Eliminating International Child Labor: U.S. and International Initiatives

Report for Congress
Eliminating International Child Labor:
U.S. and International Initiatives
February 28, 2003
Tiaji Salaam
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Eliminating International Child Labor:
U.S. and International Initiatives
Summary
International child labor has become an increasingly important issue in
discussions concerning international trade, human rights and foreign aid. While a
number of international, national and local initiatives seek to abolish the practice,
there continues to be a debate on what constitutes child labor. Some consider any
work undertaken by children to be child labor, while others may use the term to refer
to work under abusive conditions. The International Labor Organization (ILO)
defines child labor as a form of work that is inherently hazardous, employs children
below the internationally recognized minimum age, or is exploitative. Child labor
is used in this report as defined by the ILO. According to the ILO about 246 million
children were engaged in child labor in 2000. Some 186 million child laborers were
below the age of 15, and approximately 110 million were below the age of 12.
While awareness of the issue has increased, the ability to address the complex
problem has been complicated by a number of related issues including, rising
poverty, surging HIV/AIDS infection rates, and a lack of relevant education. News
stories have featured children working in export industries (such as textiles, clothing,
carpets and footwear) and caused international uproar. While the news stories have
contributed to a heightened awareness about the problem of international child labor,
the ILO has found that child workers in export industries are relatively few
compared to those employed in activities geared to domestic consumption.
Congressional support for the abolition of international child labor, particularly
the worst forms of child labor, is very strong. Congress has funded programs to
combat international child labor, initiated bills that expand the United States’ role in
the global fight against child labor, and included clauses that require action on
eliminating child labor in international trade agreements. Although Congress has
consistently boosted American efforts to eliminate child labor world-wide, there are
a number of issues that continue to impede these efforts, including: ineffective
enforcement mechanisms; sparse monitoring systems; and insufficient funding for
programs that alleviate poverty, decrease incidences of HIV/AIDS, and increase
access to relevant education. This report will discuss the ILO definition of child
labor, outline the scope of the problem, explain the difficulties in eliminating it,
describe U.S. and international efforts to counter exploitative child labor, and present
some issues Congress may consider. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents
Key Statistics.....................................................2
Global Incidences of Child Labor.....................................3
Difficulties in Eliminating Child Labor.................................5
Child Labor and Poverty........................................5
Child Labor in the Shadows......................................6
Child Labor in Various Industries.................................6
Child Labor and HIV/AIDS......................................7
Child Labor and Education......................................8
Efforts to Eliminate International Child Labor...........................9
International Initiatives............................................10
U.S. Government Child Labor Initiatives..............................11
The U.S. Department of Labor...................................11
Technical Assistance..........................................12
U.S. Department of Treasury....................................13
U.S. Agency for International Development ........................14
U.S. Department of State.......................................16
Congressional Action..............................................16
Issues and Questions for Congress....................................17
Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms................................17
Linking Child Labor to International Trade and Foreign Aid...........18
Lack of Global Monitoring Systems..............................19
Child Labor as a Development Issue..............................19
Appendix .......................................................20
Definitions of Child Labor......................................20
List of Figures
Figure 1. Economically Active Children and Child Labor, 2000.............4
Figure 2. Children in the Worst Forms of Child Labor, 2000................5

Table 1. Estimates of Children in Economic Activity, Child Labor,
and Hazardous Work, 2000......................................2
Table 2. Estimated Number of Children in Worst Forms of Child
Labor, 2000..................................................2
Table 3. USDOL-Funded Child Labor Technical Assistance Projects,
FY1995-FY2001 .............................................21
Table 4. Estimates of Economically Active Children in 2000...............29

Eliminating International Child Labor:
U.S. and International Initiatives
In November 1999, during the World Trade Organization (WTO) conference in
Seattle, hundreds of protestors took to the street to protest a number of issues,
including the international use of child labor, which has become increasingly
important in discussions on international trade, human rights and international
assistance. While awareness of the issue has increased, the ability to address the
complex problem has been complicated by a number of related factors including
rising poverty, surging HIV/AIDS infection rates, and a lack of relevant education.
This report will outline the scope of the international child labor problem, explain the
difficulties in eliminating it, describe U.S. and international child labor programs,
and present some issues Congress may consider.
Child labor is a term that is used in a number of ways. Some use it to describe
any work undertaken by children, while others use the term to refer to abusive work.
The International Labor Organization (ILO)¹ defines child labor as a form of work
that is inherently hazardous, employs children below the internationally recognized
minimum age², or is exploitative. This report refers to child labor as it is defined by
the ILO. Age appropriate work can foster responsibility, add to a family’s income,
and teach children employable skills. It does not inhibit children from attaining basic
education, does not employ children below the internationally recognized minimum
age and does not pose a threat to the child’s mental, physical and emotional health.
The ILO collects data on child labor and “children in economic activity”, because
it often serves as a proxy quantifier for child labor.³ “Children in economic activity”
encompasses all children engaged in work, including child laborers. Experts believe
it is critical to collect this data, because many governments do not collect
employment data on those below their minimum working age. Consequently, data
on the scope and magnitude of child labor is scarce and is often not collected.
Furthermore, the data that is available, including ILO data, has some margin of error.⁴
The ILO estimates that nearly 352 million children were engaged in some form of

