CRITIQUE OF ILO GLOBAL REPORT

‘THE END TO CHILD LABOUR – WITHIN REACH’

The Concerned for Working Children

The recent ILO Global Report released on 4 May 2006 “An end to Child Labour – Within Reach” makes tall claims and sweeping statements. One would have hoped that there was some truth in its content as there is no one who would not welcome an end to the tragic consequences of children working. However, their claims remain on the boundary between rhetoric and wishful thinking.

The report claims that child labour has been reduced globally by 11%. Statistics in this area have always been doubtful and dubious. Examining the ILO sites on child labour statistics there is a lengthy and complicated document called ‘Statistical Information and Monitoring Programme on Child Labour [SIMPOC]’ (updated March 2006). The statistics that this document contains are all called estimates and though the methodology for arriving at conclusions are elaborate and detailed, in the latest update many countries that are said to have high populations of child labour, such as India, do not even find a mention.

Yet, if one gives the ILO the benefit of doubt, the 11% reduction claim is impressive. However, if one reads carefully and between the lines, this claim has been made only for children working in the intolerable forms. This would mean that for example that for every 1000 children working as child prostitutes in Thailand, now there are only 890. Lucky for the 110 that got away, though one wonders where they are now and how they are faring. Or have they just grown up and crossed the age of 18 and are now counted as adult prostitutes? If this is the progress shown by the ILO in the decade since the Convention 183 has been in force; when will the ‘end be within reach’ for the remaining 890 child prostitutes and how?

Almost all the intolerable forms of child labour, such as prostitution, bonded labour, child work in mines; defence and explosive industries; railways and ports have been banned by national laws for between 30 to 50 years in almost all countries. Nonetheless, children continued to work in these sectors and still do so. Children working in these sectors have been hidden from view by a conspiracy of silence to which employers, labour officials, parents and even the children themselves are a party to and for this reason this claim of the ILO is further questionable. 

The ILO Report claims that in the 1980 the global mood with regard to child labour ranged from one of resignation, to indifference to denial. Its seems to conveniently forget that a section of Private Developmental Agencies (NGOs) were in the forefront of the debate. In India attention was focused on this issue with a question in Parliament that resulted in the first enquiry committee report in free India ‘the Gurupadaswamy Report’ as early as 1978. This was followed by a Draft Bill presented by the Concerned for Working Children in 1985 that resulted in the Child Labour Act of 1986.

Even thought the Act left a lot to be desired, the disposition of the question, the report and the Bill was certainly not one of resignation, indifference or denial; but of recognition of a serious problem, the presenting of viable, comprehensive and most of all humane strategies and solutions to address the issue and suggesting an environment of openness and transparency that would encourage debate; allow for the time and space to find viable and sustainable solutions with the inclusion and participation of all stake holders, especially the working children themselves in the design of solutions and implementation of plans.

The ILO report says that in the 1990s, the worldwide movement got polarised – and was not in favour of the ILO approach.  It fails to mention the fact that those who advocated ‘against’ over simplified or arbitrary interventions such as the boycott of products made by children or rampant raids of working children to be put into state run homes – and advocated ‘for’ a holistic response to child labour with active participation of working children themselves played a very important role in influencing policy discourses at that time. They brought forth the complexities of the issue and were instrumental in persuading the ILO to reconsider or re-formulate some of their views.

The report claims that it produced a more receptive environment for the eradication of child labour. The ILO certainly did that with Convention 138 in 1973. This Convention was broad based and relatively comprehensive leaving room for innovative strategies to be evolved by Nation States that were appropriate to the geographical, economic and socio-cultural variations or states and districts and tailored to the local specifics of working children’s concerns.

But subsequently Convention 182 adopted in 1999 destroyed this environment. In 1996, at the first International Meeting of Working Children’s Movements (Kundapura, India) working children from three continents of the world strongly criticised the proposed new convention. The children from Africa pleaded for an end to poverty, rather than a blanket ban on child labour as they felt that a ban would only prevent them from working without offering any viable alternatives to their condition. Manju, a working tribal boy from India used a provocative metaphor to describe the new Convention. He said it was like scooping the scum off the top of a boiling pot, without doing anything about the fire beneath.

First of all, as predicted, the ILO Convention 182 has focused all attention and therefore all funding on the intolerable forms of child labour. As a result it has become mandatory for all programmes addressing child labour to focus on the intolerable forms first and only secondary on other banned sectors – Manju’s boiling pot theory; ‘deal with the scum on top and wait for it raise again, but do not put out the fire or deal with the root causes’.

Secondly, it has criminalised not just the phenomenon of child labour but the child labours themselves. In the 1980’s, when the phenomenon was first acknowledged in the post second world war era, working children were able to present their problems, discuss issues that were of concern to them and even organise themselves into unions and movements to transform their circumstances of work into one of freedom and education. They were a part of finding the solutions and not treated as if they themselves were the problem.

There is a tendency by some extremist groups to treat all forms of work of children as intolerable, hazardous and the worst forms. Some even go so far as to claim that all out of school children are child labourers and all work is termed child labour. This is throwing the baby out with the bath water and it seems that we are in a ‘black and white age’ where there are no colours, not even grey; there is no room for in-depth debate and discourse.

