

Migrant status

10% first generation immigrants (92% Burkinabé,
8% Malian) 10% 2ndgeneration immigrants (92%

Burkinabé, 8% Malian)
Ethnicity

28 ethnic groups: of total Baoulé 46%, Attie 24%
Guéré 6%, Bété 5%, Senoufo 3%, others >1%

Membership cooperative

Number: 423 farmers, 17 non-UTZ, 339 UTZ

418

Not analysed

Farm ownership% 77% founder, 18% inherited, 4% administrator,

425

Not analysed

0.2% owner, 0.7% other.
Number of cocoa farms

Number

1.57

1

0.81

1

6

425

0

Cocoa farm size (all farms)

Hectares (estimated by farmers & known measured)

4.78

4

4.03

0.02

40

421

0

Cocoa farm size (all farms)

Hectares (measured)

4.99

4

4.16

0.5

40

336

Not analysedAge of main farm

Nr of years since establishment

24

21

11.38

4

72

326

0

Cocoa production (mainKg

1808.621400

1540.24

3

8000

357

+

Kg

2280.961700

2137.11

3

17000

363

+

farm)
Cocoa production (all farms)

88 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Indicator

Unit of measurement

Results – total sample (UTZ & non-UTZ)

Significant
difference a

MeanMedianStandard

Minimum

Maximum

deviation

Number of

between UTZ

respondents

certified & non-UTZ
certified farmers

Total labour costs#

CFA per hectare

204861.2

159666.7

204619150

2625000410

Total input costs#

CFA per hectare

8829.01

5625

10325.84

110

88500

301

-

Total production costs

CFA per hectare

729444.6603250617114.9

6000

6043600

420+

Total production costs per

CFA per kg

813.23442.651425.50

30.45

17500

356

0

Productivity (main farm)Kg per hectare

482.97450

253.71

6

1800

357

+

Productivity (all farms)

Kg per hectare

481.96440

246.2011.25

1583.33

363+

Cocoa production efficiency c

Input/output ratio (gross income/total production

3.55

2.40

4.49

0.06

35.70

365

0

24025651690441

22731103183.918500000

363

Not analysed

CFA per year

1902829

1441950

1639305

3183.98800000

357

Not analysed

Net cocoa income c

CFA per year

1816758

1323730

1621488-170060

8766600

357

Not analysed

Net cocoa income per

CFA. per hectare

356

+

0

kilogram

cost)
Gross income from cocoa (all CFA per year
farms)
Gross income from cocoa(main farm) c

hectareGross income from other

CFA per year

569895.4

2500009133045000

6000000

129

Not analysed

CFA per year

25696952428285

18319403183.918600000

368

Not analysed426

Not analysed

sources
Gross total householdincome d
Farmer's reported

39% (very) satisfied on at least 5 life categories

satisfaction with livelihood
Notes: a Cost calculated based on costs for the main cocoa farm only. b Cost calculated based on costs for the main cocoa farm only. c Based on main farm only d Based on farmers reported income net cocoa. Income and gross income
from other sources. #Total labour costs and total input costs reported if farmer mentioned to have these costs. Some farmers received farm inputs (pesticides, fertiliser, protective equipment etc) for free. B= Baseline data. Key: +significant positive difference, - significant negative difference, 0 no significant difference.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 89

The table below gives an overview of data for UTZ and non-UTZ farmers. In addition the outcomes of the dif-in-dif model is presented including the control variables
as described in section 6 as well as the results from the model including the control variables as described in section 4 and a model with fixed effects at household
level. The tests are based on matched sample and only provided for sample size over 20.

Table A3.2

Descriptive and statistical outcomes for UTZ and non-UTZ farmers
indicator

utz
2013
N

non-utz

2017

Mean

N

dif ttest*

Mean

2013
N

Mean

2017
N

utz-non-utz
dif ttest*2014 ttest

2017 ttest

dif ttest*

robust to CV** robust to FE

Mean

service intensity 2017 for 2013 year interaction

339

2.28

339

2.28

79

0.87

79

0.87

1.40***

1.40***

agro services: none-complete

339

2.60

339

2.60

79

0.42

79

0.42

2.18***

2.18***

at least one agro training

339

0.77

79

0.18 0.18***

0.60***

training lead farmer (gestion de cooperatives)

339

0.14

79

0.03 0.03

0.12***

training good social practice and/or health

339

0.35

79

0.13 0.13***0.22***

training management competences

339

0.26

79

0.08 0.08**

0.18***

access to fertiliser (via coop)

339

0.40

79

0.03

0.38***

if farmer has market access to pesticides (via coop)

339

0.71

79

0.10

0.61***

access to seedlings (via coop)

339

0.49

79

0.06

0.43***

at least 1 agro-input for free

339

0.13

339

0.63 0.49***

79

0.03

79

0.49 0.47***0.11***

0.13**

0.02

0.01

0.02

years of certification coop level

339

2.99

339

6.99 4.00

79

0.00

79

0.00

2.99***

6.99***

4.00

4.00

4.00

339

0.06

If farmer certified by FLO
If farmer certified by Rainforest Alliance79

0.06**

339

0.12

utz certified in both years/control in both years

339

1.00

339

1.00

79

0.00

79

0.00

1.00

1.00

coop membership 2013 based on 2017

339

1.00

339

1.00

79

0.22

79

0.22

0.78***

0.78***

Agro-ecological conditions

339

1.65

339

1.65

79

1.53

79

1.53

0.12

0.12

1 female 0 male

339

0.03

339

0.03

79

0.04

79

0.04

-0.01

-0.01

HH size in 2017

339

8.47

339

8.47

79

7.35

79

7.35

1.11***

1.11***

Share gross cocoa income

321

0.91

289

0.94 0.02*

74

0.77

67

0.92 0.15***

0.15***

0.02-0.13***-0.14***-0.14***

total farmsize

339

5.33

333

8.78 3.44***

79

4.14

76

10.64 6.47***

1.19**-1.86**-3.03***-3.06***-3.00***

total cocoa farm size - both years

339

5.33

339

5.33 -0.01

79

4.14

79

4.71 0.57*

1.19**

0.62

-0.58

-0.59

-0.58

farm size in production

339

4.53

339

4.87 0.35*

79

3.88

79

4.27 0.39

0.65

0.61

-0.04

-0.01

-0.04

farm size in production if measured

338

2.75

339

4.50 1.76***

79

3.29

79

1.69 -1.60***-0.55

2.81***

3.36***

3.47***

3.36***

Age of main farm

313

21.93

264

23.79 1.89***

74

23.45

55

22.75 0.88

-1.51

1.04

1.28

0.92

0.55

Nr of years the oldest plot existed

339

21.86

299

23.97 2.31***

79

23.29

69

24.41 1.60

-1.43

-0.43

0.83

0.52

0.73

Owner of # of farms

339

0.87

339

1.29 0.42***

79

0.94

79

1.52 0.58***-0.07-0.23**

-0.16

-0.17

-0.16

total owned farm size

339

3.79

339

4.43 0.64**

79

3.62

79

4.18 0.56

0.17

0.25

0.08

0.07

0.08

286

3.39 n.a.

67

3.45

output divided by input (all inputs)

79

0.10***-0.06

total input costs

339

66713

339

84756 18042.40**

79

55834

79

64121 8286.91

10879.36**

20634.85

9755.49

10032.59

9755.49

costs of inputs (agro-input, hired labour) per ha

316

22720

288

31125 -7937.52***

72

29467

67

33966 4498.38-6747.89**-2840.66

3907.233056.854235.47

total non-labour input costs per hectare

331

13700

335

5761

77

20310

78

8902 -11401.00***-6610.21***-3141.17***3465.36*2472.903418.21*

total costs hired labour in CFA

339

28504

339

65634 37130.12***

79

14341

79

40104 25763.49***14162.66***

25529.29*

11366.63

12338.89

11366.63

90 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

indicator

utz
2013
N

non-utz

2017

Mean

N

dif ttest*

Mean

2013
N

Mean

utz-non-utz

2017N

dif ttest*2014 ttest

2017 ttest

dif ttest*

robust to CV** robust to FE

Mean

total costs hired labour in CFA per ha

331

7552

335

14949 622589.18***

77

7591

78

15128 7541.59*-38.78-179.00-167.77-105.90-475.86

sum of all labour costs in CFA

335

119789332

742575 7393.48***

79

68219

76

554872 486713.92***

51570.15***187703.08**

135875.20*

120220.16130574.38*

total labour costs CFA per ha

328

36703

328

202060

77

30323

75

218423 7541.59*-38.78-179.00-167.77-105.90-475.86

Averaged total price CFA/kg

339

725

338

1056 330.90***

79

725

79

1059 334.14***

-3.23

-3.23

-0.69

-3.23

price cocoa in CFA main season

339

725

335

1080 354.57***

79

725

79

1079 353.86***

0.71

0.71

3.31

0.71

price cocoa in CFA low season

339

725

335

933 207.61***

79

725

78

923 198.08***

9.54

9.54

13.12

9.54

annual production kg for both years

321

2348

289

2446 81.75

74

1031

67

1675 641.80***

1316.78***771.60***-558.30*-553.02*-573.37*

productivity in kg/ha

315

520

289

500 -22.44

72

256

67

411 150.36***

263.98***89.07***-174.64***-178.89***-172.74***

change in production 2016/2017

335

1.48

335

1.40 -0.08*

78

1.53

79

1.38 -0.15*

-0.05

0.02

0.07

0.10

0.06

Reason for change - certification

326

0.35

339

0.12 -0.23***

76

0.03

79

0.06 0.04

0.33***

0.06-0.27***-0.27***-0.26***

Reason for change - spraying

326

0.19

339

0.30 0.10***

76

0.12

79

0.34 0.22***

0.07

-0.04

-0.12

-0.14*-0.12

Reason for change - lack of spraying

326

0.05

339

0.09 0.04**

76

0.25

79

0.20 -0.05-0.20***-0.12***

0.09*

0.10*

0.10*

Reason for change - new plantation

326

0.10

339

0.06 -0.04*

76

0.17

79

0.10 -0.07-0.07*

-0.04

0.03

0.04

0.03

Reason for change - replantation

326

0.04

339

0.05 0.01

76

0.04

79

0.08 0.04

-0.03

-0.03

-0.04

-0.03

Reason for change - new cocoa variety

326

0.02

339

0.03 0.01

76

0.00

79

0.01 0.01

0.02

0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

Reason for change - pesticides

326

0.17

339

0.28 0.11***

76

0.13

79

0.29 0.16**

0.04

-0.01

-0.05

-0.06

-0.07

Reason for change - fertiliser

326

0.06

339

0.28 0.22***

76

0.05

79

0.33 0.28***

0.01

-0.05

-0.06

-0.08

-0.07

Reason for change - training

326

0.32

339

0.09 -0.23***

76

0.01

79

0.05 0.04

0.31***

0.04-0.27***-0.27***-0.27***

Reason for change - death/disease

326

0.09

339

0.13 0.04*

76

0.24

79

0.10 -0.14**-0.15***

0.03

0.18***

0.21***

0.18***

Reason for change - ageing farm

326

0.09

339

0.10

76

0.13

79

0.11 -0.02

-0.04

-0.02

0.02

Reason for change - traditional variety

326

0.01

339

0.00 -0.01

76

0.00

79

0.04 0.03*

0.01-0.04***-0.04***-0.04***-0.03**

Reason for change - lack of treatment

326

0.05

339

0.03 -0.02

76

0.18

79

0.14 -0.04-0.13***-0.11***

0.02

0.04

0.01

Reason for change - lack of fertiliser

326

0.10

339

0.10 0.01

76

0.29

79

0.20 -0.09-0.19***-0.10**

0.09*

0.12**

0.08

Reason for change - lack of training

326

0.01

339

0.01 -

76

0.04

79

0.01 -0.03

-0.03

-

0.02

0.03

0.02

Reason for change - All been eaten

326

0.00

339

0.01 0.01

76

0.00

79

0.01 0.01

-

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

Reason for change - Lack of hired labour

326

0.03

339

0.03 -0.01

76

0.07

79

0.05 -0.01

-0.03

-0.02

0.01

0.02

0.01

Reason for change - No time

326

0.01

339

0.01

76

0.00

79

0.01 0.01

0.01

-

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

Reason for change - farm is far away

326

0.02

339

0.01 -0.02**

76

0.00

79

0.01 0.01

0.02

-0.01

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

Reason for change - No money for cultivation

326

0.02

339

0.01 -0.01

76

0.04

79

0.01 -0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

Reason for change -Disagreement on familiy land

326

0.00

339

0.01 0.01

76

0.01

79

0.01 --0.01**

-0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

Reason for change - Territory not clearly defined

326

0.00

339

0.00

76

0.00

79

0.01 0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

Reason for change - pest (like swollen foot)

326

0.03

339

0.03 -0.01

76

0.01

79

0.01 -

0.02

0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

Reason for change - good rainfall

326

0.04

339

0.25 0.20***

76

0.08

79

0.23 0.15***

-0.04

0.02

0.06

0.04

0.06

Reason for change - A lot of rain/high humidity

326

0.05

339

0.04 -0.01

76

0.00

79

0.03 0.03

0.05**

0.01

-0.04

-0.03

-0.04

Reason for change - Little rain/low humidity

326

0.17

339

0.18 0.01

76

0.12

79

0.13 0.01

0.05

0.05

-

-0.01

-

Reason for change - illness farmer

339

0.01 0.01*

76

0.01

79

0.01

-0.01**

-

0.01

0.01

0.01

Reason for change - No money for hired labour339

0.01 0.01

76

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.06

0.07

0.08*

0.14***

0.14***

0.13**

0.13**

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.02

Reason for change - other

326

0.08

339

0.05 -0.03

76

0.12

79

0.03 -0.10***

Reason for change - lot of sun/dryness

326

0.00

339

0.24 0.24***

76

0.00

79

0.10 0.10***

how many tree species farmer uses

331

1.29

330

1.39 0.10**

75

1.29

76

1.37 0.08

-0.04
-0.01

0.01

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 91

indicator

utz
2013
N

non-utz

2017

Mean

N

dif ttest*

Mean

2013
N

Mean

2017
N

utz-non-utz
dif ttest*2014 ttest

2017 ttest

dif ttest*

robust to CV** robust to FE

Mean

if farmers uses compost

339

0.14

339

0.21 0.07***

79

0.04

79

0.18 0.14***0.10**

0.04

-0.07

-0.08

-0.07

dummy not planted shadetrees because enough

339

0.19

339

0.14 -0.05*

79

0.19

79

0.10 -0.09

-

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

Reason for selling to company - Price

336

0.32

336

0.26 -0.06*

5

0.00

78

0.08

0.19***

Reason for selling to company - Credit

336

0.07

337

0.09 0.02

5

0.00

78

0.06

0.02

Reason for selling to company - Inputs

336

0.15

320

0.06 -0.09***

5

0.20

78

0.00

0.06

Reason for selling to company - Training

336

0.34

333

0.15 -0.19***

5

0.20

78

0.01

0.14***

Reason for selling to company - Other service

336

0.07

333

0.03 -0.03*

5

0.00

78

0.01

0.02

Reason for selling to company - I owe them money

336

0.00

289

0.00

5

0.00

78

0.00

Reason for selling to company - other

336

0.14

333

0.05 -0.10***

5

0.00

78

0.00

0.05*

333

0.07 n.a.

0 .

78

0.04

0.03

Reason for selling to company - they pay cash
Reason for selling to company - I don't know

336

0.35

333

0.50 0.15***

5

0.80

78

0.82

-0.32***# reasons for selling to company farmer mentions

336

1.09

338

0.70 -0.39***

5

0.40

78

0.21

0.49***

If better access to input market since last year?