¹ The ILO is a United Nations specialized agency that focuses on labor standards and the
rights of workers. It is unique among the U.N. agencies because its members include
representatives of the major labor and business organizations in each country as well as
government representatives.
² Convention 138 calls for all ratifying countries to establish a minimum age of employment
no lower than the age of completion of compulsory education or 15 years. Developing
countries have the flexibility to set the minimum age at 14 years.
³ Regional estimates of economically active children is provided in the appendix, Table 4.
⁴ This is discussed further in Every Child Counts: New Global Estimates on Child Labor.

economic activity in 2000, and about 246 million children were engaged in child
labor. Some 186 million child laborers were below the age of 15, and approximately

110 million were below the age of 12.⁵

Key Statistics
Table 1. Estimates of Children in Economic Activity, Child
Labor, and Hazardous Work, 2000
(in thousands)
Age GroupEconomicallyActive ChildrenChild LaborChildren inHazardous Work
5-14 210,800 186,300 111,300
15-17140,900 59,200 59,200
T otal 351,700 245,500 170,500
^Source:^IL^O,^Ever^{y C}^hⁱ^l^d^C^ount^s^:^N^e^w^G^l^obal^Es^tⁱ^m^at^es^{on C}^hⁱ^l^d^L^abor
Table 2. Estimated Number of Children in Worst Forms of Child
Labor, 2000
(in thousands)
Forced &ArmedProstitution &Other
Region Traf f i cked Bonded Conf lict P o rnography Illicit
LaborActivities
Asia/Pacific 250 5,500 120 590 220
Latin America550330750260
& Caribbean
Africa 200 210 120 50 n/a
Industrialized n/a n/a 1 420 110
Economies
Transition 200 n/a 5 n/a n/a
Economies
T otal 1,200 5,700 300 1,800 600
^Source:^IL^O,^Ever^{y C}^hⁱ^l^d^C^ount^s^:^N^e^w^G^l^obal^Es^tⁱ^m^at^es^{on C}^hⁱ^l^d^L^abor

⁵ ILO, Every Child Counts: New Global Estimates on Child Labor. Geneva: ILO Labor
Office, p. 10.

Global Incidences of Child Labor
According to ILO estimates, the largest number of child workers under 14 years
old are in the Asia-Pacific region. However, Sub-Saharan Africa is estimated to have
the highest proportion of working children, with nearly 30% of its children engaged
in some form of economic activity. About one in three children below the age of 15
is economically active in the region.⁶ The child work ratios in other major world⁷
regions are all projected to be below 20 percent. Furthermore, every fourth child in
sub-Saharan Africa appears to start work before the age of 10.⁸ Africa’s relatively
high poverty rate, as well as its relatively high proportion of individuals both residing
and employed in rural areas, may contribute to the large number of children at work.
According to a World Bank report, child labor participation rates are much higher in
rural than in urban areas, and three-quarters of working children work in family⁹
enterprises. The report further emphasizes that child labor is, and will continue to
be, common in a large number of countries until poverty is substantially reduced.
The ILO estimates that nearly half (48.5%) of all economically active children
were engaged in hazardous work, which it defines as “any activity or occupation
which, by its nature or type has, or leads to adverse effects on the child’s safety,¹⁰
health and moral development”. Much agricultural work is included in this
category because it may involve the use of heavy machinery or exposure to
pesticides. An ILO report concluded that 55% of children below 12 years of age
were working in a hazardous occupation or situation in 2000. Children between 12
years old and 14 years old were the largest age group working in a hazardous
occupation or situation. Sixty-six percent of all child laborers aged 12 through 14¹¹
were reported to be engaged in hazardous work.
The ILO chart below delineates the activity of those engaged in child labor, who
comprise nearly 70% of all economically active children. An overwhelming majority
(69.5%) of these child laborers is engaged in hazardous work. The deceptively small
percentage of child laborers (3.4%) engaged in the “worst forms of child labor”
represents 8.4 million children. The remaining 27% of the child laborers were not
working in either hazardous conditions or the worst forms of child labor, but they
were still engaged in forms of child labor which, according to the ILO, “must be
abolished.”¹²

⁶ ILO, Every Child Counts: New Global Estimates on Child Labor. Geneva: ILO Labor
Office, April 2002, p.9.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Ibid, p.17.
⁹ Fallon, Peter and Zafiris Tzannatos, Child Labor: Issues and Directions for the World
Bank. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1998, p.2
¹⁰ ILO, Every Child Counts: New Global Estimates on Child Labor. Geneva: ILO Labor
Office, April 2002, p.33.
¹¹ Ibid, p.23.
¹² For the ILO definition of child labor see the Appendix.

Figure 1. Economically Active Children and Child Labor, 2000
⁽ⁱ^{n m}^illions⁾
^Source:^I^L^{O, Ev}^er^y^Ch^ild^Co^uⁿ^t^{s: New}^Glo^b^a^{l Estim}^{ates o}ⁿ^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^r^.
A significant number of children (8.4 million) were estimated to be involved in
the “unconditional worst forms of child labor,” which includes prostitution and
pornography, trafficking, forced and bonded labor, armed conflict, and other illicit
activities.¹³ Of the 8.4 million ensnared in the worst forms of child labor a great
majority (5.7 million) were either in forced or bonded labor, with another 1.8 million
engaged in prostitution or pornography. The ILO estimates that some 1.2 million
children were trafficked in 2000, while 600,000 were engaged in illicit activities and
300,000 participated in armed conflict. Most child soldiers were found in Africa and
the Asia-Pacific region.¹⁴ The chart below shows the distribution of children engaged
in the worst forms of child labor.