Today the members of Bhima Sangha are scared to identify themselves as working children as they will be rounded up and put into government institutions such as remand homes. So now Bhima Sangha takes up issues such as child marriage, female foeticide and AIDS as they cannot directly tackle issues of wages, conditions of work, access to education or violations at the work place.

In the past decade, the protagonism of working children’s movements from three continents have clearly demonstrated their capacity to meaningfully participate in local, national and international policy discussions in an informed manner and make substantive contributions. The ILO report, in the section, ‘way ahead’ would have served well to have highlighted this aspect and stress the need for adults to develop their capacities to facilitate children’s participation The ILO would do well to design forums that provide for the equitable participation of those children whose lives are directly impacted upon by thrir policies.

The ILO was set up to be a tripartite body consisting of representatives of Governments, Workers and Employers. However, when it came to discussions on child labour, the ILO refused to recognise the right of working children to represent themselves; and this was not from want of trying on the part of working children’s movements all over the world.

Instead the ILO chose to recognise some select privileged first world children to be their ambassadors to end child labour and turned a deaf ear to the solutions offered by working children themselves. Excluding them from the debate and criminalising their means of livelihood without offering any viable alternatives, the ILO now resorts to issuing Red Cards to child Workers around the world and kicks this off with a football match in the presence of Football stars who “kicked the ball” against child labour, in a match with children from the Geneva International School and the Signal de Bernex Football Club, two sets of very privileged human beings who will never experience or understand the complexity of their lives, the ensnarement of poverty and the pain of working children who know that they have no choices.  

Footballers are shown the red card for misdemeanours they have committed, but working children were shown this card by the privileged for no fault of their own. They work because of the political and socio-economic conditions that prevail and which the world that is zealously engaged in ‘Globalising’ our planet on corporate lines is too busy to find solutions.

Though the ILO report states that a key finding from their experience in the Garment Sector ten years ago, when over 50,000 children lost their jobs overnight, is that “social nets should be in place before children are removed from work” there is no evidence of this lesson has been integrated into strategies in subsequent interventions of the ILO.

Interestingly the Millennium Development Goals did not include the elimination of Child Labour, but made a strong call for “fair globalisation” and “full and productive employment and decent work for all, including for women and young people” and combined this with a central objective of “poverty reduction strategies”. The MDG went further to resolve to “ensure full respect for the fundamental principles and rights to work”.

All UN Agencies except the ILO are pursuing the link between Child Labour, Poverty Reduction and Education for All. They recognise that this triangle has been the perennial cause of third world problems and no single one can be addressed without the other two. Nonetheless, the ILO proudly boasts of its success in linking Child Labour to Education and conveniently forgets the issue of poverty and focuses on economic growth instead, conveniently forgetting that most economic growth today is the cause of widespread and increased levels of poverty in most under-developed and developing countries.

In the move to ensure that children access their right to education, they cannot be forced into situations where their other rights – such as their right to family and survival are jeopardised. It must be noted that children’s rights are not ‘conditional’ rights – and their best interest should always be paramount.

Nonetheless, there is a glimmer of light in the report. The ILO Report on child labour seems to tactically move the spotlight away from the abolition of all child work toward interventions in only work that is detrimental to children. It is important that the introduction to the report says:  "The ILO and its partners strand for a world where no girl or boy is forced to work at the expense of their health and development and their future prospects of decent work." It particularly does not speak of getting all children out of work, and it seems, by implication, to accept work that is not forced or detrimental to children's health and future. This hopefully heralds’ a more nuanced approached to child labour.

Several other reports such as the draft chapter on child labour in the U.N. Study of Violence Against Children and other significant research on this subject are not of the abolitionist view. In general the consensus of governments, academics and practitioners seems to be veering more toward the support of interventions that help working children cope, alleviate poverty, and make quality education more widely available and accessible, which has been the plea of working children themselves for more than two decades

We all hope that we will see the end of child labour in our lifetime and the worst forms in the next 10 years. The objective is shared by all; it is only the means to that end that requires introspection and honest review. We cannot afford to make expensive mistakes and burn our fingers before we realise that it is the fire under the boiling pot that needs to be addressed as they harm the very children we are setting out to help. Respecting working children’s right to representation and participation is critical to this process and if the ILO Report is to be taken seriously their recognition of the “growing consensus that children should be viewed as active partners in the world wide movement against child labour” and wishes to explore the meaning of children’s participation” and “to ensure that this goes beyond tokenism”. One demands that by ‘children’ in the future they will mean ‘working children’ and not members of Geneva International School and the Signal de Bernex Football Club.

The ILO is the last of the bodies created by the Treaty of Versailles that is still around and one hopes that they will reconstruct their original mission, that of contributing to universal peace and social justice by recognising the rights of all workers to freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively. May the ILO’s perceived shift extend to including working children as partners in the search for viable and sustainable solutions that are above all humane and treat working children with the respect and compassion they deserve.

Back