339

0.55

332

0.58 0.02

79

0.25

79

0.46

0.12*

If money would you buy agro-inputs

338

0.54

338

0.61 0.07*

78

0.45

79

0.44

gross income both years from main farm

321 1566380

285 2030250 457418.03***7473820765 1412696 673733.87***828173.07*** 617554.31*** -214806.95-227633.17-223397.05

gross income both years from cocoa prod

321 1692480

289 2575645 877837.73***74

74780867 1767034 1018329.27***944671.60*** 808610.88*** -138459.02-128709.70-140355.57

cash net income both years from main farm

321 1498869

285 1940537 436317.26***74

68189065 1340526 658408.95***

816979.17*** 600011.34*** -221440.68-235361.27-231158.90

net income cocoa income-input costs calculated

315 1623714

289 2429110 806548.41***72

66520667 1651614 978108.46***958508.20*** 777495.01**-163204.31-146350.77-131909.67

total income from other sources than cocoa

337

336

76

57090679-375849.72*** -71124.22

302786.54** 312886.84**294390.70**

total gross income cocoa and other sources

325 1873908

294 2717198 835662.30***

75 1316356

67 2042133 720586.05**

557552.15**

145430.17

196115.11

cocoa profitability = net income per ha

314377238284

7216090765216331.41*** 102743.71*** -113233.75** -116514.72**-105258.74*

cash net income per hh member in USD per day

315

1.14

289

72

0.52

67

1.39 0.86***

0.62***

0.24

-0.34

-0.35

-0.31

net cash income per family labour day

291

70060

281

66

32987

59

21569 -12250.22*37073.73**

13228.57-23826.63-26091.77-22948.53# of income sources farmer has (incl cocoa)

339

1.51

339

2.17 0.65***

79

1.70

79

2.33 0.63***-0.19**

-0.16

0.02

0.02

# of other income sources farmer has

339

0.51

339

1.17 0.65***

79

0.70

79

1.33 0.63***-0.19**

-0.16

0.02

0.02

price premium received per kg

203

45.49

213

38.12 -7.37***

0 .

Spending cocoa income social

336

2.76

339

2.81 0.04

79

2.81

79

2.71 -0.10

-0.05

0.10

0.14*

0.12

0.14*

Spending cocoa income on agriculture

336

1.26

339

1.60 0.35***

78

0.97

79

1.30 0.33**

0.28**

0.30**

0.02

0.06

0.01

Count var livelihood: out of 9 categories

339

4.73

339

4.32 -0.41**

79

0.71

79

2.19 1.48***

4.03***

2.13***-1.89***-1.80***-1.89***Count score of implementation q94-96

337

0.71

339

0.44 -0.27***

78

0.50

78

0.19 -0.31***

0.21**

0.25***

0.04

0.06

0.04

Did you get visit from (child) labour inspection?

332

0.27

331

0.38 0.11***

76

0.04

77

0.09 0.05

0.23***

0.29***

0.06

0.06

0.06

195057

Child labour days summed

162187 -33067.06
527857 150280.76***
1.63 0.50***34798 -35383.40***

233311 -335895.31
425113 259297.60***

0.17***

675065.65**

207163.78

0.62

50.84 37.89***

78.00 18.64***-27.16

when farmer says child does hazardous activities

339

0.25

339

0.16 -0.09***

79

0.18

79

0.14 -0.04

0.07

0.02

-0.05

-0.04

-0.05

knows minimum age is 18 for child to work

339

0.06

339

0.48 0.42***

79

0.01

78

0.24 0.23***

0.05**

0.24***

0.19***

0.18***

0.19***

satisfaction on improvement education children?

329

0.74

338

0.26 -0.48***

34

-0.32

79

-0.04 0.29

1.07***

0.30**-0.77***-0.73***-0.82***

Perception improvement of education kids

116

0.29

339

0.76 0.47***

79

0.68

-0.71

0.08

0.78*

If farmer uses muffler for protection

336

0.24

338

0.47 0.23***

79

0.15

78

0.35 0.19***0.09*

0.12**

0.04

0.05

0.04

If farmer uses boots for protection

310

0.63

338

0.82 0.19***

79

0.72

78

0.81 0.09

-0.09

0.01

0.11

0.10

0.13*

If farmer uses hat for protection

314

0.22

338

0.51 0.29***

79

0.13

78

0.40 0.27***

0.09*

0.11*

0.02

0.02

0.02

If farmer uses jumpsuit for protection

314

0.10

338

0.33 0.23***

79

0.03

77

0.27 0.25***

0.07**

0.05

-0.02

-0.04

-0.02

92 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

0.40

indicator

utz
2013
N

non-utz

2017

Mean

N

dif ttest*

Mean

2013
N

Mean

2017
N

utz-non-utz
dif ttest*2014 ttest

2017 ttest

dif ttest*

robust to CV** robust to FE

Mean

If farmer uses eyeglasses for protection

314

0.13

338

0.33 0.21***

79

0.06

78

0.21 0.14***0.06

0.13**

0.07

0.03

0.07

If farmer uses trenchcoat for protection

313

0.12

338

0.39 0.27***

79

0.01

78

0.19 0.18***

0.11***

0.20***

0.09

0.08

0.08

If farmer uses gloves for protection

313

0.15

337

0.35 0.20***

79

0.08

78

0.22 0.14***0.07*

0.13**

0.06

0.06

0.06

count uses if in possession q37

336

1.49

338

3.21 1.72***

79

1.18

78

2.44 1.26***0.31

0.77***

0.46

0.40

0.47

score 0-1 for use of protective clothing

336

0.21

338

0.46 0.25***

79

0.17

78

0.35 0.18***

0.04

0.11***

0.07

0.06

0.07

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_1

38

-0.16

277

0.83 0.99***

3

-0.33

11

0.45

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_2

146

0.34

168

0.77 0.43***

3

-0.33

5

-0.20

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_3

45

0.02

287

0.86 0.84***

3

-0.33

12

0.50

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_4

251

0.59

93

0.56 -0.04

4

0.00

2

-1.00

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_5

173

0.57

101

0.56 -0.04

4

0.00

5

0.60

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_6

155

0.55

151

0.60 0.04

4

0.00

6

0.33

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_7

133

0.45

197

0.78 0.33***

3

-0.33

5

0.40

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_8

266

0.23

134

0.85 0.61***

4

0.00

2

0.50

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_9

191

0.24

159

0.84 0.61***

4

0.00

4

0.75

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_10

119

0.27

234

0.83 0.56***

4

0.00

6

0.17

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_11

223

0.28

166

0.73 0.45***

4

0.00

4

0.25

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_12

291

0.18

33

0.76 0.58***

4(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_13

292

0.28

35

0.66 0.33**

4(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_14

275

0.50

41

0.66 0.10

4(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_15

251

0.49

91

0.40 -0.10

4

0.00

6

0.00

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_16

118

0.31

221

0.63 0.33***

3

-0.33

13

0.15

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_17

100

0.36

244

0.89 0.53***

3

-0.33

11

0.91

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_18

186

0.05

2

1.00

3

-0.33

Service: Access to training

319

0.12

325

0.86 0.75***

4

0.75

16

0.69

Service: Information on input prices

322

0.45

325

0.53 0.07*

4

0.75

16

0.31

Service: Sell my cocoa

322

0.14

324

0.90 0.76***

4

0.75

16

0.75

Service: Market information on sales

320

0.78

324

0.29 -0.49***

4

1.00

16

0.19

Service: info internal inspections

320

0.54

321

0.32 -0.22***

4

1.00

16

0.38

Service: info external inspections

321

0.48

323

0.48 -

4

1.00

16

0.38

Service: Information ANADER services

321

0.41

323

0.62 0.20***

4

0.75

16

0.38

Service: Access to fertilisers

320

0.83

324

0.42 -0.41***

4

1.00

16

0.13

Service: Access to nurseries/pods

320

0.60

325

0.51 -0.09**

4

1.00

16

0.31

Service: Access to pesticides

321

0.37

324

0.73 0.36***

4

1.00

16

0.44

Service: Access to credits

318

0.70

325

0.52 -0.18***

4

1.00

16

0.38

Service: Insurance systems

312

0.93

322

0.10 -0.83***

4

1.00

16

0.00

Service: Assistance relations pisteurs

315

0.93

322

0.11 -0.82***

4

1.00

16

0.00

Service: Assistance with other service providers

314

0.88

322

0.13 -0.74***

4

1.00

16

0.00

Service: Commercial activities

312

0.80

322

0.30 -0.51***

4

1.00

16

0.38

Service: Payment on time by the buyer

312

0.38

317

0.68 0.31***

4

0.75

15

0.80

Service: Get a good price

308

0.32

324

0.76 0.44***

4

0.75

16

0.69

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 93

indicator

utz
2013
N

non-utz

2017

Mean

N

dif ttest*

Mean

2013
N

Mean

2017
N

utz-non-utz
dif ttest*2014 ttest

2017 ttest

dif ttest*

robust to CV** robust to FE

Mean

Service: Other

200

0.93

323

0.01 -0.92***

4

0.75

16

0.00

number of input related services

339

0.86

339

0.84 -0.02

79

0.05

79

0.15 0.10**

total sum of 17 services - q62

325

0.56

325

0.48 -0.08***

4

0.91

16

0.36

I feel represented by the coop managers

138

1.28

324

0.82 -0.45***

5

1.20

14

0.71

I feel I have an influence on

172

1.31

324

0.84 -0.47***

6

1.00

14

0.50

q65_1 perception farmer

320

0.33

326

0.71 0.38***

6

0.25

16

0.34

q65_2 perception farmer

321

0.39

328

0.63 0.25***

7

0.21

16

0.25

q65_3 perception farmer

321

0.15

328

0.77 0.62***

7

0.21

16

0.41

q65_4 perception farmer score

321

0.22

327

0.67 0.45***

7

0.21

16

0.31

mean score if coop well-managed (score_q65_1-4)

322

0.27

328

0.69 0.42***

7

0.21

16

0.33

Improvement coop? - No

339

0.25

337

0.21 -0.04

79

0.08

17

Improvement coop? - Training of managers

339

0.19

337

0.18 -0.01

79

0.03

17

Improvement coop? - Bookkeeping

339

0.21

336

0.35 0.15***

79

0.03

Improvement coop? - Transparency price

339

0.35

337

0.35

79

Improvement coop? - Transparency premium

339

0.16

337

0.21 0.05

Improvement coop? - Negotiate a higher price

339

0.01

337

Improvement coop? - Other

339

0.31

children to continue in cocoa farming

215

contine cocoa farming and/or diversify

0.81***

0.69***-0.12**-0.11*-0.12**

0.18 0.10

0.18***

0.03

-0.14

-0.17

-0.04

0.06 0.03

0.16***

0.12

-0.04

-0.07

-0.01

17

0.24 0.21***0.18***

0.12

-0.06

-0.09

-0.03

0.01

17

0.41 0.40***

0.34***-0.06-0.39***-0.44***-0.41**

79

0.01

17

0.41 0.40***0.15***-0.20**-0.35***-0.36***-0.31**

0.14 0.13***

17

0.00

17

0.00

0.01

0.14*

0.13

0.14

0.13

337

0.25 -0.06*

77

0.04

17

0.18 0.14**

0.27***

0.07-0.20*

-0.11

-0.18

0.31

321

0.45 0.14***

28

0.32

73

0.52 0.25***

-0.01

-0.07

-0.09

-0.11

-0.23*

334

0.76

314

0.80 0.05

78

0.63

71

0.77 0.15**

0.13**

0.03

-0.10

-0.14*-0.11

where get seedlings/cocoa pods from

338

0.34

339

0.41 0.07**

79

0.07

79

0.15 0.08*

0.27***

0.25***

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

Scaled score for implement_q71

336

0.97

339

0.97

79

0.86

79

0.90 0.04*

0.11***

0.07***-0.04**-0.04**-0.04**

Scaled score for implement_q72

336

0.48

339

0.60 0.12***

79

0.54

79

0.45 -0.09-0.06

0.15***

0.21**

0.20**

0.21**

Scaled score for implement_q76

337

0.27

339

0.36 0.08**

79

0.08

79

0.13 0.05

0.20***

0.23***

0.03

-0.01

0.02

Scaled score for implement_q77

338

0.76

339

0.91 0.15***

79

0.89

79

0.95 0.07**-0.13***-0.05*

0.08*

0.08*

0.08*

Mean score of q71, q72, q76, q77

337

0.62

339

0.71 0.09***

79

0.59

79

0.61 0.02

0.03

0.10***

0.07**

0.06**

0.07**

Scaled score for implement_q73

334

0.10

338

0.23 0.14***

79

0.13

79

0.30 0.18***

-0.03

-0.07

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

Scaled score for implement_q74

314

0.33

339

0.48 0.16***

75

0.23

79

0.49 0.27***

0.10*

-0.01

-0.11

-0.14*-0.10

Scaled score for implement_q75

337

0.67

338

0.49 -0.18***

77

0.22

79

0.28 0.05

0.44***

0.21***-0.23***-0.24***-0.24***

mean implementation score of q73,74,75

336

0.37

339

0.40 0.03

79

0.19

79

0.36 0.17***

0.18***

0.04-0.13***-0.14***-0.13***

Scaled score of implementation q78

337

0.82

339

0.77 -0.04**

79

0.67

79

0.68 0.01

0.15***

0.09**

-0.06

-0.07

-0.05

Scaled score of implementation q79

338

0.73

338

0.80 0.07**

79

0.39

79

0.58 0.19***

0.35***

0.22***-0.13*-0.18***-0.13*

Scaled score of implementation q80

337

0.77

338

0.76 -0.01

79

0.94

78

0.89 -0.05*-0.17***-0.12***

0.04

0.04

0.05

Mean score of post harvest practice q78-80

337

0.77

337

0.78

79

0.67

78

0.72 0.05

0.11***

0.06**-0.05-0.07**-0.05

If farmer has 12 or more shade trees per ha

339

0.28

339

0.27 -0.01

79

0.19

79

0.14 -0.05

0.09

0.13**

0.04

0.05

0.04

If farmer plants shade trees every 2,8-4 metres

156

0.06

203

0.13 0.08**

19

0.00

37

0.08

If farmer has planted shadetrees previous 2 years

335

0.24

338

0.33 0.09***

79

0.03

77

0.09 0.07*

0.21***

0.23***

0.02

0.02

0.03

Scaled score of implementation q88

333

0.94

338

0.99 0.04***

77

0.93

75

0.98 0.05**

0.02

0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

Scaled score of implementation q89

333

0.16

338

0.24 0.09***

78

0.11

77

0.12 0.01

0.05

0.13**

0.08

0.08

0.08

Scaled score of implementation q90

335

0.80

339

0.87 0.07**

79

0.73

78

0.88 0.15**

0.07

-0.01

-0.08

-0.07

-0.08

Scaled score of implementation q93

336

0.83

339

0.84

78

0.53

78

0.69 0.16***0.31***

0.15***-0.16***-0.19***-0.16***

94 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

indicator

utz
2013
N

non-utz

2017

Mean

N

dif ttest*

Mean

2013
N

Mean

2017
N

utz-non-utz
dif ttest*2014 ttest

2017 ttest

dif ttest*

robust to CV** robust to FE

Mean

Mean score of implementation q88-91, 93

337

0.70

339

0.75 0.04***

79

0.55

78

0.70 0.15***

0.15***

0.05***-0.10***-0.11***-0.10***

If hired labour, have contract regarding the work?

331

0.48

339

0.34 -0.14***

78

0.45

78

0.15 -0.29***0.03

0.18***

0.15*

0.18**

0.16*

Do you have declaration CNPS for hired labour?

329

0.01

337

0.01 -

78

0.00

78

0.00

0.01

0.01

-

-

Know labour rights (hours working etc)?

334

0.23

337

0.09 -0.14***

78

0.05

78

0.04 -0.01

0.18***

0.06-0.12**-0.13**-0.13**

farmer knows minimum age is 18 for child to work

339

0.06

339

0.48 0.42***

79

0.01

78

0.24 0.23***

0.05**

0.24***

0.19***

0.18***

0.19***

Did you get visit from (child) labour inspection?