¹³ The 8.4 million children in the worst forms of child labor does not include the 1.2 million
trafficked children to avoid double counting. The ILO assumes that children are generally
trafficked into another worst form of child labor, such as prostitution.
¹⁴ ILO, Every Child Counts: New Global Estimates on Child Labor. Geneva: ILO Labor
Office, April 2002, p.25.

Figure 2. Children in the Worst Forms of Child Labor,
2000
⁽ⁱ^{n thous}^ands⁾
^Source:^IL^O,^Ever^{y C}^hⁱ^l^d^C^ount^s^:^N^e^w^G^l^obal^Es^tⁱ^m^at^es^{on C}^hⁱ^l^d^L^abor
Difficulties in Eliminating Child Labor
Child Labor and Poverty
Global efforts to eliminate child labor have been complicated by a range of
factors, including poverty, lack of access to education, soaring HIV/AIDS rates, and
the ability to conceal the use of child labor. Historically, poverty and child labor are
inextricably linked. Families in many countries rely on the income from children to
cover basic needs. A World Bank report found that countries with per capita income
of $500 or less (at 1987 prices) have labor force participation rates of 30%-60% for
children aged 10-14 years. In contrast, wealthier developing countries, with incomes
between $500 and $1,000, have lower child labor participation rates at 10%-30% for
the same age group.¹⁵
As children work to contribute to their families’ short-term needs the cycle of
poverty continues. Child labor hinders economic development and perpetuates
poverty by keeping the children of the poor out of school, limiting their prospects for
upward social mobility, and preventing them from gaining the education and skills
that would enable them as adults to increase their contributions to economic growth

¹⁵ P. Fallon and Z. Tzannatos, Child Labor: Issues and directions for the World Bank.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1998, p.2.

and prosperity.¹⁶ Some have suggested that child labor suppresses wages, because
it increases the total labor supply. A recent article from the Journal of International
Affairs argues that if child labor is left to proliferate, adult labor could be threatened.
“[I]n the same measure as females replaced men as factory workers, so child labor,
if not restricted, will crowd a proportionate number of adults out of employment.”¹⁷
Child Labor in the Shadows
Children working in export industries (such as textiles, clothing, carpets and
footwear) have been featured on news stories causing international uproar. An NBC
Dateline report recently highlighted the grim side of child labor in a story aired on
June 23, 2002. The news story entitled, Slaves to Fashion; Child labor and abuse
in Indian silk factories, showed children working in dirty, sweltering factories with
blaring music (to fight fatigue), no running water, no toilets, and no place to rest. It
reported that these children lived and worked in factories whose internal temperature
often exceeded 100 degrees, and which remained locked with armed guards barring
entrance or exit. Many of the factories were in back alleys, accessible only to those
that worked in them. Hidden cameras showed children picking silk out of boiling
pots with their bare hands, standing at machines purposely built for them, and
cowering as abusive employers liberally hit or threatened them. Research has
indicated that children more often work in small subcontracting shops, like these, or
homework situations rather than in large-scale, formal factories.¹⁸
An important part of the story was a segment that showed the difficulty in
monitoring and tracking goods produced with child labor. An undercover news
reporter held an extensive interview with a silk exporter who admitted that her
company routinely sends its silk to Italy to receive an Italian label, minimizing the
likelihood that her company would be scrutinized for child labor practices, and
guaranteeing a higher price for the goods.¹⁹ This practice reveals the difficulty in
abolishing child labor as companies continue to discover ways to circumvent
monitoring systems.
Child Labor in Various Industries
The Dateline story raised awareness about some aspects of child labor. However,
the ILO has found that child workers in export industries are relatively few compared
to those employed in activities geared to domestic consumption. It is estimated that

¹⁶ ILO, A Future Without Child Labor: Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva: International Labor^th
Conference 90 Session 2002, p.1.
¹⁷ Luis F. Lopez-Calva, Child Labor: Myths, theories and facts. Journal of International
Affairs, Volume 55, Issue 1, October 1, 2001, p.2.
¹⁸ U.S. Department of Labor, The Apparel Industry and Codes of Conduct: A solution to the
International Child Labor Problem?. Washington, D.C., 1996, p.4.
¹⁹ All information regarding the Dateline report came from the Dateline transcript, Slaves
to Fashion; Child labor and abuse in Indian silk factories. National Broadcasting
Company, Inc., 23 June, 2002.

