Anwarul Karim Chowdhury
Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations
A presentation during the symposium: "Child Labor & the Globalizing Economy: Lessons from Asia/Pacific countries"

Stanford University, California
February 7-9, 2001

Ladies and gentlemen,

I shall divide my presentation into three parts. In the first part, I make a few general comments and talk about a specific initiative in Bangladesh to combat child1 labor. In the second part, a few observations on the challenges we face in preventing child1 labor in a globalized world, particularly exploitative child1 labor. In the concluding part, I make some observations on ways of improving the situation.

But before I begin the presentation, I would like to thank the Asia/Pacific Research Center of the Stanford University for organizing this symposium on such an important topic. I am glad that you have invited me to make this symposium on such an important topic. I congratulate Director Harry Rowen, Sarah Bachman and others for the impressive preparatory work for the symposium. The issues that have found a place in the extensive program cover the complex nature of the problem, which we address together in order to look for viable solutions.

Six out of ten child1 workers reside in Asia. But that is not the only reason why we should focus on the region. This region has undergone the impact of globalization – both positive and negative – in a big way. Globalization has shaped the poverty situation in the Asian countries, their labor policies, social protection in these countries and delivery of basic services like education, health and housing. There has been a clear trend to put the social issues on the backburner in view of economic difficulties experienced in the region. Even in countries experiencing a booming economy, there has been a clear trend of increasing rural poverty, migration, urbanization and diminishing family support and community cohesiveness. These factors have modified overall patterns of child1 employment. Child labor has undergone shifts from agriculture to industry and services, and a move to wage earning in industry as opposed to unpaid family work. We found that in the short term at least, these changes worsened the plight of child1 workers.

Globalization also has had other negative consequences, as improvements in communication and information technology were misused by transnational criminal networks to promote sale of children; trafficking in children; and child1 prostitution.

Let me now turn briefly to the experience in Bangladesh. In a region where grinding poverty puts many children to work at a very young age, the Government of Bangladesh, international agencies, civil society organizations in the country and employers have cooperated in a joint venture to move children from factory floors to schools. In 1995, an agreement was signed between the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the UNICEF to remove all child1 workers below fourteen years from more than 2,000 garment factories, placing them instead in schools.

This project involves the phased withdrawal of more than 10,000 child1 workers from the industry. Within one year of concluding the agreement, 205 schools had been established for garment child1 workers, with a total enrollment of over 4,000 children. Placement of these child1 workers in formal education is being eased by providing families the possibility of supplementary incomes.

The agreement takes a holistic view of the rights of the working children. It places the right to education and the right to protection within the perspective of other rights, such as the right to an adequate standard of living, which is often dependent on the child1’s financial contribution to the family’s welfare.

To ensure implementation of the agreement, a monitoring mechanism consisting of representatives of all the parties to the agreement is in place. Representatives of the Government of Bangladesh and the United States act as observers in the monitoring mechanism. The Bangladesh model has often been sighted as a successful intervention to reduce child1 labor. As the conference program distributed mentions, the United States and ILO are supporting similar plans in exporting industries of five other countries.

The changes initiated in Bangladesh were partly triggered by the proposed Harkin Bill in the US Congress in 1993 and the Europe-based "Clean Clothes Campaign" and their possible consequences on the garments manufacturing industry, one of the principal export earners. However, the project generated enough interest in Bangladesh that in just two years child1 labor has become a major social issue in the country. The ground for change was fertile as policy-planners, civil society and the population were all sensitized to children’s issues as Bangladesh was one of the countries whose ratification brought into force the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Within this short time, a by-no-means small revolution was achieved through changes in attitudes and concern on the part of both the public and the authorities. The commitment has remained strong and far-reaching in Bangladesh for eliminating child1 labor, especially in the most exploitative forms. The result has been a clear example of recognition of the rights of children in formal sector employment. The challenge? Transferring the experience to the informal sector.

Now a few words about the challenges in addressing this complex issue. To keep a focus on the presentation to keep it brief, I shall highlight five particular challenges.