332

0.27

331

0.38 0.11***

76

0.04

77

0.09 0.05

0.23***

0.29***

0.06

0.06

0.06

Scaled score for knowledge q100

338

0.95

339

0.99 0.04***

79

0.87

78

1.00 0.12***0.08***-0.01-0.08***-0.08***-0.09***

Scaled score for knowledge q101

338

0.96

337

0.99 0.02***

79

0.70

78

0.97 0.27***

0.26***

0.02-0.25***-0.24***-0.25***

Scaled score for knowledge q102

338

0.91

326

0.94 0.03***

79

0.70

67

0.94 0.25***

0.21***--0.21***-0.21***-0.22***

Scaled score for knowledge q103

336

0.79

331

0.90 0.11***

78

0.47

77

0.84 0.37***

0.31***

0.06-0.26***-0.27***-0.27***

Scaled score for knowledge q104

333

0.72

336

0.92 0.20***

79

0.72

76

0.97 0.26***-0.05**

-0.05

-0.07

-0.04

Scaled score for knowledge q105

337

0.69

329

0.75 0.06**

75

0.34

77

0.67 0.32***

0.35***

0.09**-0.26***-0.29***-0.26***

Scaled score for knowledge q108

335

0.48

337

0.34 -0.15***

77

0.30

79

0.28 -0.03

0.18***

0.06***-0.12***-0.12***-0.12***

Scaled score for knowledge q109

338

0.94

332

0.96 0.02***

77

0.85

79

0.97 0.11***0.09***--0.09***-0.08***-0.09***

Mean scores of knowledge q100-104, 109

338

0.85

339

0.92 0.07***

79

0.67

79

0.91 0.24***

0.18***

0.01-0.17***-0.17***-0.17***

Scaled score for knowledge question q111

335

0.49

337

0.39 -0.10***

79

0.30

79

0.37 0.07*

0.20***

0.02-0.18***-0.17***-0.17***

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 95

The tables below give an overview of data by service package as defined in section 6. In addition the outcomes of the dif-in-dif model is presented including thecontrol variables as described in the methodology in section 4. Tests are based on matched sample and only provided for sample size over 20.

Table A3.3

Descriptive and Statistical outcomes by service package
indicator

2013
noverallgroup 1n=53

group 2n=62

2017group 3n=148

group 4n=163noverallgroup 1n=53

group 2n=62

dif in dif* (comapred to group 1)
group 3n=148

group 4n=163ngroup 2group 3group 4overall

Service intensity 2017 for 2013 year interaction

339

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

339

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

654

Agro services: none-complete

339

0.000

0.339

2.196

3.515

339

0.000

0.339

2.196

3.515

654

At least one agro training

339

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

339

0.000

0.210

0.736

0.957

654

0.30***

0.76***

0.96***

Training lead farmer (gestion de cooperatives)

339

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

339

0.000

0.000

0.068

0.252

654

-0.00

0.06

0.25***

Training good social practice and/or health

339

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

339

0.000

0.000

0.169

0.632

654

-0.00

0.13

0.63***

Training management competences

339

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

339

0.000

0.000

0.095

0.485

654

-0.00

0.08

0.48***

Access to fertiliser (via coop)

339

0.000

0.016

0.189

0.675

327

If farmer has market access to pesticides (via coop)

339

0.000

0.048

0.635

0.951

327

Access to seedlings (via coop)

339

0.000

0.000

0.311

0.773

327
0.67***

0.67***

0.85***At least 1 agro-input for free

339

0.113

0.065

0.115

0.129

339

0.000

0.694

0.588

0.761

654

Years of certification coop level

339

1.240

1.613

2.696

2.779

339

2.680

3.548

6.236

6.706

654

If farmer certified by FLO

339

0.038

0.000

0.041

0.080

327

If farmer certified by Rainforest Alliance

339

0.038

0.048

0.101

0.123

327

Utz certified in both years/control in both years

339

0.367

0.500

0.897

0.982

339

0.367

0.500

0.897

0.982

654

Coop membership 2013 based on 2017

339

0.377

0.565

0.946

1.000

339

0.377

0.565

0.946

1.000

654

Agro-ecological conditions

339

1.679

1.661

1.527

1.663

339

1.679

1.661

1.527

1.663

654

1 female 0 male

339

0.019

0.048

0.047

0.018

339

0.019

0.048

0.047

0.018

654

HH size in 2017

339

7.774

7.855

8.277

8.509

339

7.774

7.855

8.277

8.509

654

Share gross cocoa income

321

0.834

0.808

0.901

0.921

289

0.937

0.905

0.920

0.954

596

0.06

0.02

0.06

Total farmsize

339

4.943

3.935

4.957

5.627

333

9.294

8.945

8.894

9.178

654

3.06*

2.58*

2.37*

Total cocoa farm size - both years

339

4.943

3.935

4.957

5.627

339

4.835

4.282

4.974

5.799

654

1.89*

1.37

1.57*

Farm size in production

339

4.208

3.375

4.240

4.900

339

4.410

3.870

4.557

5.310

654

0.90

0.43

0.53

Farm size in production if measured

338

3.104

2.343

2.974

2.816

339

2.080

2.202

3.961

5.172

653

0.15

-0.02

1.16

Age of main farm313

25.42921.92921.85021.56726423.32420.81424.16924.328

562

1.81

3.69

4.27*

Nr of years the oldest plot existed

339

25.09421.83921.80421.521299

23.69622.69624.81323.953620

2.26

4.66**

4.25*

Owner of # of farms

339

1.019

0.871

0.865

0.853

339

1.585

1.242

1.243

1.368

654

0.17

0.17

0.36*

Total owned farm size

339

4.387

3.315

3.584

3.794

339

4.363

3.438

4.083

4.947

654

1.56

2.33**

3.06***

286

3.421

3.067

2.811

4.017

280

0.00

0.00

0.00

Output divided by input (all inputs)
Total input costs

339

64307.655801.4

66864.967819.7339

72016.065558.6

90289.5

79886.0654-10458.15

15.43-16308.08

Costs of inputs (agro-input, hired labour) per ha

316

25415.730445.1

25119.7

21848.828830740.6

37002.1

34185.5

27607.6593-2258.53-9359.79-13016.37

Total non-labour input costs per hectare

331

15364.4

21501.3

15322.3

12656.6335

7180.87773.66008.95747.7652-878.24-224.66

1460.55

Total costs hired labour in CFA

339

23054.8

15277.2

28616.929777.0339

52745.345298.1

70033.1

60228.2

654-17313.70-7194.05-23326.55

Total costs hired labour in CFA per ha

331

7897.68326.58521.97415.8335

12070.913168.2

19151.5

12977.0652-4490.82

1081.65-3933.53

96 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

indicator

2013noverall

2017

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n
overall

dif in dif* (comapred to group 1)

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n

group 2group 3group 4overall

Sum of all labour costs in CFA

335

99282.4

92145.7

118094.4

115826.7332

595270.0

576674.7

788203.5713817.2

644

22707.13

123416.52

11997.03

Total labour costs CFA per ha

328

33656.2

38738.6

40501.7

32705.8

328

186928.0

197251.9239452.9

183766.9652-4490.82

1081.65-3933.53

Averaged total price CFA/kg

339

725.0

725.0

725.0

725.0

338

1057.91053.61053.21059.9654-16.17

-9.76

1.79

Price cocoa in CFA main season

339

725.0

725.0

725.0

725.0

335

1077.91083.91074.71082.0651-4.17-15.69-3.64

Price cocoa in CFA low season

339

725.0

725.0

725.0

725.0

335

938.5

913.5

936.1

930.4

651

3.73

13.75

10.40

Annual production kg for both years

3211683.21388.42013.72535.7289

1832.51538.42148.12825.3596

1292.04

1221.55*

1404.14*

Productivity in kg/ha

315

353.788367.271499.319523.122289

405.242408.683459.258554.959

594

80.34

84.63

170.69Change in production 2016/2017

335

1.654

1.419

1.463

1.488

335

1.481

1.403

1.393

1.393

648

0.35

0.23

0.22

Reason for change - certification

326

0.080

0.267

0.340

0.333

339

0.038

0.081

0.074

0.184

641

-0.08

-0.08

0.09

Reason for change - spraying

326

0.120

0.150

0.201

0.179

339

0.189

0.371

0.311

0.307

641

-0.15

-0.01

0.03

Reason for change - lack of spraying

326

0.200

0.100

0.076

0.051

339

0.264

0.161

0.095

0.055

641

0.04

-0.08

-0.09

Reason for change - new plantation

326

0.040

0.117

0.118

0.122

339

0.038

0.097

0.074

0.061

641

0.13

0.03

-0.00

Reason for change - replantation

326

0.080

0.067

0.028

0.026

339

0.057

0.065

0.054

0.043

641

-0.09

-0.04

-0.03

Reason for change - new cocoa variety

326

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.038

339

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.055

641

0.00

-0.01

0.02

Reason for change - pesticides

326

0.140

0.150

0.181

0.154

339

0.208

0.274

0.277

0.294

641

0.15

-0.04

0.02

Reason for change - fertiliser

326

0.060

0.050

0.063

0.058

339

0.302

0.258

0.250

0.331

641

0.01

-0.03

0.05

Reason for change - training

326

0.060

0.150

0.271

0.353

339

0.000

0.048

0.061

0.135

641

-0.02

-0.08

-0.03

Reason for change - death/disease

326

0.220

0.167

0.111

0.071

339

0.132

0.145

0.142

0.104

641

-0.03

-0.01

-0.02

Reason for change - ageing farm

326

0.160

0.100

0.111

0.064

339

0.170

0.065

0.122

0.074

641

-0.14

-0.06

-0.04

Reason for change - traditional variety

326

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.013

339

0.038

0.016

0.007

0.000

641

-0.00

-0.00

-0.01

Reason for change - lack of treatment

326

0.140

0.083

0.069

0.058

339

0.170

0.065

0.034

0.018

641

-0.07

-0.15**-0.14**

Reason for change - lack of fertiliser

326

0.240

0.133

0.090

0.128

339

0.226

0.097

0.155

0.074

641

-0.06

0.02

-0.09

Reason for change - lack of training

326

0.020

0.033

0.021

0.006

339

0.019

0.032

0.007

0.000

641

-0.06

-0.06*-0.06*

Reason for change - All been eaten

326

0.000

0.017

0.000

0.000

339

0.019

0.000

0.014

0.006

641

-0.09***-0.05*-0.05*

Reason for change - Lack of hired labour

326

0.080

0.067

0.028

0.026

339

0.075

0.000

0.047

0.012

641

-0.11

0.03

-0.01

Reason for change - No time

326

0.000

0.000

0.014

0.006

339

0.038

0.000

0.020

0.000

641

-0.11**-0.11***-0.12***

Reason for change - farm is far away

326

0.040

0.017

0.021

0.019

339

0.019

0.000

0.014

0.000

641

-0.04

-0.01

-0.02

Reason for change - No money for cultivation

326

0.040

0.033

0.007

0.019

339

0.019

0.000

0.014

0.000

641

-0.10**-0.06-0.08**

Reason for change -Disagreement on familiy land

326

0.000

0.017

0.000

0.000

339

0.019

0.000

0.014

0.000

641

-0.06**-0.05**-0.06***

Reason for change - Territory not clearly defined

326

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

339

0.000

0.016

0.000

0.006

641

-0.00

-0.00

0.01

Reason for change - pest (like swollen foot)

326

0.000

0.033

0.007

0.058

339

0.038

0.016

0.027

0.018

641

-0.06

-0.03

-0.10

Reason for change - good rainfall

326

0.080

0.050

0.035

0.051

339

0.151

0.258

0.277

0.233

641

0.11

0.14

0.07

Reason for change - A lot of rain/high humidity

326

0.040

0.000

0.042

0.064

339

0.038

0.032

0.047

0.031

641

-0.02

-0.06

-0.09

Reason for change - Little rain/low humidity

326

0.220

0.067

0.146

0.192

339

0.132

0.177

0.182

0.172

641

0.44***

0.36**

0.27**

Reason for change - illness farmer

326

0.020

0.000

0.000

0.000

339

0.019

0.016

0.007

0.006

641

-0.06**-0.06***-0.05**

Reason for change - No money for hired labour

326

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

339

0.000

0.016

0.007

0.000

641

0.04

0.01

-0.00

Reason for change - other

326

0.100

0.083

0.097

0.077

339

0.019

0.048

0.068

0.025

641

0.21**

0.19**

0.12

Reason for change - lot of sun/dryness

326

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

339

0.132

0.194

0.257

0.221

641

-0.06

-0.03

-0.05

How many tree species farmer uses

331

1.264

1.293

1.287

1.302

330

1.353

1.328

1.447

1.360

639

0.04

0.05

-0.02

If farmers uses compost

339

0.094

0.065

0.108

0.160

339

0.208

0.129

0.162

0.270

654

-0.07

-0.07

-0.02

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 97

indicator

2013noverall

2017

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n
overall

dif in dif* (comapred to group 1)

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n

group 2group 3group 4overall

Dummy not planted shadetrees because enough

339

0.245

0.097

0.216

0.184

339

0.132

0.097

0.142

0.135

654

-0.04

-0.06

-0.06

Reason for selling to company - Price

336

0.208

0.333

0.336

0.317

336

0.132

0.197

0.295

0.222

651

-0.09

-0.02

-0.10

Reason for selling to company - Credit

336

0.125

0.000

0.053

0.087

337

0.038

0.033

0.068

0.135

651

0.17

0.17*

0.20**

Reason for selling to company - Inputs

336

0.083

0.061

0.153

0.168

320

0.000

0.037

0.022

0.088

636

0.08

-0.02

0.03

Reason for selling to company - Training

336

0.375

0.242

0.336

0.354

333

0.038

0.000

0.118

0.199

648

0.01

0.07

0.12

Reason for selling to company - Other service

336

0.000

0.000

0.092

0.062

333

0.019

0.000

0.007

0.062

648

0.00

-0.09

0.00

Reason for selling to company - I owe them money

336

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

289

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

604

0.00

0.00

0.00

Reason for selling to company - other

336

0.042

0.061

0.137

0.168

333

0.019

0.000

0.028

0.062

648

-0.08

-0.10

-0.11

333

0.057

0.033

0.049

0.093

323

0.00

0.00

0.00

Reason for selling to company - they pay cash

0 .

.

.

.

Reason for selling to company - I don't know

336

0.458

0.515

0.351

0.323

333

0.698

0.738

0.549

0.472

648

0.04

-0.02

-0.01

# Reasons for selling to company farmer mentions

336

0.833

0.697

1.107

1.155

338

0.302

0.279

0.578

0.853

652

0.10

0.01

0.18

If better access to input market since last year?