fewer than 5% of child laborers are employed in the export manufacturing or mining
sectors, and only 1-2% are employed in export-oriented agriculture.²⁰ This reinforces
the argument that child labor needs to be addressed at the national and local levels.
Surveys have revealed that the majority of children who work (70%) are engaged
in agriculture, with less than 9% involved in manufacturing, trade and restaurant
work. Only 6.5% were found to be engaged in social and personal services, including
domestic work. Some 4% worked in transport, storage and communications, and 3%
were found to be involved in construction, mining and quarrying.²¹ Not only were
most children found to be engaged in agricultural work, but most children were also
found in the informal sector. This means that children will be less likely found in
highly organized commercial plantations. Nonetheless, children are still a significant
portion of the commercial agricultural workforce, because the large plantations often
subcontract to small-scale family farms that may use child labor. Studies in Brazil,
Kenya and Mexico have shown that children under 15 make up between 25% and
30% of the total labor force in production of various commodities.²² The common
practice of subcontracting is mirrored in manufacturing and a host of other industries,
underscoring the importance of developing national programs that address poverty,
access to basic education, and include child labor initiatives in national labor
legislation.
Child Labor and HIV/AIDS
Child labor has become even more difficult to eliminate with the rapid spread of
HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS increases the number of child orphans and street children,
inhibits children’s ability to regularly attend school, makes children more vulnerable
to sexual abuse and prostitution, and ultimately elevates the demand for child labor.
HIV/AIDS has already increased the number of child orphans. Before
HIV/AIDS, about 2% of children in the developing world were orphans; by the end
of the 1990s about 10% of children were orphans in some countries. An estimated
13 million children have lost their mothers or both parents to HIV/AIDS; and 27
million children are expected to be affected by HIV/AIDS by 2010. If children up
to 18 years are considered (children up to 15 years old are traditionally considered
orphans), 50 million children will be affected by HIV/AIDS by 2010. Globally, at
least 90% of those orphaned through HIV/AIDS live in sub-Saharan Africa.²³
Children orphaned by HIV/AIDS often have less access to education. Research
has shown that children orphaned by HIV/AIDS are more likely to be out of school

²⁰ P. Fallon and Z. Tzannatos, Child Labor: Issues and directions for the World Bank.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1998, p.2.
²¹ ILO, A Future Without Child Labor: Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva: International Labor^th
Conference 90 Session 2002, p.22.
²² Ibid, p.25.
²³ All statistics taken from Bill Rau, Intersecting Risks: HIV/AIDS and Child Labor.
Geneva: ILO, June 2002, p. 4.

than those orphaned for other reasons.²⁴ Once a parent becomes infected with HIV
the child is often withdrawn from school either to care for the ill parent(s) and
siblings, or to find work to substitute for the income of the sick or deceased parent.
Even if they remain in school, children raised in households with a parent living with
HIV/AIDS usually only attend school sporadically.
Once the parent(s) die(s) the child may find refuge in the streets or with an
extended family member. The extended family network has traditionally been very
strong in many developing countries. However, HIV/AIDS is undermining it. Older
family members, already struggling to make a living, rarely have enough money to
sufficiently care for additional children. These children are less likely to receive an
education, are more likely to be malnourished, and are more easily exploited.
Extended families are turning away children at rising rates, resulting in a significant
increase in “street children” and working children. Children on the street in need of
money, food, shelter and guidance are more likely to be drawn into causal sexual
relationships or to be exploited for commercial sexual practices. Consequently, these
children become more likely to contract HIV/AIDS themselves. The United Nations
estimates that up to 48% of street children have been sexually abused in return for
food and shelter.²⁵
As working adults continue to die at rapid rates, the demand for child labor
increases. In areas severely affected by HIV/AIDS, employers have begun to seek
out children to fill in the labor gaps. In Zimbabwe, the HIV induced loss of adult
labor on commercial agricultural estates has increased the demand for child labor
both in fields and in households. In South Africa, children are expected to work on
the estate if they live with their parents on the compound.²⁶
Child Labor and Education
A lack of access to education is yet another contributor to the persistence of child
labor. Education is critical in both preventing child labor and in removing children
from hazardous forms of work. An estimated 113 million children do not have
access to primary education around the world.²⁷ Some do not have access to
education because the school fees, uniforms and other related expenses are out of
reach. Others either do not have access to a school or do not find the education
offered to be relevant to their needs. While child labor may supplement the
household income in the short-term, in the long-term it can plunge the family deeper
into poverty as it both increases the likelihood that the child will receive meager
wages for his/her lifetime and suppresses adult wages.

²⁴ Ibid, p.6.
²⁵ Bill Rau, Intersecting Risks: HIV/AIDS and Child Labor. Geneva: ILO, June 2002,
p.22.
²⁶ Ibid, p.19.
²⁷ USDOL, Advancing the Campaign Against Child Labor: Efforts at the Country Level.
Washington, D.C.: USDOL, 2002, i.

Efforts to Eliminate International Child Labor
There are a number of other international organizations and international non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) that address child labor, but this report focuses
on the international efforts of the International Labor Organization.²⁸ Since 1919 the
International Labor Organization (ILO) has adopted some 20 Conventions and
Recommendations that seek to set minimum labor standards for children.²⁹ The
Conventions are treaties and are binding on countries that have ratified them. The
ILO offers countries technical assistance in implementing and ratifying Convention
138: Minimum Age for Employment, and Convention 182: Elimination of the Worst
Forms of Child Labor³⁰ through the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work and its Follow-Up. Established in 1998, the Declaration commits all
ILO members to respect, promote and realize workers’ basic rights, even if they have³¹
not ratified the corresponding Conventions. Workers’ basic rights are:
^!the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and
occupation;
^!the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor
^!freedom of association; and³²
^!the abolition of child labor.
The Declaration and its Follow-Up incorporate no direct enforcement powers.
However, the ILO monitors and reports on international child labor practices. The
programs established under the Declaration rely on two things to eliminate
international child labor: annual reports from participating countries and technical
assistance programs. All states participating in the Declaration program are required
to submit an annual report that illustrates their progress towards respecting,
promoting and realizing the standards in the corresponding Conventions that they
have not ratified.³³ The Declaration and its Follow-Up also commits the ILO to
provide technical assistance to member states that will assist them in implementing
the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

