Agricultural extension and advisory services (EAS) providers have a big role to play in reducing and preventing child labour in agriculture. They have a capillary network of field workers and direct relations with rural producers, as well as the mandate to support not only agricultural production, but also livelihoods of rural population. As such, I believe that their role can be relevant for all the questions in this discussion.
It is essential to keep in mind that EAS are mouch more than just technology transfer and production-related technical advice. Nowadays, EAS concern a very wide range of services, from those aiming at improving production and natural resource management, adaptation to climate change, access to markets and entrepreneurship, hence boosting income, to supporting producers in getting organized, equipping them with skills such as negotiating and innovating, and making their voice heard. This means that EAS providers could contribute to reduction and prevention of child labour in many ways: from promoting safer and labour-saving practices and OSH, facilitate mechanisation (e.g. access to shared schemes), helping to improve income, to raising awareness about danger of child labour and getting information from the field to relevant stakeholders (e.g. on unintended negative impacts of projects or technologies).
However, for this to happen, EAS providers need to recognize that child labour in agriculture is also an agricultural problem, and not only a labour problem. They need to understand the difference between child labour and safe age-appropriate tasks, know whom to turn to for advice and collaboration. They also need both technical and soft skills (e.g. on labour-saving practices, marketing, communication and conflict management etc.) that would allow them to make a change. Currently, it does not seem to happen a lot.
Clearly, no single provider, especially short of resources, can provide such a differentiated range of services. But nowadays EAS are not limited only to public extension agents but include a whole host of pubic and non-state, formal and informal providers (e.g. NGOs, producer organizations, agri-input dealers, farmer leaders, universities and many more). This pluralism can be of great advantage as each provider type has different strengths and can provide different support, if properly sensitized and capacitated. Hence, it is key to involve them, and not leave the problem only to labour stakeholders.
Ms. Zofia Krystyna Mroczek