339

0.377

0.339

0.507

0.601

332

0.538

0.377

0.621

0.559

648

-0.07

0.02

-0.13

If money would you buy agro-inputs

338

0.453

0.459

0.503

0.595

338

0.528

0.403

0.662

0.586

652

-0.17

0.01

-0.18

Gross income both years from main farm321

1133985

1004153

13399411689081285

15428621247055

17642082392005592

768905.00

830138.74

1076521.11**

Gross income both years from cocoa prod321

1156170

1005528

1459435

1839212289

1928133

16002192261230

2985451596

734702.53

833830.32

1169593.02*

Cash net income both years from main farm321

1068948947756

1272700

1620089285

14612961172337

16678832309828592

773822.24

835393.98

1099812.72**

Net income cocoa income-input costs calculated

315

1095884

9661781375741

1756960

289

1798935

145045421141502852767594

683692.54

868707.18

1229056.79*

Total income from other sources than cocoa

337

384741545079176178192628336

182057157058207457147537649-470251.85** -170369.79-297443.88

Total gross income cocoa and other sources

325

152578415352591641905

2014546294

2095978

17537552459360

3135902603

235818.95

560288.53

835510.06

Cocoa profitability = net income per ha314

238736239902344920394565284457695406153461598604278588

30130.49

43743.37

150123.77

Cash net income per hh member in USD per day

315

1

1

1

1

289

1

1

2

2

594

0.15

0.48

0.68

Net cash income per family labour day

291

44959

46591

59281

79560

281

21987

15902

22395

48725

562

-2941.65-2349.09

8980.34# Of income sources farmer has (incl cocoa)

339

1.717

1.613

1.507

1.497

339

2.151

2.145

2.318

2.104

654

0.31

0.69**

0.45*# Of other income sources farmer has

339

0.717

0.613

0.507

0.497

339

1.151

1.145

1.318

1.104

654

0.31

0.69**

0.45*

Price premium received per kg

203

49.54542.94146.38644.684213

32.50035.71438.08638.520405

13.11*

11.11**

13.81**

Spending cocoa income social

336

2.849

2.710

2.716

2.838

339

2.679

2.774

2.804

2.816

651

0.33

0.35**

0.20

Spending cocoa income on agriculture

336

1.208

0.984

1.327

1.161

339

1.189

1.548

1.615

1.620

651

0.98**

0.28

0.51Count var livelihood: out of 9 categories

339

1.981

2.855

4.216

4.810

339

1.981

2.355

4.081

4.957

654

0.69

2.08***

2.58***Count score of implementation q94-96

337

0.566

0.426

0.750

0.714

339

0.245

0.274

0.401

0.479

652

0.13

-0.20

-0.08

Did you get visit from (child) labour inspection?

332

0.115

0.117

0.248

0.285

331

0.077

0.081

0.393

0.446

639

0.17

0.30*

0.32*

Child labour days summed

193

1.691

17.50512.33913.5408362.20046.06367.36642.579

267

9.91

27.88

4.38

When farmer says child does hazardous activities

339

0.151

0.258

0.223

0.258

339

0.094

0.161

0.243

0.104

654

-0.04

0.13

-0.06

Knows minimum age is 18 for child to work

339

0.028

0.040

0.041

0.071

339

0.255

0.234

0.456

0.543

654

-0.19

-0.01

0.06

Satisfaction on improvement education children?

329

0.147

0.488

0.667

0.763

338

-0.245-0.344

0.324

0.466

643

-0.09

0.70**

0.74**

Perception improvement of education kids

116

0.000

0.500

0.278

0.298

339

0.642

0.645

0.757

0.816

440

-0.47

-0.06

-0.06

If farmer uses muffler for protection

336

0.245

0.131

0.212

0.258

338

0.434

0.311

0.527

0.426

650

0.15

0.23

0.04

If farmer uses boots for protection

310

0.750

0.500

0.620

0.685

338

0.830

0.754

0.831

0.833

624

0.36*

0.24

0.14

If farmer uses hat for protection

314

0.154

0.119

0.219

0.217

338

0.434

0.377

0.500

0.537

628

-0.07

0.05

0.06

If farmer uses jumpsuit for protection

314

0.019

0.068

0.066

0.125

338

0.321

0.295

0.252

0.383

628

-0.20

-0.21

-0.13

If farmer uses eyeglasses for protection

314

0.038

0.068

0.095

0.171

338

0.226

0.230

0.378

0.302

628

0.09

0.07

-0.09

98 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

indicator

2013noverall

2017

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n
overall

dif in dif* (comapred to group 1)

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n

group 2group 3group 4overallIf farmer uses trenchcoat for protection

313

0.019

0.034

0.103

0.151

338

0.226

0.262

0.426

0.364

627

0.05

0.01

-0.12

If farmer uses gloves for protection

313

0.058

0.068

0.169

0.158

337

0.302

0.230

0.347

0.340

626

-0.13

-0.25

-0.27*Count uses if in possession q37

336

1.264

0.951

1.404

1.650

338

2.774

2.459

3.257

3.185

650

0.15

0.13

-0.35

Score 0-1 for use of protective clothing

336

0.181

0.136

0.201

0.236

338

0.396

0.351

0.465

0.455

650

0.02

0.02

-0.05

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_1

38

0.800

-0.167-0.600-0.214

277

1.000

0.400

0.717

0.925

300

0.42

1.10**

0.80(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_2

146

0.857

0.059

0.417

0.284

168

1.000

0.111

0.682

0.835

298

-0.13

0.10

0.33

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_3

45

0.667

-0.222-0.063

0.095

287

0.778

0.737

0.822

0.890

320

0.51

0.42

0.25

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_4

251

0.733

0.517

0.577

0.597

93

-1.000-1.000

0.538

0.641

327

-1.71***

-0.06

0.00

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_5

173

0.786

0.409

0.422

0.691

101

-1.000-0.600

0.429

0.758

265

0.60

1.74**

1.75**(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_6

155

0.769

0.455

0.382

0.649

151

1.000

-0.429

0.326

0.769

294

-1.25

-0.48

-0.32

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_7

133

0.667

0.263

0.446

0.473

197 .

0.111

0.732

0.846

317

-0.80**

-0.05

0.00

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_8

266

0.250

0.370

0.189

0.236

134 .

0.000

0.778

0.870

384

-1.22*

0.09

0.00(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_9

191

0.438

0.300

0.200

0.253

159 .

0.786

0.860

337

0.00

0.06

0.00

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_10

119

0.455

0.000

0.296

0.261

234 .

0.678

0.889

340

-0.40

-0.12

0.00

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_11

223

0.333

0.250

0.323

0.253

166 .

.

0.582

0.776

378

0.00

-0.18

0.00

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_12

291

0.263

0.286

0.142

0.179

33 .

.

0.600

0.786

313

0.00

-0.18

0.00

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_13

292

0.563

0.321

0.246

0.281

35 .

0.000

0.846

316

0.13

-0.84**

0.00(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_14

275

0.737

0.393

0.404

0.566

41 .

0.111

0.818

305

0.00

-0.86***

0.00(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_15

251

0.529

0.462

0.400

0.559

91

1.000

-1.000

0.030

0.678

328

-1.82***-0.50***

0.00(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_16

118

0.429

0.000

0.216

0.426

221

1.000

0.059

0.443

0.800

326

-0.79

-0.52

-0.42

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_17

100

0.429

0.000

0.333

0.444

244

1.000

0.563

0.906

0.922

333

-0.12

-0.04

-0.18

(Dis)satisfaction on service q62a_18

186

0.364

-0.105

0.042

0.011

1.000

1.000

180

0.00

0.54

0.00

Service: Access to training

319

0.250

0.375

0.080

0.092

325

0.118

0.556

0.854

0.988

622

0.37***

0.89***

1.01***

Service: Information on input prices

322

0.333

0.548

0.476

0.432

325

0.059

0.333

0.496

0.605

625

0.06

0.29

0.44**

Service: Sell my cocoa

322

0.150

0.290

0.127

0.135

324

0.529

0.704

0.890

0.963

624

0.06

0.37***

0.42***

Service: Market information on sales

320

0.750

0.935

0.776

0.768

324

0.059

0.148

0.206

0.395

622

-0.02

0.21

0.43***

Service: info internal inspections

320

0.700

0.710

0.516

0.519

321

0.000

0.154

0.279

0.416

619

0.16

0.41**

0.58***

Service: info external inspections

321

0.650

0.710

0.440

0.474

323

0.059

0.231

0.360

0.654

622

0.02

0.40**

0.67***

Service: Information ANADER services

321

0.450

0.613

0.448

0.353

323

0.000

0.308

0.544

0.765

622

0.09

0.59***

0.92***

Service: Access to fertilisers

320

1.000

0.871

0.848

0.794

324

0.000

0.037

0.199

0.679

622

0.17

0.35**

0.89***

Service: Access to nurseries/pods

320

0.800

0.645

0.650

0.532

325

0.000

0.000

0.328

0.772

623

0.07

0.43**

0.98***

Service: Access to pesticides

321

0.524

0.419

0.435

0.295

324

0.000

0.111

0.662

0.951

623

0.30

0.80***

1.24***

Service: Access to credits

318

0.947

0.667

0.744

0.643

325

0.000

0.000

0.423

0.728

621

0.23

0.58***

1.01***

Service: Insurance systems

312

0.950

0.933

0.926

0.927

322

0.000

0.000

0.037

0.175

612

0.03

0.09

0.24**

Service: Assistance relations pisteurs

315

0.800

0.966

0.952

0.908

322

0.000

0.037

0.052

0.167

616

-0.08

-0.09

0.08

Service: Assistance with other service providers

314

0.950

0.966

0.879

0.849

322

0.000

0.000

0.060

0.222

615

-0.03

0.08

0.30**

Service: Commercial activities

312

0.850

0.897

0.813

0.781

322

0.059

0.222

0.254

0.377

613

0.15

0.31*

0.47***

Service: Payment on time by the buyer

312

0.350

0.448

0.415

0.358

317

0.353

0.615

0.712

0.717

608

0.22

0.25

0.32*

Service: Get a good price

308

0.350

0.429

0.347

0.302

324

0.412

0.593

0.794

0.790

611

0.33

0.43**

0.45***

Service: other

200

1.000

0.950

0.922

0.920

323

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.006

503

0.07

0.08

0.08

.
0.500

1.000
.

2 .

.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 99

indicator

2013noverall

2017

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n
overall

dif in dif* (comapred to group 1)

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n

group 2group 3group 4overall

Number of input related services

339

0.377

0.500

0.770

0.847

339

0.019

0.210

0.845

0.988

654

0.28**

0.86***

0.97***

Total sum of 17 services - q62

325

0.606

0.647

0.575

0.533

325

0.098

0.237

0.419

0.610

628

0.12

0.35***

0.59***

I feel represented by the coop managers

138

1.545

1.217

1.286

1.233

324

0.733

0.724

0.750

0.906

446

0.12

0.16

0.36

I feel I have an influence on

172

1.385

1.346

1.339

1.247

324

0.533

0.586

0.765

0.950

477

-0.19

0.17

0.44*

Q65_1 perception farmer

320

0.444

0.433

0.279

0.331

326

0.406

0.435

0.651

0.807

624

0.06

0.34**

0.46***

Q65_2 perception farmer

321

0.500

0.452

0.353

0.375

328

0.219

0.306

0.569

0.758

626

0.16

0.46***

0.64***

Q65_3 perception farmer

321

0.222

0.242

0.182

0.099

328

0.406

0.468

0.754

0.845

626

-0.02

0.31**

0.48***

Q65_4 perception farmer score

321

0.222

0.306

0.225

0.194

327

0.433

0.468

0.623

0.730

625

-0.12

0.10

0.23

Mean score if coop well-managed (score_q65_1-4)

322

0.347

0.355

0.260

0.249

328

0.359

0.419

0.647

0.785

627

0.03

0.31**

0.46***

Improvement coop? - No

339

0.094

0.161

0.223

0.276

337

0.211

0.286

0.194

0.202

653

-0.02

-0.10

-0.13

Improvement coop? - Training of managers

339

0.170

0.097

0.149

0.184

337

0.000

0.086

0.223

0.178

653

0.33**

0.51***

0.44***

Improvement coop? - Bookkeeping

339

0.189

0.097

0.189

0.196

336

0.263

0.257

0.428

0.319

652

0.11

0.26

0.14

Improvement coop? - Transparency price

339

0.189

0.177

0.318

0.331

337

0.263

0.314

0.439

0.307

653

0.00

0.24

0.12

Improvement coop? - Transparency premium

339

0.075

0.129

0.128

0.166

337

0.105

0.171

0.252

0.209

653

-0.09

0.10

0.02

Improvement coop? - Negotiate a higher price

339

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.018

337

0.053

0.114

0.165

0.129

653

0.09

0.12

0.05

Improvement coop? - Other

339

0.157

0.161

0.304

0.301

337

0.316

0.229

0.129

0.337

653

-0.11

-0.29*-0.04

Children to continue in cocoa farming

215

0.292

0.324

0.307

0.308

321

0.521

0.441

0.442

0.465

515

-0.33

-0.33

-0.29

Contine cocoa farming and/or diversify

334

0.725

0.689

0.750

0.744

314

0.674

0.847

0.737

0.861

624

0.28

0.12

0.27*

Where get seedlings/cocoa pods from

338

0.156

0.153

0.302

0.369

339

0.099

0.177

0.316

0.532

653

0.18

0.13

0.29*

Scaled score for implement_q71

336

0.910

0.935

0.954

0.964

339

0.910

0.940

0.965

0.980

651

0.01

0.07**

0.07**

Scaled score for implement_q72

336

0.477

0.568

0.510

0.461

339

0.425

0.584

0.567

0.625

651

-0.03

-0.11

0.03

Scaled score for implement_q76

337

0.085

0.185

0.248

0.295

339

0.071

0.202

0.334

0.413

652

0.14

0.22

0.30*

Scaled score for implement_q77

338

0.864

0.782

0.786

0.756

339

0.949

0.921

0.947

0.882

653

-0.10

-0.01

-0.06

Mean score of q71, q72, q76, q77

337

0.584

0.618

0.624

0.618

339

0.589

0.661

0.703

0.725

652

0.00

0.04

0.09

Scaled score for implement_q73

334

0.113

0.097

0.082

0.113

338

0.245

0.339

0.216

0.228

648

0.06

-0.04

-0.04

Scaled score for implement_q74

314

0.306

0.220

0.333

0.329

339

0.415

0.484

0.453

0.534

631

0.26

0.20

0.32*

Scaled score for implement_q75

337

0.382

0.415

0.658

0.647

338

0.325

0.323

0.507

0.472

651

0.14

0.06

0.02

Mean implementation score of q73,74,75

336

0.268

0.245

0.355

0.364

339

0.329

0.382

0.391

0.413

651

0.14

0.07

0.09

Scaled score of implementation q78

337

0.662

0.755

0.791

0.839

339

0.713

0.624

0.772

0.812

652

-0.17

-0.05

-0.02

Scaled score of implementation q79

338

0.464

0.439

0.745

0.752

338

0.670

0.698

0.768

0.804

652

0.02

-0.21

-0.14

Scaled score of implementation q80

337

0.842

0.902

0.775

0.773

338

0.796

0.818

0.821

0.742

651

-0.11

0.08

-0.00

Mean score of post harvest practice q78-80

337

0.656

0.699

0.770

0.790

337

0.726

0.713

0.788

0.785

650

-0.08

-0.06

-0.06

If farmer has 12 or more shade trees per ha

339

0.264

0.129

0.297

0.288

339

0.151

0.113

0.277

0.294

654

-0.06

0.06

0.06

If farmer plants shade trees every 2,8-4 metres

156

0.000

0.100

0.042

0.056

203

0.040

0.129

0.102

0.174

344

-0.15

0.04

0.09

If farmer has planted shadetrees previous 2 years

335

0.038

0.098

0.224

0.261

338

0.113

0.148

0.279

0.389

649

0.03

0.07

0.13

Scaled score of implementation q88

333

0.935

0.939

0.946

0.935

338

0.992

0.993

0.989

0.978

647

0.05

-0.01

0.00

Scaled score of implementation q89

333

0.143

0.098

0.140

0.175

338

0.174

0.105

0.280

0.225

647

0.12

0.22*

0.09

Scaled score of implementation q90

335

0.717

0.726

0.830

0.806

339

0.849

0.887

0.878

0.877

650

0.04

-0.07

-0.04

Scaled score of implementation q93

336

0.670

0.667

0.813

0.819

339

0.751

0.713

0.822

0.846

651

0.00

-0.04

-0.01

Mean score of implementation q88-91, 93

337

0.604

0.616

0.687

0.711

339

0.706

0.684

0.770

0.745

652

0.07

0.08

0.03

100 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

indicator

2013noverall

2017

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n
overall

dif in dif* (comapred to group 1)

group 1group 2group 3group 4

n=53

n=62

n=148

n=163

n

group 2group 3group 4overallIf hired labour, have contract regarding the work?

331

0.510

0.328

0.486

0.497

339

0.208

0.210

0.327

0.344

646

0.10

-0.05

-0.07

Do you have declaration CNPS for hired labour?