²⁸ Additional international organizations include UNICEF, and NGOs include the Save the
Children.
²⁹ Relevant Child Labor Conventions include: Convention 5: Minimum Age for Industrial
Sector (Revised), 1919; Convention 59: Minimum Age (Industry) Convention (Revised),
1937; Convention 105: Abolition of Forced Labor, 1957; Convention 123: Minimum Age
for Underground Work, 1965; Convention 138: Minimum Age for Employment, 1973; and
Convention 182: Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, 1999.
³⁰ As of December 18, 2002, 120 countries have ratified Convention 138, excluding the U.S.,
and 132 countries ratified Convention 182, including the United States.
³¹ ILO website [http://www.ilo.int/public/english/standards/decl/declaration/faq/tindex.htm],
August 27, 2002.
³² Ibid.
³³ Ibid.

International Initiatives
The ILO has a number of technical assistance programs that address child labor.
The first is the International Program to Eliminate Child Labor (IPEC), which
became operational in 1992. IPEC has mobilized more resources than any other³⁴
Declaration technical assistance program.. Eighty-two countries now participate in
the IPEC program, up from the initial six, and the program has attracted 27 donor³⁵
countries, up from the original one (Germany). IPEC accounted for 12.8% of the
total ILO extra-budgetary technical cooperation expenditure in 1998-1999. By 2000-
01, 27.5% of total ILO extra-budgetary technical cooperation expenditure came from
IPEC.³⁶ This initiative targets children engaged in hazardous work and the worst
forms of child labor. To enhance sustainability and maximize impact, IPEC works
with participating governments to remove children from hazardous work and offers
children and their families education, income and employment alternatives. The
program also seeks to prevent other children from becoming child laborers.³⁷ The
training component of IPEC Program helps member states to:
^!determine the nature and extent of the child labor problem;
^!devise national policies and protective legislation;
^!establish mechanisms to provide in-country ownership and operation
of national programs;
^!create awareness about child labor in communities and workplaces;
and³⁸
^!enhance workplace monitoring and social protection programs.
A second technical assistance initiative is the Time Bound Programs (TBP). The
TBP seeks to assist member States to implement Convention 182 and eradicate the
worst forms of child labor within five to ten years. The ILO expects TBPs to have
a significant impact on sustainable development largely because its methodology
incorporates all members of society, and because it requires that states demonstrate
commitment to eradicating the worst forms of child labor. Recognizing the link
between poverty and child labor, TBPs seek to incorporate strategies for the abolition
of the worst forms of child labor into participating countries’ national Poverty³⁹
Reduction Strategy Papers and national labor market policies and processes.
A third technical assistance program, the Statistical Information and Monitoring
Program on Child Labor (SIMPOC), helps states identify the incidence, scope and

³⁴ ILO, A Future Without Child Labor: Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO
Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva: International^th
Labor Conference 90 Session 2002, p.3.
³⁵ ILO, IPEC Action Against Child Labor: Highlights 2002. Geneva: October 2002, p.5.
³⁶ ILO, IPEC Action Against Child Labor 2000-2001: Progress and Future Priorities.
Geneva: January 2002, p.25.
³⁷ Ibid, p.9.
³⁸ Ibid, p.10.
³⁹ Ibid, p.24 and p.34.

causes of child labor. Data on the scope and magnitude of child labor practices is
scarce and is often not collected. Furthermore, the data that is available, including
ILO data, has some margin of error.⁴⁰ SIMPOC provides technical and financial
support to countries to carry out child labor surveys, sets up national data banks and
disseminates information.⁴¹
U.S. Government Child Labor Initiatives
While child labor has proven extremely difficult to eliminate, the United States
has consistently strengthened its efforts to combat child labor. It has increased the
number of U.S. agencies with mandates to fight the phenomenon, augmented its
allocations to anti-child labor efforts, and attached child labor criteria to its
international agreements and foreign assistance programs. In addition to its
increasingly important role in developing programs that counter the spread of child
labor, the United States has enhanced its role in the global fight against child labor
through legislation and international agreements. One such international agreement
is Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. As of 2002, one hundred
twenty-nine countries have ratified Convention 182, due to rapid Senate action the⁴²
United States was the third. The United States is also committed to the 1990 World
Declaration Education for All Initiative. This initiative seeks to ensure that by 2015
all children, particularly girls, have access to and are able to complete free and
compulsory primary education of good quality.⁴³ By virtue of its goal of global
education for all, this initiative is seen as a tool to fight child labor.
A number of U.S. agencies have a mandate to address international child labor.
Below is a brief description of some activities that the U.S. Department of Labor, the
U.S. Department of Treasury, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and
the U.S. Department of State implement to address child labor.
The U.S. Department of Labor
The U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) is the lead U.S. agency with the task of
implementing projects that counter child labor worldwide. The International Child
Labor Program (ICLP) combats international child labor as part of the Bureau of
International Affairs (ILAB) of USDOL. ILAB seeks to improve working conditions

⁴⁰ This is discussed further in Every Child Counts: New Global Estimates on Child Labor.
⁴¹ ILO, A Future Without Child Labor: Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva: International Labor^th
Conference 90 Session 2002, p.62.
⁴² ILO website, [http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/ipec/index.htm], December 3,

2002.