First, in the absence of international standards, it is difficult to define child1 labor. Terms such as "child1," "adult" and "labor" resist universal definition. For example ILO Convention 138 specified the concept of child1 labor in an ambiguous term and I am quoting from an ILO publication, "It encourages Member States to set a minimum age that is not less than the completion age for compulsory schooling, or in any case not less than 15 years. For light work it established a minimum age of 13 years, or 18 years for hazardous work. In developing countries it allows for a lower minimum age – 14 years in general, 12 to 14 years for light work and, in special cases, 16 years for hazardous work." As you can imagine, there exists a lot of scope for different interpretations. The new ILO Convention 182 on worst forms of child1 labor now sets a clear 18 year minimum age limit that defines a child1, a definite improvement. It also explains what work should be considered hazardous. Such clear definitions improve implementation. Another anomaly could be found in the use of terms such as hazardous forms of child1 labor, worst forms of child1 labor and exploitative forms of child1 labor, sometimes interchangeably.

Two, national measures, however effective, cannot alone provide the comprehensive solution that we are looking for. Quite often the national measures are limited in effect as the child1 labor question has important regional and international dimensions. In the South Asia region the regional organization SAARC, adopted a target date of the year 2000 to eliminate hazardous child1 labor. Although this deadline could not be met, it is an indication that countries are becoming aware of the regional dynamics and the need to work in concert. SAAC is also finalizing a regional convention on prevention of trafficking in children and women, which, once in force, would generate better regional cooperation in curbing trafficking in children for their economic or sexual exploitation.

Third, there is a need to tackle wider issues in the efforts to eliminate child1 labor. Poverty is often cited the single most important issue that contributes to child1 labor. But poverty has to be understood within the broader context of resource availability, distribution and social justice. In all analysis of child1 labor, education and health are cited as keys to a solution. But education is more than putting the child1 workers into a school or providing treatment when she is sick, although that is the way to start. The wider issues here are healthy mental and physical development; education with play and recreation, and protection from cruelty, neglect and exploitation. For adopting such an inclusive agenda for the child1 worker resources, are needed. And as far as I see in my experience as a diplomat, people are reluctant to back words with resources. If we are keen to eliminate child1 labor, we have to assist poor countries. Pressure alone will work so far and no more.

Fourth, the clash of competing interests. The interest of the child1 on the one hand and that of export industries or organized labor on the other often compete with one another. The policies most advantageous for children are not the ones promoted by industry or organized labor. This is true not only of national policies but also of the policy adopted by global bodies. Interest groups with more resources and bigger voice have dominated the agenda on child1 labor. This has often resulted in policies that are essentially restrictive in their application, but not always advantageous for the child1 whose labor has been exploited. What we need is countervailing pressure from groups and organizations with the child1 worker’s interest in mind. The child1 worker needs measures that are addressed to her well-being. She needs institutional arrangements that speak on her behalf. How can that happen? I have identified five factors that together contribute to building a countervailing measure.

Finally, within the country any move to include a child1 focus into policies on child1 labor cannot be sustained if the civil society is not proactive and engaged. Their activities can inform the population of the harms of child1 labor and pull them out of a situation of apathy and tolerance. Their programs with child1 workers can go much more into the grassroots level and generate changes. Their activism can bring in useful changes in policy. I place a great trust on civil society action, as that can be the best complement to the right policies to address this problem.

What can be done to address these challenges?

First, awareness is the key to building a successful campaign against child1 labor. Society has to be aware, the government has to be aware, civil society has to be aware and finally actors and institutions that design and implement policy at regional and global levels have to be aware of this problem. Therefore the beginning is with an awareness campaign.

Second, policies at national and international levels should facilitate measures that prevent child1 labor, protect the victims and punish those guilty of perpetuating misery on children.

Third, institutions and organizations that speak on behalf of the child1 worker will have to be proactive, undertaking strategies to exert pressure for the right policy shifts.

Fourth, partnership among governments, international and regional organizations and civil society organizations and actors can bring in this much needed "child1’ dimension into the agenda on child1 labor.

Fifth, all this would not be effective without taking on board the child1 worker. We often talk about taking a child-centered approach in combating child1 labor. What does it mean? To me it means taking into account the views of children, empowering the child1 worker, guaranteeing them their rights and keeping their interests and welfare in focus while designing policy, undertaking awareness campaigns, implementing interventions and reflecting those in the economic and social development strategy of the country.

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you all.