329

0.000

0.000

0.021

0.000

337

0.000

0.016

0.000

0.012

642

0.04

-0.02

0.01

Know labour rights (hours working etc)?

334

0.075

0.098

0.253

0.225

337

0.038

0.048

0.075

0.124

647

0.04

-0.10

0.01

Farmer knows minimum age is 18 for child to work

339

0.028

0.040

0.041

0.071

339

0.255

0.234

0.456

0.543

654

-0.19

-0.01

0.06

Did you get visit from (child) labour inspection?

332

0.115

0.117

0.248

0.285

331

0.077

0.081

0.393

0.446

639

0.17

0.30*

0.32*

Scaled score for knowledge q100

338

0.861

0.910

0.948

0.955

339

0.994

0.994

0.986

0.988

653

-0.03

-0.10**-0.10**

Scaled score for knowledge q101

338

0.794

0.824

0.937

0.973

337

0.971

0.966

0.990

0.994

651

0.01

0.04

0.03

Scaled score for knowledge q102

338

0.739

0.751

0.920

0.907

326

0.939

0.945

0.940

0.940

640

0.03

-0.08

-0.05

Scaled score for knowledge q103

336

0.561

0.571

0.709

0.858

331

0.790

0.848

0.890

0.928

644

-0.02

-0.03

-0.10

Scaled score for knowledge q104

333

0.709

0.747

0.730

0.715

336

0.947

0.938

0.906

0.933

645

-0.18

-0.12

-0.05

Scaled score for knowledge q105

337

0.419

0.500

0.706

0.669

329

0.670

0.629

0.713

0.807

644

-0.23

-0.21*-0.08

Scaled score for knowledge q108

335

0.363

0.400

0.484

0.463

337

0.278

0.306

0.317

0.354

649

0.03

-0.00

0.07

Scaled score for knowledge q109

338

0.879

0.892

0.930

0.950

332

0.965

0.966

0.963

0.965

647

-0.06**-0.04*-0.06**

Mean scores of knowledge q100-104, 109

338

0.710

0.743

0.841

0.861

339

0.895

0.898

0.914

0.936

653

-0.07

-0.08**-0.06

Scaled score for knowledge question q111

335

0.367

0.394

0.477

0.493

337

0.348

0.372

0.374

0.421

648

0.05

0.09

0.13

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 101

Appendix 4

Regression tables and analyses

Advanced regression analysis were used to test the robustness of these results taking into account the limited differences in farmer, household and farmcharacteristics (See Table 4.4) and agro-ecological zone. This helps to build the counterfactual in combination with qualitative data to explain observed differences,or lack thereof. These analyses provide insight into other factors influencing the indicators. The analyses comparing UTZ with non-UTZ farmers, and UTZ farmers
compared for service intensity are shown in:• A simple model for 2013 data (t-test and with critical variables to explore initial differences).
• A simple model for 2017 data (t-test and with critical variables to explore endline differences).
• A 'difference in difference' model with critical variables to explore changes over time.
• A 'difference in difference' model with critical variables to explore changes over time including years certified.
• A 'fixed effect model' at household level as a means to control for omitted variable bias.

Table A4.1

Regression analysis farm size and certification status. regress farmsizeinprod utz if utz!=. & year==1
Source

SS

df

MS

Model
Residual

23.6166822
6869.117

1416

23.6166822
16.5123005

Total

6892.73368

417

16.5293374

farmsizein~d

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

[95% Conf. Interval]

utz
_cons

.6071335
4.266076.5076665.4571832

1.20
9.33

0.232
0.000

-.3907779
3.367399

Number of obs
F( 1,
416)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE

=
=
=
=
=
=

418
1.43
0.23240.00340.00104.06351.605045
5.164753

Correlation farm size with age (of farmer in 2017): not significant (r=0.0249)• No significant difference between farm size (in production) in 2017, UTZ/no UTZ (and same for 2013)• No correlation farm size with age of farmer• There is correlation between farm size & the age of main farm: sign, r =0.187• This means for every year the main farm exists longer, average size of tt cocoa farm increases (by 0.06 HA, see last results for 2017 year, similar for year 2013)102 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Table A4.2

Regression analysis farm size and farm age. regress farmsizeinprod age_17 if utz!=. & year==1
Source

SS

df

MS

Model
Residual

4.26865125
6902.05152

1
421

4.26865125
16.3944217

Total

6906.32017

422

16.3656876

farmsizein~d

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

[95% Conf. Interval]

age_17_cons.0087456
4.300231.0171392.8861549

0.51
4.85

0.610
0.000

-.0249435
2.558392

Number of obs =
423
F( 1,
421) =
0.26
Prob > F= 0.6101
R-squared= 0.0006
Adj R-squared = -0.0018
Root MSE=
4.049.0424346
6.04207

Correlation farm size with age of main farm (in 2017) significant (r =0.187). For every year the main farm exists more, 0.06 HA is added to average size of cocoa
farm and similar in 2013.

Table A4.3

Regression analysis farm size in production and certification status. regress farmsizeinprod yearsplot1 if utz!=. & year==1
Source

SS

df

MS

Model
Residual

153.523339
4219.08452

1
322

153.523339
13.102747

Total

4372.60786

323

13.5374856

farmsizein~d

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

[95% Conf. Interval]

yearsplot1_cons.0620493
3.271071.0181272.4747164

3.42
6.89

0.001
0.000

.0263866
2.337134

Number of obs
F( 1,
322)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE

=
=
=
=
=
=

324
11.72
0.00070.03510.0321
3.6198.0977124.205009

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 103

Appendix 5
Table A5.1

Indicators

Indicators

Outcome1.Farmer Characteristics

2.Farm efficiency

3, Increased productivity

Indicators

Question numbers

Question numbers

2013 questionnairequestionnaire

1.0 Name, telephone, age

6, 7, 88,91.2 Gender

34

1.4 Length time certified

16g, 40

15g, 26

1.5 participation in other certification programmes, length time

16h, i, j, 21, 40a15h, i, j, 26a

1.9 Number of people in household

1412

1.10 Number & type of training & support interventions

44

30

1.11 Farm tenure/ownership sharecropping/worker status

12, 13, 15, 16a

11, 13, 14, 15a1.12 farm size (measured or not?)15, 16b, c

14, 15b, b1, c

1.13 % contribution of cocoa to household income)16, 17, 50

15, 16, 34

1.14 Other sources of income

50

34

1.15 Number of years cocoa farming

16e

15e

1.16 Number of cocoa trees on all farms

16d

15d

1.17 Location (village/region)

4, 5

5, 6, 7

1.18 Member of a cooperative(s)910Input/output ratio (agronomic/economic)

29, 3015, 16, 20, 21

2.1Tree density in practice (vs. prescribed)

82

63

2.2 Use of (trained) spraying team with a manager competent on dosages

COOP

2.3 Total farm size (cocoa & non cocoa)

15, 16a, b, c

3.1 Yield per hectare

15, 16d, 77, 69, 70

3.2 Annual production (last year's harvest)

16

15

3.3 Production and practice change since certification/participation in UTZ program

17 18, 19, 20, 26, 70

16(a), 17, 18, 19, 51, 76,

13, 14, 15a, b, c, 16

100,101, 102, 103, 104, 109

77, 78, 79, 80, 83

33, 3433 35

3.6 Influence climatic factors or other external factors (Political, economic, social..)

26a

19a

4. Quality meets market demand

4.3 Post-harvest practices

78, 79, 80

59, 60, 61

5. Increased profitability and long-

5.1 Income (price, Frequency of payment, Part of the premium directly to farmer in cash)

16, 17, 50

15, 16, 34

term viability of farmers & groups

5.2 Record keeping/Use of records and other information (e.g. provided by group/ICS) for
decision making

62

42 4, 5, 6, 46, 81

5.3 Knowledge: Is market information used for/in decision making?

(Coop manager questionnaire)

5.4 What and how is premium distributed (individual and group level)41, 4227, 285.5 How is cocoa income spent/invested?

51, 5835, 403.4 Inputs used on cocoa production, seedling distribution, planting and maintenance and input
access
3.5 Proportion (%) sold to certified buyer(s)104 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Outcome
6. Improved livelihoods

Indicators
6.1 Perceptions of livelihoods

Question numbers

Question numbers

2013 questionnairequestionnaire

59

41

access to healthcare or presence of medical staff or number of clinics health checks or first aid
training
access to inputs pesticide sprayers
access to markets, credits / banks, other products (seeds etc)
access to decisionmaking groups (Coops, Associations, etc..)
7. Respect for labour rights
8. Respect for labour rights (childllabour)

6.2 Perceived changes in needs (income, food, water, status, health, education, other)q60

7.3 Knowledge of national laws on wages, hours worked

94, 95, 96, 29a 4

70, 71, 72, 20

7.4 Contacts with local community representative for labour rights

98

72_end

8.1 Activities of children on cocoa farm (labour)

29f,g

20f, g8.2 Knowledge: activities on cocoa farm that can be executed by children

44, 46, 97, 111

73, 84

8.3 Extent of farmer's satisfaction on children's education (if improvement)

55, 5938, 41_7

37, 10825, 82

9. Healthy and safe living and working 9.3 Use of protective clothing
conditions
9.4 Impact of community development/social projects(Focus group, Company
questionnaire)

10. Maintained & improved quality of

10.1 Implementation of practices (pruning, mulching, fertiliser use etc.)

71, 72, 76, 77

52, 53, 57, 58

water and soil

10.2 Use of inputs: agrochemicals, quality and type73, 74, 75

54, 55, 56

11. Effective waste management &reduction

11.1 Implementation: if waste & how agrochemicals & leftovers handled?

88, 89, 90, 91, 93,

65, 66, 67, 68, 69

11.2 Is compost used?

31, 3222

12. Protection restoration of natural

12.1 Number of shade trees on cocoa farm81, 82, 83

62, 63, 64

14.Stable producer groups providing

14.7 Perception transparency of ICS

105

81

better & reliable services

14.9 Does group facilitate access to inputs?

20, 33, 34, 62

18, 24, 23, 42

14.10 Does the group facilitate sales?

35, 6242

14.12 Extent price/market information provided to farmers

6242

14.13 Member of other groups and sales to other groups/traiteurs, why?

9, 20

10, 1814.14 Selling beans to others (traitants, buyers)? (loyalty)

18,18a,19,20

17, 1814.15 (Likert) Perception if group well-managed/ financially healthy?

66

46

14.16 proportion payment to farmers on time

62

42

14.17 Perception of communication with members

6242, 4514.18 Perception level of capacities

6242

14.19 Perception level of bargaining power with companies/Companys/traitants

59, 62, 66, 18, 20

42, 1841, 42.

27, 28habitats & biodiversity

14.11 (Sustainability of the group) perception of existence after certification

14.20 Perception effect of training, support and interventions
15. Sustainable practices rewarded by 15.1 Better price / premium
the market
15.2 Long-term buying commitments
15.3 More potential buyers
15.5 Receive additional inputs, or external support? From who? Level & type of services,
inputs/support

21

15.6 Do you want your children to become cocoa farmers?

67

47

15.7 Do you plan to continue cocoa farming/intensify/diversify? (5 yr timescale)

68

49

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 105

Table A5.2

Indicator measurement

Indicators

Indicator measurement

Gross income from cocoa

Yearly production of all cocoa farms multiplied by the average price per kg for cocoa paid to farmers in each season.

Labour costs of cocoa production

All reported hours spent on cocoa production activities multiplied by the price of labour (2000 CFA per day). Family labour costs are calculated using thesame price as for hired labour. Not included are costs and time spent by farmers on training, communal ‘shared' labour gangs, as lead farmers, on internalmanagement systems and on auditing. Farmers indicating zero labour costs were not included in the calculations.

Input costs of cocoa production

Number of times a product is applied multiplied by unit multiplied by price per unit of input (fertilisers and crop protection products such as fungicide andpesticide). Time (opportunity costs) to become UTZ certified and investing in PPE has not been taken into account in cost calculations

Total cocoa production costs

Labour + input costs. Not included are costs of equipment and personal protective equipment, costs (in kind) of spraying gangs or communal ‘shared'labour.
Time (opportunity costs) to become UTZ certified and investing in PPE have not been taken into account in cost calculations.

Net income from cocoa

Yearly production of cocoa from the main farm, minus total production costs for the main farm. This does not take into account the costs of farmers own
labour or family labour and is not inflation adjusted. Inflation in the period 03/2014 to 03/2017 was on average 1% 19. Production costs are notextrapolated from main farm to the other farms, but as other farm area is very limited, we expect minimal differences.

Cocoa production efficiency
Productivity

Average economic efficiency ratio of output to inputs, calculated as gross income divided by total agronomic production costs.
Yield per tree per hectare. Based on farmers reports of their farm size.
In 2012 only 30% of farmers had measured their farm size, the remaining 70% were estimates. On average farmers over-estimated their farm size by afactor of 7%.

Rate of knowledge of Good Agricultural

Farmers were asked 12 multiple choice questions on GAP. Correctly answered questions correspond to the requirements of the UTZ Code of Conduct. The

Practices (cocoa)

more correct answers a farmer, the higher the score for the individual question. For each question a score was derived on a scale between 1 and 10. The
overall knowledge score was measured as an average of all scores for the individual scores.

Income and expenditure

To analyse how farmers spent their cocoa-related income, two broad categories 'economic' and 'social' were determined. Four categories of agricultural
expenditures were defined: purchasing inputs and equipment for cocoa; purchasing inputs and equipment for other crops; paying hired labour for cocoa;
and paying hired labour for other crops. The maximum score farmers can get is 4. Social expenditures cover three categories: food, medicine and school
fees, with a maximum score of 3.

Rate of implementation of GAP (cocoa)

Farmers were asked 24 multiple choice questions on GAP. Correctly answered questions correspond to the requirements of the UTZ Code of Conduct. The
answers were scored according to the correctness of the answer. For each farmer and each question a score was given on a scale between 1 and 10. The
overall score for the implementation of GAP was measured as an average of all the individual scores.