⁴³ USDOL, Advancing the Campaign Against Child Labor: Efforts at the Country Level.
Washington, D.C.: USDOL, 2002, v.

around the globe. The United States is the single largest contributor to the IPEC
Program,⁴⁴ contributing over $157 million to the ILO-IPEC between 1995 and 2002.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s International Child Labor Program has grown
considerably since its inception in 1993. Initially, the ICLP investigated and reported
on international incidences of child labor.⁴⁵ The ICLP continues to investigate and
report on global incidences of child labor, implements technical assistance initiatives,
undertakes awareness raising activities, and maintains a list of products, which it
believes may have been made with forced or indentured child labor.⁴⁶
Technical Assistance
The U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) International Child Labor Program
(ICLP) funds a number of technical assistance programs. The first, the ILO-IPEC
Program, receives the largest portion of the technical assistance budget. In FY2002,
USDOL contributed $45 million to the ILO-IPEC Program. U.S. contributions
support ILO-International Program to Eliminate Child Labor (IPEC), -Time Bound
Programs (TBPs), and -Statistical Information and Monitoring Program on Child
Labor (SIMPOC) activities in over 25 countries. The projects address key issues
local to each country, including child labor in Indonesia’s footwear industry,
trafficking in West and Central Africa, and eliminating child labor in Nicaragua’s
trash dumps. A complete list of USDOL technical assistance projects can be found
in the appendix.
The second technical assistance program, the Education Initiative (EI), is a
relatively new one. Launched in 2001, the EI seeks to increase access to basic
education, and to enhance the sustainability⁴⁷ of ongoing international and national
child labor programs.⁴⁸ The USDOL allocated $37 million to the EI in FY2002.The
Education Initiative has four goals:
^!to raise awareness of the importance of education for all children and
mobilize a wide array of actors to improve and expand education
infrastructures;
^!to strengthen national institutions and policies on education and
child labor;

⁴⁴ ILO, IPEC Action Against Child Labor 200-2001: Progress and Future Priorities.
Geneva: January 2002, p.11.
⁴⁵ USDOL website, [http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/iclp/aboutcl.htm], September 3,

2002.

⁴⁶ USDOL website, [http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/programs/iclp/about_iclp.htm], September

4, 2002.

⁴⁷ Interview with staff at USDOL, July 23, 2002.
⁴⁸ USDOL website, [http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/programs/iclp/about_iclp.htm], September

4, 2002..

^!to develop formal and transitional education systems that encourage
working children and those at risk of working to attend school; and
^!to ensure the long-term sustainability of these efforts.⁴⁹
The USDOL-ICLP also awards grants to raise awareness within the United States
about the global problem of child labor. The funds have been used to produce reports
on the nature and scope of child labor in India, Brazil, Mexico, and Kenya; to
develop a photographic library of child labor from around the world; to support the
public education efforts of the Child Labor Coalition (CLC);⁵⁰ and to offer a child
labor policy advocacy course to 50 graduate students.⁵¹
In addition to its technical assistance efforts the USDOL-ICLP, in conjunction
with the Department of Treasury and the Department of State, maintains a list of
products believed to be produced with forced or indentured child labor.⁵² The list is
updated and the Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service uses this list to seize
such goods and prevent them from entering the United States. Since June 12, 1999,
under Executive Order No. 13126, the USDOL-ICLP has co-maintained this list and
is currently reviewing information regarding the use of forced or indentured child
labor in the cocoa industry in Cote d’Ivoire and the production of firecrackers in
China.⁵³
U.S. Department of Treasury
Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (P.L. 71-361) prohibits the importation of
merchandise produced in whole or in part with prison labor, forced labor, or
indentured labor under penal sanction. It was amended in 2000 to specify that the
prohibition includes forced or indentured child labor (P.L. 106-200).⁵⁴ The
Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, responsible for enforcing Section
307 and related regulations, has established a Forced Child Labor Command Center
in the Fraud Investigations Branch of the Office of Investigations. The Command
Center has a number of functions, including:
^!providing a clearinghouse for information and investigative leads;
^!creating strategies to identify illegal merchandise before it arrives in
the U.S.;

⁴⁹ USDOL website, [www.dol.gov/ILAB/grants/education/educationinitiative.htm], July 31,

2002.

⁵⁰ The International Child Labor Coalition is an NGO that educates the public about child
labor.
⁵¹ USDOL website, [http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/programs/tech_assist/awareness/main.htm],
September 4, 2002.
⁵² USDOL website, [http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/iclp/eo.htm], July 15, 2002.
⁵³ USDOL website, [http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/iclp/eo.htm], July 15, 2002.
⁵⁴ U.S. Customs, Forced Child Labor Advisory. Washington, D.C.: December 2000, p.4.