Satisfaction with livelihood

Farmer perception, 5-point Likert scale

Changes in needs (income, food, water,

Farmer perception based on open questions with qualitative answers possible.

health, education, other)
Satisfaction with cooperative services

Farmer perception, 3-point Likert scale

Satisfaction with company’s programmes

Farmer perception, 3-point Likert scale and open question

19

https://tradingeconomics.com/ivory-coast/inflation-cpi

106 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Appendix 6 Overview of knowledge andimplementation scores
Table A6.1

Overview of knowledge and implementation scores

Indicator

Variables

Knowledge and practiceNon-UTZ

UTZ

Mean

Mean

Total
Mean

MedianSd

Statistical test results

Max

Min

N

(implementation)

DIFF

Signif -Signif -

utz-

ttest

OLS CVs
0.101***

Dif-In-Dif YearCert

FE

noutz
Post-harvest practiceUse protective equipment

Know protective clothing

7.1 labour rights knowledge

8.2 knowledge child labour

posth practice 2013

0.661

0.773

0.752

0.9

0.229

1

0

418

0.11

0.101***

posth practice 2017

0.718

0.778

0.768

0.9

0.215

0.967

0

418

0.06

0.047*

0.037

posth practice 2017-2013

0.057

0.005

0.016

0

0.271

0.933

-0.667418-0.05-0.054-0.064*use clothing 2013

0.173

0.212

0.204

0.143

0.259

1

0

418

0.04

0.038

0.017

use clothing 2017

0.35

0.458

0.436

0.286

0.333

1

0

418

0.11

0.108***

0.133***

use clothing 2017-2013

0.177

0.246

0.232

0.143

0.405

1

-1

418

0.07

0.069

0.117**

know clothing 2013

0.304

0.481

0.446

0.5

0.266

1

0

415

0.18

0.177***

0.161***

know clothing 2017

0.277

0.335

0.323

0.25

0.171

1

0

0.058***

0.057**

know clothing 2017-2013-0.027 -0.146-0.122

0

0.3

0.75

know labour rights 2013

0.506

0.706

0.669

1

0.726

2

know labour rights 2017

0.195

0.436

0.391

0

0.616

labour rights 2017-2013-0.312-0.27-0.27800.901

child labour rights 2013

0.298

0.492

0.455

0.375

0.279

child labour rights 2017

0.373

0.396

0.391

0.273

0.075

-0.097-0.064

0.557

0.704

0.676

0.75

0.168

0.7

0.748

0.739

0.75

0.143

0.044

0.063

0.05

child labour rights 2017-2013
11.1 effective waste management

practice agro-waste 2013
practice agro-waste 2017
practice 2017-2013-0.048 -0.173***-0.054

0.069

0.069

415

0.06

-1

415

-0.12 -0.119*** -0.104*** -0.116***-0.119***

0

414

0.20

0.200**

0.188*

3

0

414

0.24

0.241***

0.285***

2

-2

414

0.04

0.042

0.097

1

0

412

0.19

0.194***

0.208***

0.294

1

0

412

0.02

0.023

-0.017-0.0650.398

1-0.988412-0.17 -0.172*** -0.225*** -0.166*** -0.371**

1

0.04

415

0.15

0.147***

0.152***

0.148

1

0.25

415

0.05

0.048***

0.046**

0.212

0.71

-0.5

415

-0.10 -0.099*** -0.106*** -0.106***

0.056-0.1960.056

0.167** -0.106***

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 107

Appendix 7

Farmer questionnaire 2017

QUESTIONNAIRE Planteur
Présentation au répondant : Veuillez-vous présenter au répondant en précisant ces différents points• Vous présentez par votre nom• Vous travaillez pour l'ONG ALP et l'Université Wageningen en Hollande• Le sujet de cette étude de recherche est la production du cacao et les conditions de vie du répondant et de sa famille (ou de son ménage)• L'entretien prendra environ 1 heures de temps.
• Les chercheurs (enquêteurs) garderont les réponses du répondant confidentielles. Leurs noms ne seront utilisés nulle part. Ses informations ne seront pas divulguer à lacoopérative, à l'exportateur ni aux institutions du gouvernement.
• Leur participation est volontaire. Le répondant n'est pas obligé de répondre aux questions et peut arrêter l'entretien à tout moment.
• Demander si le répondant à des questions sur tout ce que vous venez d'expliquer.
• Est-ce que tout ce j'ai expliqué à propos de l'entretien est clair ?
Instructions aux enquêteurs
Toutes les questions doivent être posées et répondues. Veuillez tout vérifier avant de quitter l'interlocuteur.
Si le répondant ne connait (ou oublie) pas la réponse, écrire -777
Si le répondant ne veut pas répondre, écrire -888.
Si la question ne s'applique pas au répondant, écrire -999.
Et si la réponse est « 0 », écrire « 0 », telles que les « questions relatives aux coûts ».
Assurez-vous que le répondant se sente libre de répondre, prévenez tout bruit et toute interférence.
Si l'on pose la question « l'année dernière » cette campagne (2016/2017) cela concerne la traite de la dernier année (petite traite avril 2016 à aout 2016 grande
traite septembre 2016 à mars 2017)

Information générale
Date de l'enquête
(j-m-a)......./........./........

Temps de début

Temps de la fin:..........................

Nom de l'enquêteur

..........................
Numéro de ‘enquête :..........................
Contrôle ALP :Nom de coopérative108 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Numéro de coopérative.
.........................

Questions pour sélectionner les répondent
1.

Avez-vous vendu du cacao le dernier année (2017/2016 0.
& 2016/2016) ?

Non*

1.

Oui

2.

Etes-vous toujours activement engagé dans la
production du cacao ?*Le répondant doit être une personne (sur votre
liste) qui est activement impliqué dans la culture
du cacao notamment dans les prises de décisions
de l'exploitation de la plantation.

Non*

1.

Oui

3.

Si non : quelle est ce que la raison pourquoi a-t-il
a arrêté avec le cacao ?

0.

*Si la réponse à l'une des deux questions ci-haut est Non, arrêtez gentiment l'entretien et passez au prochain planteur sur votre liste.
Premièrement, je voudrais poser des questions relatives à vous-même et à votre ménage

A.

Ménage

4.

Sexe

5.

Région* (l'enquêteur - cochez àpartir de la liste).................................... (ecrire Code)6.

Département(l'enquêteur - cochez
à partir de la liste).................................... (ecrire Code)7.

Communauté / Village (l'enquêteur
- cochez à partir de la liste)..................................... (ecrire Code)8.

Quel est votre nom ?
(l'enquêteur - vérifie avec la listede contrôle)

0. Masculin
1. Féminin........................................
Si l'orthographie pas bien, faites le correction : ……………

9.

Quel est votre numéro de téléphone?

......................................

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 109

10. Etes-vous toujours membre d'une ou
plusieurs coopérative (s) de cacao ?

0
1

Non
Oui

2.Nom ducoopérative /pisteur*Changements dunom de coopérative /pisteur ou duorthographie

3.Depuisquand ? (année)

1a

1b

1c

2a

2b

2c

3a

3b

3c

4a

4b

4c

(Vérifier orthographie/abréviation avec les liste !!)*(attention pour les changements de nom du coopérative ! si le nom a changé mettre nouvelle/ ancien)
11. Quelle est votre statut par rapport àla plantation ?

12. Combien de personnes vous avez a
votre charge* ?
«à votre charge dit que lespersonnes qui habitent
régulièrement dans votre maison
et quipartagent le repas ensemble »

0.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Créateur
Héritier
Gestionnaire
Autres (Propriétaire : native de village)
Propriétaire (pas native du village)

0.

Ici a cette ménage.................................................

1.

et ailleurs (autres locations) ....................................

B: PRODUCTION DE CACAO
13. Combien de champs de cacao vous et/ou lesmembres de votre ménage est responsable ?
14. Quelle est la superficie de tous votre
plantations (cacao et tous les autres cultures,
aussi les jachère) ?

110 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041……………...

(nombre)Superficie ………

Superficie ….………(En hectare)(En hectare)B: PRODUCTION DE CACAO
15.
Pouvez-vous fournir des données au sujet de chacun des champs de cacao sur lesquels vous travaillez individuellement? Commencez par le champ qui produit leplus. Enumérez vos plantations svp. L'année dernier (Avril 2016 à aout 2016 et Septembre 2016 à mars 2017)
Champde cacao

Votre statuts lieux
pour les champdifférents (peut êtredifférente pourdifférents champs)
0.
1.

Propriétaire :Abusan (partage en
3)
2. Abunun (partage en
2)
3. Prise en garantie
4. Gestionnaire
5. Autre……………………..

Superficie
totale deschampsMesurée ?
(GPS)

Surface en Nombre des Date deproduction arbres de création
cacao

La
Nombre deproduction HA certifie
de l'année par UTZ ?
passée parchamp 20
Kg 21

En HA Oui 1
Non 0

Nombre de
HA certifie
parRainforest
Alliance ?

Nombre de
HA certifié
parFairtrade(FLO) ?

Depuis
Depuis
Depuis……………mois ……………mois ……………mois…………Année …………Année …………Année

Nombre de
HA certifié

Ha

1

1a

1b

1b1

1c

1d

1e

1f

1g

1h

1i

1j

2

2a

2b

2b1

2c

2d

2e

2f

2g

2h

2i

2j

3

3a

3b

3b1

3c

3d

3e

3f

3g

3h

3i

3j

4

4a

4b

4b1

4c

4d

4e

4f

4g

4h

4i

4j

5

5a

5b

5b1

5c

5d

5e

5f

5g

5h

5i

5j

TotaleS'il ne sait
pas par
champ

20
21

Demandez à voir le carnet / reçu : leur production (rendement), et leur vente
NB: Si les répondeurs donnent les informations en Sac, calculer l’équivalence en kg.

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 111

16. Les prix : quelles étaient les prix / kg ce dernière année a qui avez-vous vendu votre cacao ? demande à voir leur carnet de vente
SAISON

petite traite avril 2016 à aout 201

Grande trait sept 2016 à mars 2017

Prix et kg vendu

Prix par kg

Prix par kg

Coopérative

1a1b

Pisteurs

2a2bTraitant

3a3bAutres (Spécifier)

4a

4b

Perte

5a

5b

16a Qui a acheté votre cacao l'année dernière ? (Réponses multiples sont possibles)
Spécifier Nom

16b Pourquoi préférez-vous vendre à cette acheteur(s) ?
Multiples réponses sont possibles
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Le prix est bon
Il paie cash
Il transport mon cacao
Il me donne/accepte crédit
Autres (Spécifier)0.

Votre Coopérative

0a

0b

1.

Pisteur

1a

1b

2.

Autre coopérative

2a

2b

3.

Traitant ……..

3a

3b

4.

Autres………

4a4b

17. A quel entreprise(s) a votre coopérative et / ou pisteur et / ou commerçant a vendu l'année dernier?
EntrepriseDernier année (2017/2016)(1= le plus préféré, 2 le prochain, 3 etc)

1.

Cargill

2.

Armajaro

3.

Barry Callebaut

4.

Natra

5.

Zamacom(Ecom/Ecom sim)

6.

Olam

7.

CocafIvoire (Noble)

8.

ADM *

9.

Ludwig10. CEMOI

112 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

11. Nestle
12. Mars
13. Hedwig
14. GGT
15. Touton
16. Autres………………………Spécifier
17. Je ne sais pas/pas de préférence
18. Pisteur ……………(Spécifier)
19. Transmar
20. Traitant
21. SAFCACAO
22. SIFCACOOP
23. Audre cooperative (Specifier)*ADM a fuse avec Olam
18. Pourquoi votre coopérative / pisteur a choisi particulièrement ces exportateurs ? (Réponses multiples sont possibles)
0. Prix
1. ils donnent des crédits
2. ils fournissent des intrants (gratuit / en crédit)3. ils donnent des formations
4. ils fournissent autres services (Spécifier .................................................
5. Je leur dois de l'argent
6. Autres …………………….............................................................................
7. Il paie cash
8. Je ne sais pas

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 113

C: EFFICACITE ET PRODUCTIVITE
19. Y a-t-il eu un changement dans la production (en kilo) de la année passe (avril 2016 à mars 2017) comparé à la production de l'année d'avant (avril 2015 à mars 2016)?
1. en haut
2. en bas
3. la même-777. Je ne sais pas
19a. Cela est au cause du quoi ? Enquêteur : Ne lire à pas la liste au-dessus haute voix. (Réponses multiples sont possibles)
1.
Certification
2.
Pulvérisation
3.
Mangue de pulvérisation
4.
Nouvelle plantation
5.
Replantation
6.
Nouvelle variété de cacao (cacao 18 mois = Mercedes, Ghana, français)7.
Pesticides
8.
Engrais9.
Formation
10.
Mortalité / Maladies
11.
Vieillissement de la plantation
12.
Ancienne variété (Pas de nouvelle variété de cacao (cacao 18 mois = Mercedes, Ghana, français)13.
Manque de traitement (Pesticides / fongicides)
14.
Manque d'Engrais
15.
Manque de Formation
16.
Le basfonds a tout bouffé
17.
Manque de main d'œuvre
18.
Je n'ai pas de temps
19.
le champ est éloigné (ça prend beaucoup de temps pour y aller)
20.
Pas d'argent pour le cultiver (investissement)
21.
Terre familial sur laquelle il y a encore des désaccords (propriété non définie)
22.
Terre dont la propriété n'est pas clairement définie (propriété non définie)
23.
Il existe une maladie (swollen shoot etc.)
24.
Bonne pluviométrie
25.
La pluie (Beaucoup trop/trop humide)26.
La pluie (trop peu)
27.
Maladie du planteur
28.
Pas de argent pour payer main d'ouvré
29.
Autres (mentionnez)………………………
30.
Trop de soleil /sécheresse

114 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

D. COUT DE PRODUCTION DU CACAO
20. Combien de temps (nombre de jours complets) par an passez-vous personnellement et / ou les autres à accomplir les activités suivantes au niveau de votre PRINCIPAL
champ? Si vous avez plus d'un champ, vos réponses doivent concerner votre champ PRINCIPAL. Enquêter : remplir la table !
Activités

0.
Temps
de
vousmême
(jours)1 Temps demaind'œuvre(rémunérée)(jours)2. Cout demaind'œuvre(par jour)
pourl'activité

2. Cout demain d'œuvre
(par hectare)pour ‘activité(calculée si
besoin)AbusanNumérode jours*coutssont

3. Tempsde enfants
membresdu ménage(< 15 ans)(jours)3a. Temps
de enfantsdu ménage(15 -18ans)(jours)

4. Temps deautresmembreadulte duménage (18ans et +)(jours)5. Avez-vous changé letemps que vous passez
sur les activités depuis
la dernière année?

0 = Non, même volume
de temps;
1= Oui, plus de temps que
2 ans auparavant;2= Oui, moins de temps
que 2 ans auparavant-777 = Je ne sais pas.
Préparation de la terre 22

1a

1b

1c

1d

1e

1f

1g

1h

1i

Désherbage / nettoyage

2a

2b

2c

2d

2e

2f

2g

2h

2i

Elagage / la taille

3a

3b

3c

3d

3e

3f

3g

3h

3i

Application d'engrais

4a

4b

4c

4d

4e

4f

4g

4h

4i

Lutte contre les insectes(traitement phyto)

5a

5b

5c

5d

5e

5f

5g

5h

5i

Lutte contre les maladies(pourriture brune etc.)&transport d'leau

6a

6b

6c

6d

6e

6f

6g

6h

6i

Transport fèves fraiche
au village

7a

7b

7c

7d

7e

7f

7g

7h

7i

Récolte

8a

8b

8c

8d

8e

8f

8g

8h

8i

Cabossage

9a

9b

9c

9d

9e

9f

9g

9h

9i

Fermentation (combiende jours)

10a

10b

10c

10d

10e

10f

10g

10h

10i

Séchage (temps deséchage)

11a

11b

11c

11d

11e

11f

11g

11h

11i

Triage

12a

12b

12c

12d

12e

12f

12g

12h

12i

Transport chez lacoopérative 23

13a

13b

13c

13d

13e

13f

13g

13h

13i

22
23

La préparation de la terre consiste à défricher et brulée un nouveau champ et à planter de nouveaux plants de cacao, inclusif transport du plants au champ.
Transport faite par la coopérative égale à 0

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 115

21. Quels types 24 d'intrants avez-vous utilisé l'année dernier 2016/2017, combien (litres / sacs etc.) et quels sont les coûts ? (Enquêteurs: Si rien n'est n'a été utilisé,
REMPLISSEZ N/A dans la première colonne et ne mettez rien plus. Si le nom est inconnu, mettez -777 au niveau du nom et mettez le nombre et le prix)
Intrants

UnitéMatière de unité

QuantitéCombien de fois
ceci est utilisé

Combien de Combién d'unités ?
litre/kg parunité en b

NombrePrix par types
d'intrants l'an passé

à spécifier !
boite = 1
sac = 2
containeur = 3
sachet = 4

kg =1 ; litre=2

Prix Unitaire (EnCFA)

Plants

1a

1b

1c 1d

1e

1f

Cabosse

2a

2b

2c 2d

2e

2f

Fèves

3a

3b

3c 3d

3e

3f

Autre (à Spécifier)

4a

4b

4c 4d

4e

4f

Akate Master

5a

5b

5c 5d

5e

5f

Actara

6a

6b

6c 6d

6e

6F

Pyrethrum 0.6

7a

7b

7c 7d

7e

7f

Confidor

8a

8b

8c 8d

8e

8f

Autre, préciser....

9a

9b

9c 9d

9e

9f

Autre, préciser.....

10a

10b

10c 10d10e

10fRound up11a

11b

11c 11d

11e

11f

Gramoxone

12a

12b

12c 12d12e12f

Condemn

13a13b

13c 13d13e

13F

Autre, préciser....

14a

14b

14c 14d

14e

14f

Autre, préciser......

15a

15b

15c 15d

15e

15f

Ridomil Gold

16a

16b

16c 16d

16e

16f

Funguran-OH

17a

17b

17c 17d17e

17f

Kocide 2000

18a

18b

18c 18d

18e

18f

Nordox 75 WG

19a

19b

19c 19d

19e

19f

Champion

20a20b

20c 20d

20e

20f

Autre, préciser....

21a

21b

21c 21d21e

21f

Matériels végétales

Type de pesticide

Type d'herbicide / Désherbant

Type de Fongicide

24

S’il s’agit des planteurs certifient, ils doivent répondre que c’est la coopérative qui s’en occupe

116 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Autre, préciser.....

22a

22b

22c 22d22e

22f

AsaaseWura

23a

23b

23c 23d

23e

23f

Cocofeed

24a24b24c 24d24e

24f

Sidalco25a25b25c 25d25e

25f

Organic

26a

26b

26c 26d26e

26f

NITRABOR27a27b27c 27d27e27f

SUPERCAO28a28b28c 28d28e

28f

HYPERSACO

29a

29b

29c 29d29e

29f

Autre: veuillez préciser

30a

30b

30c 30d30e

30fAutre: veuillez préciser

31a

31b

31c 31d31e31f

Type d'engrais

22. Utilisez-vous les déchets de cacao ?
0.
Non
1.
Comme fourrage
2.
Comme compost
3.
Autres utilisation (mentionnez)………………
23. Quand tu as l'argent, pouvez-vous acheter les intrants lorsque vous en avez besoin?
0
Non1.
Oui, à temps
2.
Autres…..
-999 Pas applicable-777. Ne sais pas
24. Est-ce que il y a une amélioration dans l'accès aux marche des intrants le dernier année?
0.
Non
1.
Oui
2.
Autres……………….
-777.
Ne sais pas

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 117

25. Quel genre des équipements de protection, avez-vous ou votre main d'œuvre a utilisé pour la culture du cacao l'an passé?
(Enquêteur: Laissez les commencer, s'ils ne peuvent pas vous donner tous les équipements, demandez alors le reste de la liste.).
Equipment de protection

Avez-vous cela?

Utilisez-vous cela?

Utiliser par votre main deouvre

Pour quoi vous utiliser maintenant ?

0 = Non
1 = Oui

0 = Non
1 = Oui

0 = Non
1 = Oui

1. protection
2. après apprendre pendant formation
2. besoin pour la certification
2. j'ai vu mon voisin utiliser
3. Equipment donné par coopérative
4. Equipment donné par exportateur
5. Equipment donné par un autre
6. Autre raison (à Spécifier….

Cache-nez

1a

1b

1c

1d

Bottes

2a

2b

2c

2d

Chapeau

3a

3b

3c

3d

Salopette

4a

4b

4c

4d

Lunettes

5a

5b

5c

5d

Imperméable

6a

6b

6c

6d

Gants

7a

7b

7c

7d

Autres

8a

8b

8c

8d

118 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

E: CERTIFICATION
Nous voudrions savoir si vous participez à un programme de certification et ce que vous en pensez
26. Vous êtes certifiée par UTZ?
0 Non, ↣ Si non ales a 26a
1 Oui ↣ Allez à 27 (Enquêter a vérifié si c'est un producteur contrôle !)Si oui, quand avez-vous été certifié par UTZ? Année __ mois_________
26a. Mais avant vous étiez certifie et maintenant vous avez arrêt ?
0 non
1 Oui, Si oui………, pour quoi ?
0. trop cher
1. ma coopérative n'est toujours pas certifie
2. Autre certification (lesquelles ?
2.1 Rainforest Alliance2.2. Biologique
2.3. Fairtrade
3. Autres raisons (à Spécifier)…………………….
27. Avez-vous reçu des primes pour le cacao UTZ ou ristourne que vous avez produit la dernière année ?
0.
Non
1.
Oui
2.
Pas actuellement
3.
Pas encore-777
Je ne sais pas
28. Si oui, ou pas encore, combien par kg? comme prime0.
………………………………………….francs par Kg
1.
Autre montant (globale)………………………….
-777
Je ne sais pas
29. Est-ce que vous ou un membre de votre ménage a participé à une formation/ateliers les dernière année? (Enquêteur: les formations sont les évènements éducatifs ; parexemple, la formation personnelle, la formation du groupe, les ateliers, les démonstration, la formation assurée par ANADER.)
0.
Non -> allez à 32
1.
Oui -> allez à 30

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

| 119

30.

Si vous avez suivi une formation ce dernier année quel étaient les thèmes ? Et cela a pris combien de temps? (Enquêteur: la formation peut être individuelle, engroupe, des ateliers, et les démonstrations les visites faites par ANADER, les exportateurs etc.)

Thèmeslire les thèmes !

Avez-vous
participé à laformation sur cethème?

Qui a assuré la Nombre de séances deformation?
formation des dernière
année?

0 = Non
1 = Oui-777= Je ne sais
pas

Voir code

Nombre de heures Niveau depar formation
appréciation

FREQUENCE /Nombre(S'ils disent qu'ils ont
reçu formation toutes les
2 semaines, calculez lenombre vous-mêmes)Demande et
1 = Non satisfait
calculée le nombre 2 = Neutrede heures totale
3 = Satisfait-777 = Je ne sais
pasChamp école (tous les sujets en-dessous ensemble) a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

Groupe d'apprentissage

b1

b2

b3

b4

b5

Gestion de coopératives

c1

c2

c3

c4

c4

Bonne pratique agricole (Production de cacao, Ex. taille, d1
la récolte sanitaire, nettoyage manuel)

d2

d3

d4

d5

Santé et sécurité(Ex. SIDA, sécurisée des produits chimiques, économie
domestiques)

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

f1

f2

f3

f4

f5

Application des produits chimiques(Ex. quantité appropriée et type de produits chimiques àutiliser dans les activités champêtres)

g1

g2

g3

g4

g5

Bonne pratique social (Travailles des enfants, maind'ouvré)

h1

h2

h3

h4

h5

Protection de l'Environnement(ex. Ne pas défricher à proximité des rivières,Sauvageons, feux de brousse, pollution de l'eau, la lutte
contre l'érosion des sols, forets classe)

i1

i2

i3

i4

i5

Economique (diversification des revenus, autres
cultures……)

j1

j2

j3

j4

j5

AutresSpécifier

k1

k2

k3

k4

k5

Gestion documentaire (Ex. sauvegarde des données,prise de décisions économiques)

120 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

CODE
1 UTZ
2 Rainforest Alliance
3 Fair trade
4 Commerce Equitable
5 Délégué de planteur (paysan relais)
6 Traitant
7 Anader8 Fournisseur d'intrants
9
Personne locale/Voisin
10
Cabinet9ne sais pas
10
Cargill
11
Armajaro
12
Barry Callebaut
13
Natra
14
Zamacom/Ecom/ECOMSIM
15
Olam
16
CocafIvoire (Noble)
17
ADM *
18
Ludwig
19
CEMOI
20
Nestle21
Mars
22
Hedwig
23
GGT
24
Touton25
Transmar
26
SAFCACAO27
SIFCACOOP
28
Autre.. à Spécifier……………………
31. Après avoir reçu la formation, avez-vous formé les autres?
0.
Non
1.
Oui, ma femme
2.
Oui, mes enfants
3.
Oui, les ouvriers
4.
Oui, autres planteurs
5.
Oui, autres (mentionnez)……………………..

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 121

Partie F: Impact sur la rentabilité et les moyens d'existence
32. Que pensez-vous sont les avantages la certification ? (Réponses multiples sont possibles)0
Il reçut Les primes
1
Il apprend les bonnes pratiques agricoles2
le reçu formation
3
amélioration de mon savoir cacao culture
4augmentation du volume/productivité
5
je ne sais pas
6
Autres, à Spécifier
32a Que pensez-vous sont les désavantages de la certification ?
1. Cout élevé
2. Beaucoup de travaille
3. Ça prend du temps
4. Je ne sais pas
5. Pas de désavantages
6. Autres, à Spécifier
33a. Maintenant je voudrais demander les questions sur les changements dans l'année dernière ?
Lire verticalement !

Changements dans la
productivité ?

Dans la dernière année, il yavait…..

Les activités de votre coopérative
à influencer ce changement ?

Les activités de certification de
UTZ à influencer cechangement ?
Si la coopérative n'est pas
certifie- ne demande pas

Il y a les autres raisons pour lechangement ?

Diminution forte (1)Diminution (2)Pas de changement(3)Augmentation (4)Augmentation forte (5)Ne connait (ou oublie) Pas laréponse (-777)
Ne s'applique pas (-999)

Oui (1)
Non (0)Presque rien (2)Un peu (3)Beaucoup (4)Très forte (5)Pas la réponse (-777)
Ne s'applique pas (-999)

Oui (1)
Non (0)Presque rien (2)Un peu (3)Beaucoup (4)Très forte (5)Pas la réponse (-777)
Ne s'applique pas (-999)

Oui (1) a spécifier
Non (0)Presque rien (2)Un peu (3)Beaucoup (4)Très forte (5)Pas la réponse (-777)
Ne s'applique pas (-999)

a1

a2

a3

a4

122 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Lire verticalement !

Dans la dernière année, il yavait…..

Les activités de votre coopérative
à influencer ce changement ?

Les activités de certification de
UTZ à influencer cechangement ?
Si la coopérative n'est pas
certifie- ne demande pas

Il y a les autres raisons pour lechangement ?

Changements dans lescouts d'intrants ?

b1

b2

b3

b4

Changements dans lerevenu ?

c1

c2

c3

c4

Changements dans l'accès
aux intrants ?

d1

d2

d3

d4

Changements au niveau deprix ?

f1

f2

f3

f4

34. Par ordre d'importance, classez les sources de revenus de votre ménage
Source de revenus

Classement
Revenus (brut) de la dernière
1= importance plus 2, 3, année (2017/2016)etc. par source dela somme en Francs
revenu-888 si il ne veut répondrai pas-999 pas applicable

Nombre des hectares de culture

Culture de cacao

1a

1b

1c

Culture d'hévéa

2a

2b

2c

Culture de café

3a

3b

3c

Palmier à l'huile

4a

4b

4c

Cultures vivrières (plantain, manioc, riz, mais, igname,..)

5a

5b

5c

Cola

6a

6b

6c

Maraicher

7a

7b

7c

Fruitiers (guave, orange, citron, mangue, mandarine etc..)

8a

8b

8c

Autres cultures

9a

9b

9c

Elevage (couchons, vaches, poulets, lapins etc..)

10a

10b

10c

Commerce & vente en détail

11a

11b

11c

Enquêteur : vérifier le mêmenombre de hectare commequestion 11 !

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 123Revenus des activités non-agricoles (Rémunération de maind'œuvre, etc.)

12a

12b

12c

Semences/pépiniéristes

13a

13b

13c

Revenus de composte

14a

14b

14c

Revenu de fumier de poulet/bouches de vache

15a

15b

15c

Taxi/camion/ chauffeur

16a

16b

16c

Autres ……………………………………………

17a

17b

17c

35. Comment avez-vous utilisé le revenu provenant de votre champ de cacao l'année dernier (2017/2016)? (Réponses multiples sont possibles) Enumérateur NE lire
en haut voix !!
NrEléments

0

Acheté des intrants/des équipements pour la production de cacao

1

Acheté des intrants/des équipements pour autres cultures/animaux

2

Embauché des ouvriers pour la production du cacao

3

Embauché des ouvriers pour des autres cultures/animaux

4

Acheté la nourriture

5

Payé des médicaments pour la famille

6

Frais scolaires pour les enfants

7

Investissement dans les affaires

8

Acheté des téléphones portables

9

Acheté des articles électroménagers ex. Radio/TV/Solaire

10

Equiper la maison

11

Achète moto/ l'eau

12

Funérailles

13

Autres ……………….…………………………………

1 = Oui
0 = Non

36. Avez-vous eu un crédit (bancaire, ou paiement en avance) pour la année passée pour acheter des équipements, intrants, ou pour les dépenses de votre ménage pourl'année dernier?
0. Non1. OuiSi oui, de qui ?
2. Coopérative
3. Pisteur (à Spécifier)…………
4. banque/caisse de crédit

124 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

5. autre (à Spécifier)…………………..
37. Avez-vous senti des changements dans vos conditions de vie ou celles des membres de votre famille depuis l'année passée?
0. Non1. Positive
2. Négative
3. Je ne sais pas
38. Y a-t-il eu des changements dans l'éducation de vos enfants (écoles construites, nombre d'enseignants, programme d'alphabétisation)
0.
Non
1.
Positive2.
Négative3.
Je ne sais pas
39. Y a-t-il eu des changements dans l'accès aux soins de santé au cours de dernière année? (c.-à-d. un centre sanitaire ou un centre médical, des bilans de santé ou
formation de base pour les premiers soins)
0. Non1. Positive
2. Négative
3. Je ne sais pas
40. Partagez-vous vos revenues du cacao avec les autres?
0. Non1. Oui, si oui…
2. Femme
3. enfants
4. Famille
5. Gestionnaires
6. Ouvriers (abusan, annuel etc…)
7. Autres…………………………………………………
41. Comment appréciez-vous votre niveau de satisfaction (Enumérateur : marque la réponse avec 1)
Très satisfait

Satisfait

NeutrePas satisfait

Très déçu

Je ne veux pas
répondre

1. Vos connaissances sur de bonnes pratiques deproduction de cacao
2. Compétences de gestionnaire
3. Accès aux informations sur les prix des produits
agricoles
4. Le type et le nombre des sources de revenus

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 125

5. L'état de votre maison, accès à l'eau/électricitéetc.
6. La santé de votre famille
7. L'éducation de vos enfants s'améliore maintenant
8. Le revenu de votre ménage
42. Si oui, pouvez-vous citer les services que votre coopérative vous fournit, et dire si vous en êtes satisfait ?(Enquêteur: Lisez les différentes options)
Services du groupement de producteurs

Service donnée par votregroupeNiveau de satisfaction

Oui = 1
non = 01= Satisfait
2= Neutre
3= Pas satisfait
4= Pas de réponse
5= Non applicable

1

Accès à la formation

a1

b1

2

Informations sur les prix des intrants

a2

b2

3

Vendre mon cacao

a3

b3

4

Informations du marché sur les ventes (ex. pour les autres cultures aussi)

a4

b4

5

Restitution des informations obtenues des inspections internes (ICS)

a5

b5

6

Restitution des informations obtenues des inspections externes (audit)

a6

b6

7

Des informations sur les services ANADER et comment y accéder

a7

b7

8

Accès aux engrais

a8

b8

9

Accès aux pépinières / cabosse

a9

b9

10

Accès aux pesticides

a10

b10

11

Accès aux crédits

a11

b11

12

Systèmes d'assurance

a12

b12

13

Assistance dans mes relations avec les pisteurs (représentation)

a13

b13

14

Assistance à obtenir autres fournisseurs de services

a14

b14

15

Activités commerciales

a15

b15

16

Paiement à temps par l'acheteur

a16

b16

17

Obtenir un bon prix

a17

b17

18

Autres………………….

a18

b18

126 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

43. Quelle est votre perception des autres avantages liés au fait que vous êtes membre d'un Coopérative ? (Plusieurs réponses possible) Ne lire pas aux haut voix !
0
De meilleures relations sociales avec mes collègues planteurs
1
Echanges de connaissances entre membres
2
Certains problèmes communaux sont discutés maintenant lors des rencontres de coopérative3
Je me réjouis d'être membre de coopérative4
Il voyage pour le séminaire et les formations
5
Sauvegarde des données
6
Applications des produits phyto
7
Autres ……………………………………………….
44. Quelle est votre perception des autres inconvénients du fait que vous êtes membre d'une coopérative ?
Ne lire pas à la haute voix ! (Plusieurs réponses possible)0Ça coûte de l'argent/frais
1
Ça consommé trop de temps2
Il ne paie pas cash pour cacao
3
On leur cache l'information
4
Autres ………………………………………………
45. Etes-vous d'accord ou pas d'accord avec les déclarations suivantes au sujet de votre Coopérative?
Déclaration: (Lire a haut voix !)Oui (d'accord) = 1
Non (pas d'accord) = 0
Neutre (Pas de avis)= 2
Je ne sais pas = 3

1 Je me sens représenté par les responsables

1a2. Je pense que j'ai une influence sur la nomination/élection des responsables

2a3. S'il arrive qu'un responsable ne joue pas son rôle, il/elle sera remplacé(e)3a4 Si je me plains de quelque chose, des mesures sont prises

4a

46. Quelles améliorations souhaitez-vous sur le fonctionnement de coopérative? NE lire pas à haut voix ! (Réponses multiples sont possibles)
0. Néant
1. Former les Gestionnaires
2. Améliorer la Comptabilité
3. Etre transparent des informations sur les prix et les bénéfices
4. Donner des informations sur la façon dont les primes de coopérative sont utilises
5. Négocier un prix plus haut pour mon cacao

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

| 127

6.