^!operating as a liaison for Customs investigative filed office; and
^!improving enforcement coordination and information.⁵⁵
The U.S. Customs Outreach Program enhances its enforcement efforts. The
Outreach Program educates manufacturers, U.S. importers and the public about
forced child labor. It also informs its audience about the role of Customs in fighting
forced or indentured child labor, offers advice on identifying goods possibly
produced with indentured or forced child labor, and explains U.S. child labor law.
The U.S. Customs Service also fights forced and indentured child labor abroad
through its attachés. Attachés, based in more than 20 countries, are responsible for
investigating allegations of forced or indentured child labor, informing foreign
government counterparts, NGOs and private businesses on Customs’ role in fighting
forced and indentured child labor, and conducting seminars and conferences on
forced and indentured child labor. Congress has appropriated over $14 million to the
U.S. Customs forced child labor program since FY2000.
U.S. Agency for International Development
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs to limit
international child labor are implemented largely through three initiatives: the
Sustainable Tree Crops Program (STCP), the Education to Combat Abusive Child
Labor (ECACL) Activity, and anti-trafficking programs.
The Sustainable Tree Crops Program is a public-private partnership that seeks to
raise the income and quality of life in cocoa-, coffee- and cashew-producing
communities. Initially, the project focused its efforts on economically and
environmentally improving the standards of rural households. Recently, the program
has evolved to address abusive child labor practices by promoting and monitoring
acceptable forms of labor. Recognizing that abusive forms of child labor are often
a symptom of poverty, USAID hopes that by combining strategies to increase access
to environmentally friendly technology to raise profitability, productivity and
efficiency of smallholder tree crops systems, farmers will rely less on child labor.⁵⁶
In an effort to investigate allegations of bonded child labor and child trafficking
in harvesting some cocoa beans in West Africa, USAID in conjunction with the U.S.
Department of Labor, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) and the ILO
conducted a survey in Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, and Nigeria. As a
result of the survey findings, three congressional members⁵⁷, the Government of Cote
d’Ivoire, the ILO-IPEC, the CMA, other NGOs, and a host of other chocolate

⁵⁵ U.S. Customs website, [http://www.customs.gov/enforcem/forc.htm], September 4, 2002.
⁵⁶ Interview with USAID staff on September 9, 2002.
⁵⁷ Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Herbert Kohl, and Congressman Eliot Engel.

employers and workers unions⁵⁸ were involved in the formation of a coalition to
develop an action plan to address abusive child labor in West African cocoa
production.⁵⁹ Ultimately, the coalition agreed to a program for growing and
processing cocoa beans and their derivative products in a manner that complies with
ILO Convention 182.⁶⁰ The Sustainable Tree Crops Program (STCP), the ILO,
Governments of West Africa and the CMA are developing a pilot phase of activity
that would complement existing STCP activities. Pilot projects were scheduled to
begin by November 30, 2002.⁶¹
USAID seeks to integrate child labor activities into all of its socio-economic
mission-level development programs through the Education to Combat Abusive
Child Labor (ECACL) Activity. The ECACL assesses the extent of in-country child
labor problems; and conducts policy analyses, evaluations, and feasibility studies, as
well as applied research. Through this activity ECACL explores various strategies to
eliminate abusive and hazardous child labor, such as alternative forms of education,
scholarships, payments and other incentives. The research has already revealed that
many children engaged in hazardous forms of child labor and their families do not
see the merit in attending school; and many feel that the liberal arts form of education
usually found in school is not relevant to their lifestyle and will not serve to improve
their financial standing. The ECACL has already produced a number of publications,
a child labor database, child labor country briefs, and reports that serve as planning
guides for assisting host countries and USAID missions in the planning and
implementation of on-the-ground activities. The ECACL will also report on the
results of its pilot projects that seek to prevent children from entering hazardous or
exploitative forms of work worldwide.⁶²
Finally, USAID conducts a range of anti-trafficking activities that include
assisting children in Africa, cooperating with NGOs in Central Asia to combat
trafficking and change legislation, and monitoring cross-border trafficking for sexual
exploitation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Many of these activities are
conducted in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Embassies.⁶³

⁵⁸ Other signatories, include: the World Cocoa Foundation, the International Union of Food,
Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF),
the Child Labor Coalition, Free The Slaves, and the National Consumers League
⁵⁹ Child Labor Coalition website, Nothing Sweet: Child Slave Labor in Ivory Coast Cocoa
Fields. [http://www.stopchildlabor.org/internationalchildlabor/timeline.htm], July 17, 2002.
⁶⁰ Ibid, ibid.
⁶¹ USAID Africa/DP Bureau, September 9, 2002.
⁶² Education to Combat Abusive Child Labor website, [http://www.beps.net/childlabor.htm],
September 10, 2002.
⁶³ USAID, Trafficking in Persons: USAID’s Response. Washington, D.C., September 2001,
p.3.