Autres…………………………..

Partie G: Pratiques durables récompensées par le marché et le futur
47. Allez-vous demander à vos enfants de devenir des planteurs de cacao?
0. Non,a. Si non, quelle profession devront-ils exercer ?
...............................................................................................
b.

Et pourquoi?..........................................................................

1.

Oui

2.

a. Si oui, pourquoi ?...................................................................
Ne sais pas

48. Allez-vous demander à vos enfants de devenir des propriétaires d'une plantation de cacao?
0. Non1. Oui2. Je ne sais pas
49. Comptez-vous continuer la production du cacao/intensifier/diversifier? (dans les 5 ans à venir ?)0. Non, pourquoi ?..........................
1. Oui, pourquoi ?.............................
2. Ne sais pas

128 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Partie H: Mise en œuvre des pratiques de cacao durables dans le champ PRINCIPAL
Ne lisez pas les options pour la personne interrogée. Choisissez une option de réponse par question, à l'exception des questions qui permettent des réponses
multiples. Entoure le numéro !
Pratiques de production: la production du cacao seulement
50. Avez-vous obtenu des pépinières / Cabosses ces dernière année?
0. Non1. Oui; si oui, où les avez-vous obtenus ?
2. De mon propre champ
3. De mes amis/voisins/autres planteurs/membres du groupement de producteurs
4. Champs semenciers de ANADER / CNRA
5. De la coopérative
6. Je ne sais pas
7. Autre (précisez……)
51. Quel(s) type/types de cacao avez-vous dans votre champ? (Réponses multiples sont possibles)
1.
Cacao Français
2.
Cacao Ghana
3.
Cacao 18 mois (Mercedes)
4.
Cacao Brésil / Amazonia
5.
Je ne sais pas
6.
Autres (précisez……)
52. Comment désherbez-vous dans votre champ?
1.
Je ne désherbe pas2.
Je coupe les mauvaises herbes à la main3.
Je coupe les mauvaises herbes avec des outils à main
4.
J'arrache les mauvaises herbes en utilisant de l'herbicide/produits chimiques
5.
Autre (Précisez……)
53. Combien de fois taillez-vous vos plants de cacao?
1.
Je ne taille pas mes plants de cacao
2.
Je taille mes plants de cacao 1 fois par an
3.
Je taille mes plants de cacao moins d'une fois par 2 ans (pas tous les champs taillez dans une année)
4.
Je taille mes plants de cacao pendant/après les récoltes
5.
Je ne sais pas
6.
Autres (Précisez……)

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 129

54. Quand appliquez-vous les engrais (chimiques et/ou organiques)?
1.
Je n'applique pas d'engrais sur mon champ de cacao
2.
J'applique les engrais juste avant la saison pluvieuse
3.
J'applique les engrais pendant la saison pluvieuse
4.
J'applique les engrais pendant la saison sèche
5.
J'applique les engrais à d'autres périodes
6.
J'applique les engrais toute l'année
7.
J'applique les engrais 2 fois dans l'année
8.
Autres (Précisez……)
55. Combien de fois appliquez-vous les engrais (chimiques ou organiques)?
1.
Moins d'une fois par an
2.
Une fois par an
3.
Deux fois par an sur une même espace
4.
Trois fois par an sur une même espace
5.
Plus de 3 fois par an sur une même espace
6.
pas applique7.
Autres (Précisez……)
56. Conservez-vous des données sur l'utilisation des intrants et la production?
1.
Je ne conserve pas de données
2.
Je conserve des données sur la production/ventes3.
Je conserve des données sur les intrants
4.
Je conserve des données sur la production/ventes et les intrants
5.
Autres (Précisez……)
57. Que faites-vous des cabosses malade ou mortes? (Réponses multiples sont possibles)
1. Je n'ai pas de Cabosses mortes
2. Je ne sais pas quand mes Cabosses sont mortes
3. Je les laisse sur les plants
4. Je les laisse sur les plants et je les pulvérise
5. J'enlève les cabosses mortes des plants et je les laisse dans le champ
6. J'enlève les cabosses mortes des plants et je les brûle dans le champ
7. J'enlève les cabosses mortes des plants et je les brûle dans un trou
8. J'enlève les cabosses mortes des plants et je les enterre
9. J'enlève les cabosses mortes des plants et je les pulvérise avant de les enfouir sous terre
10. Autres (Spécifiez……)

130 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

58. Quand récoltez-vous les cabosses du cacao? (Réponses multiples sont possibles)1.
Je récolte les Cabosses lorsqu'elles sont jaunâtres ou lorsqu'elles tirent vers le vert
2.
Je récolte les Cabosses lorsqu'elles sont jaunes3.
Je récolte les Cabosses lorsqu'elles sont vertes
4.
Autres (Spécifiez……)
59. Comment fermentez-vous les fèves de cacao
1.
J'entasse les fèves au sol et je les couvre avec des feuilles de bananes
2.
J'utilise un panier pour couvrir le cacao
3.
J'utilise une boite à fermentation pour couvrir le cacao
4.
J'entasse les fèves sur le sol et les couvre avec des sachets perforés
5.
J'entasse les fèves sur le sol et les couvre avec sachets non perforés
6.
J'utilise la bâche noire pour faire la fermentation
7.
Autres (Spécifiez……)
60. Combien de fois remuez-vous le cacao pendant la fermentation?
1.
Chaque 48 heures (2 jours)
2.
Au-delà de chaque 48 heures
3.
En deçà de chaque 48 heures
4.
Autres (Spécifiez……)
61. Comment séchez-vous les fèves de votre cacao?
1.
Sur un tapis de séchage sur le sol
2.
Sur une bâche noir
3.
Sur claie (une plateforme élevée)
4.
Autres…………………………….
62. Combien d'arbres ombrageux (fruitiers / arbres de foret - brousse) avez-vous sur votre champ de cacao par hectare
1.
Je ne sais pas
2.
12 par hectare
3.
Plus de 12 par hectare
4.
Moins de 12 par hectare
5.
Autres………………………..
63. Quelle est la distance qui sépare ces arbres ombrageux dans votre champ? (en mètres)
1.
Chaque 2 m
2.
Chaque 4 m
3.
Chaque 10 m
4.
Autres (Spécifier……)……………..

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 131

64. Avez-vous planté des arbres ombrageux au cours des 2 dernières années?
0. Non1. Oui
65. Avez-vous les surplus chimiques ?
0. Non1. Ouia. Si oui…………..que faites-vous avec le surplus des produits chimiques?
1. Je pulvérise les terres non traitées avec les produits chimiques
2. Je jette le restant des produits chimiques dans une rivière/ruisseau
3. Je les garde
4. J'en donne à d'autres personnes
5. Autre…………………………………
66. Comment gérez-vous les déchets solides (y compris les boites des produits chimiques) ? (Réponses multiples sont possibles)1.
Pas de système de gestion des déchets en place2.
Une fosse pour tous les déchets3.
Une fosse pour les déchets organiques et une autre pour les autres déchets
4.
Plus de deux fosses en place: les déchets non organiques sont séparés, par exemple des déchets en plastique ou en verre.
5.
Après avoir lavé les boites de produits chimiques, je les amène dans un lieu où les boites sont recueillies
6.
J'enterre les boites des produits chimiques
7.
Je brûle les boites des produits chimiques
8.
Autres…………………………………………
67. Que faites-vous des déchets issus de la taille de votre champ?
1.
Je ne taille pas mon champ2.
Je laisse ces déchets de taille dans le champ de cacao
3.
J'en utilise comme paille dans d'autres champs ailleurs4.
J'en utilise comme carburant
5.
Autres (Spécifiez……)
68. Avez-vous été en mesure de réduire l'utilisation des pesticides à travers un meilleur entretien/IPM/utilisation rationnelle de pesticide dans votre champ
0. Non,a. Pourquoi pas ? …………………………………..
1. Oui2. Ne sais pas

132 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

69. Où entreposez-vous vos produits chimiques? (Réponses multiples sont possibles)0.
Je n'utilise pas de produits chimiques
1.
Rien
2.
Je les réutilise
3.
Je les enterre
4.
Je les renvoie chez l'acheteur5.
Je le garde dans ma maison, dans une chambre/boite/sac fermé(e)6.
Je le garde dans ma maison
7.
Je le garde à l'extérieur de la maison
8.
Je le garde à l'extérieur de la maison, dans une chambre/boite/sac fermé (e)9.
Je le garde chez la coopérative
10.
Autres…………………………………………

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 133

Partie I: Conditions des ouvriers
Enumérateur- si il y na pas les ouvriers, allez a Partie J
70. Si vous employez des ouvriers, est-ce qu'il y a un accord préalable entre vous et la personne que vous employez avant le démarrage des activités ?
0.
Non
1.
Oui
71. Est-ce que votre main ‘œuvre a été déclaré a CNPS ?
0. Non1. Oui
72. Avez-vous connaissance d'une législation sur les rémunérations, heures de travail et autres droits de l'employé ?
0. Non1. Oui2. Ne sais pas
73. Connaissez-vous l'âge minimum que les enfants doivent avoir avant de travailler dans un champ de cacao?
0. NonOui …………..
1. Moins 15
2. 16
3. 17
4. 18
5. Plus 18
6. Plus 20
7. Ne sais pas
74. Avez-vous reçu les inspections sur le travail des enfants ?
0.
Non
1.
Oui
2.
Ne sais pas
75. Quelqu'un a-t-il déjà été victime d'un accident de travail dans votre champ ou sur son chemin en direction du champ au cours de l'année passée?
(Impliquant des blessures avec fractures ou nécessitant une suture, ou liés à la pulvérisation/utilisation des produits chimiques)
0. Non1. Oui2. Si oui,… quoi……………………………………………….

134 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

Partie J: Connaissance/formation sur la production durable du cacao
Ne lisez pas les réponses. Encouragez les agriculteurs à donner les réponses eux-mêmes, mais ne les importunez pas. Sélectionnez l'option donnée enencerclant
Toutes les questions ci-dessous: Réponses multiples sont possibles
76. Mentionnez tous les avantages liés à l'utilisation des produits phyto (insecticides, pesticides et herbicides et fongicides)?
1.
Très grande productivité
2.
Grand changement au niveau des pépinières qui grandissent
3.
Production précoce
4.
Plusieurs récoltes dans l'année
5.
Plus de tolérance vis-à-vis des insectes nuisibles et des maladies
6.
Autre…………………………………………
7.
Je ne sais pas
77. Donnez des méthodes recommandées pour lutter contre les mauvaises herbes dans la production du cacao:
1.
Enlever les mauvaises herbes en les brulant
2.
Enlever les mauvaises herbes en utilisant des outils à main
3.
Enlever les mauvaises herbes à la main
4.
Enlever les mauvaises herbes en utilisant des herbicides/produits chimiques
5.
Autres…………………………………………
6.
Je ne sais pas
78. Donnez les avantages liés au fait de tailler vos plants de cacao;
1. Maintien des plants de cacao gérables-rend la cueillette plus facile
2. Rajeunit les plants/augmente la production
3. Enlève les branches malades, mortes ou nouées
4. Autres…………………………………………
5. Je ne sais pas
79. Donnez les avantages liés au fait d'appliquer les mesures de conservation des sols
1. Préserve la fertilité du sol
2. Permet d'Eviter l'érosion
3. Donne une production accrue
4. Empêche l'ensablement des points d'eau
5. Autres…………………………………………
6. Je ne sais pas

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 135

80. Donnez les avantages liés à l'utilisation des engrais ?
1. Donne de meilleurs rendements
2. Donne du cacao de qualité supérieure
3. Maintient la plante de cacao pendant longtemps
4. Augmente les éléments nutritifs pour le sol/améliore la fertilité du sol
5. Ca sauver la plante
6. Autres…………………………………………
7. Je ne sais pas
81. Donnez les avantages liés au fait de conserver les données (documents)?
1.
J'ai des preuves concernant la performance du champ2.
Je peux prendre des décisions sur la base des données contenues dans le livret3.
Je connais la quantité de produits chimiques utilisés
4.
Je connais la somme d'argent que j'ai dépensée
5.
Je peux démontrer que je suis crédible et / ou un préteur
6.
Autres…………………………………………
7.
Je ne sais pas
82. Quels sont les avantages des équipements de protection personnelle?
1. Permettent que votre peau ne soit pas touchée par les produits chimiques
2. Vous permettent de ne pas inhaler les produits chimiques
3. Protègent contre les produits chimiques
4. Vous permettent d'éviter les maladies
5. Autres…………………………………………
6. Je ne sais pas
83. Pouvez-vous citer des méthodes que vous utilisez pour améliorer le rendement du cacao dans votre champ?
1. Application des bons engrais au bon moment
2. Des tours de désherbages réguliers
3. Lutte contre les insectes nuisibles/maladies
4. Maintien de la forme de la plante à travers la taille
5. Récolte à temps
6. Formation pour ceux qui arrachent les mauvaises herbes
7. Autres…………………………………………
8. Je ne sais pas

136 | Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041

84. Quelles sont les travaille des enfants ne doivent pas faire dans les champs ?
1.
Porter les charges lourdes (tout poids au-delà de 30% du poids de leur corps)
2.
Porter des poids sur une distance de plus de 3 kilomètres
3.
Lutter contre les loranthus
4.
Application des pesticides
5.
Application des engrais
6.
Application des engrais pas permette
7.
Défrichage des champs
8.
Utilisation d'outils non appropriés pour leur âge
9.
Travailler au champ pendant les heures de classes école
10.
Utiliser la machette
11.
Cabosser
12.
Transport de cabosse
13.
Autres……………………………………
14.
Je ne sais pas

MERCI BEAUCOUP ! Y a-t-il quelque chose que vous voulez dire ou une question à poser ?Enquêteur : vérifiez qu'il n'y a pas de question non répondue avantde quitter le planteur. Registre le heure au fin au premier page

Wageningen Economic Research Report 2018-041| 137Wageningen Eonomic Research

The mission of Wageningen University and Research is ‘To explore the potential of nature to improve the quality of life'.

P.O. Box 29703

Under the banner Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen University and the specialised research institutes of the2502 LS The Hague

Wageningen Research Foundation have joined forces in contributing to finding solutions to important questions in the

The Netherlands

domain of healthy food and living environment. With its roughly 30 branches, 5,000 employees and 10,000 students,

T +31 (0)70 335 83 30

Wageningen University & Research is one of the leading organisations in its domain. The unique Wageningen approach lies

E communications.ssg@wur.nl

in its integrated approach to issues and the collaboration between different disciplines.

www.wur.eu/economic-research
Wageningen Economic Research
REPORT2018-041
ISBN 978-94-6343-776-9