U.S. Department of State
The U.S. Department of State is involved in child labor initiatives, which it
coordinates with the ILO, USDOL, and USAID. Through its Office of International
Labor Affairs it promotes the ILO core labor standards, which include the abolition
of child labor; plays a major role in U.S. Government participation in the ILO;
pursues the inclusion of worker rights on the agenda of international institutions,
including the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the
International Monetary Fund; and monitors countries’ compliance with worker
rights’ provisions in U.S. laws. P.L. 106-386 called for the establishment of an
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, chaired by the Secretary
of State. It also authorizes the U.S. Department of State to establish an Office to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking to assist the task force. In addition, the Department
of State is required to issue a report each year on trafficking, including an assessment
of what governments are doing to combat trafficking. Trafficking is discussed
comprehensively in CRS Report RL30545, Trafficking in Women and Children: The
U.S. and International Response.
Congressional Action
Congressional support for the abolition of child labor, particularly the worst
forms of child labor, is very strong. Congress has acted to fund programs to combat
child labor, expand the United States’ role in the global fight against child labor, and
include clauses that require action on eliminating child labor in trade agreements. In
1993, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) International Child
Labor Program (ICLP) to investigate and report on child labor around the world.
Since then, Congress has continued to fund the USDOL-ICLP research and reporting
efforts. It has expanded the ICLP’s mandate to include administering grants to
organizations engaged in efforts to eliminate child labor and to improve access to
quality basic education; and raising public awareness and understanding of child
labor issues.⁶⁴ Appropriations for the ICLP have grown to $82 million in FY 2002.
Congress has also greatly enhanced U.S. efforts to fight child labor by adding child
labor responsibilities to a host of U.S. agencies including, USAID, U.S. Department
of State, and U.S. Customs Service.
Congress has also advanced the U.S. role in countering the worst forms of child
labor through legislation, such as Section 634 of P.L. 105-61, which restricts the
importation of goods produced by forced or indentured child labor. Congress also
added child labor stipulations to foreign aid legislation through the Export-Import
Bank Reauthorization Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-121). This bill integrates child labor
into the list of criteria for denying credit by the Export-Import Bank. Another bill
targeting child labor abuses is the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
of 2000 (P.L. 106-386). The legislation provides punishment for traffickers, as well

⁶⁴ USDOL website, [http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/programs/main.htm], September 12, 2002.

as assistance and protection to trafficking victims, with a special emphasis on women
and children, both in the U.S. and abroad.⁶⁵
Recognizing that international child labor could serve as an artificial barrier to
trade, as countries that do not rely on child labor in export production could have
difficulty competing against countries that do, Congress has used international trade
agreements to fight child labor. The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) is a
program that extends duty-free entry to a wide range of products from more than 140
countries and territories. The Trade and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-200)
expanded the GSP eligibility criteria to include the Worst Forms of Child Labor. The
Act prohibits any country from GSP consideration if “[s]uch country has not
implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.”⁶⁶ The
Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210) amended the Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA) to add child labor criteria.⁶⁷ The North American Agreement on Labor
Cooperation (NAALC), the labor supplement to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), also has a child labor component. The agreement seeks to
promote fundamental labor standards, including those addressing child labor,
compliance with labor laws, and the enforcement of those laws in each country. The
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative states that the NAALC has enhanced
transparency and public debate on labor law and enforcement issues more than any
previous bilateral or trilateral cooperative agreement.⁶⁸
Issues and Questions for Congress
Although Congress has consistently supported American efforts to eliminate child
labor world-wide, proponents of these efforts say that a number of issues continue
to complicate these initiatives, including: ineffective enforcement mechanisms,
sparse monitoring systems, and insufficient funding for programs that alleviate
poverty, decrease incidences of HIV/AIDS, and increase access to relevant education.
Some argue that until international enforcement mechanisms are established, global
monitoring systems are enhanced and funding for programs that combat poverty,
HIV/AIDS and illiteracy are boosted, child labor will continue to flourish.
Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms
There are a number of international, national and local programs that seek to
eliminate international child labor. Some argue that a lack of enforcement
mechanisms diminishes the impact of these programs.⁶⁹ Ratification of ILO

⁶⁵ Ibid, ibid.
⁶⁶ P.L. 106-200.
⁶⁷ H.R. 3009.
⁶⁸ USTR website, Chapter 3: Worker Rights: Cooperation and Labor Law Enforcement.
[http://www.ustr.gov/pdf/chapter3.pdf], September 12, 2002.
⁶⁹ The lack of ILO enforcement capabilities has generated much discussion. Part of that
(continued...)

Conventions and participation in the ILO international child labor programs are
voluntary. Some maintain that the ILO should have some form of enforcement
capacity or penalty mechanisms in place to strengthen the child labor Conventions.
These arguments have raised a number of questions, including whether the ILO
should add enforcement mechanisms to its charter, and the impact that enforcement
mechanisms could have on ILO membership (there are 186 ILO member states).
Some have also suggested that the ILO should allow countries to file grievances
against countries that consistently use child labor.
Linking Child Labor to International Trade and Foreign Aid
Some argue that linking child labor to international trade strengthens efforts to
eliminate its use. Advocates of this practice argue that countries that use child labor
create unemployment in developed countries as multinational companies move their
plants to countries with lower labor costs. This, they argue, constitutes “social
dumping”, a term that implies that developing countries without adequate labor
standards distort trade and investment flows and participate in unfair competition.⁷⁰
Additionally, supporters of using trade as a tool to discourage the use of child labor
maintain that this linkage will help developing countries to modernize, because
children will be forced to attend school, and in the long run a more educated
workforce will boost the country’s productive potential.
Others oppose marrying child labor and international trade for a number of
reasons. First, they argue that the United States unjustly requires states to ratify or
comply with international child labor conventions, which it has not ratified.⁷¹
Second, opponents argue that heightened trade barriers will worsen the plight of
workers and more than likely increase reliance on child labor, as growth is halted and
families struggle to contend with increased poverty. Finally, since most child labor
occurs on family farms and in the informal sector, trade initiatives will have only
minimal impact on child laborers, opponents argue. If the United States would
reduce its trade barriers (such as tariffs on foreign textiles and agriculture), some
argue, developing countries would be able to grow, fight poverty, and minimize their
reliance on child laborers.⁷² This issue has spurred debates on a number of issues,
including whether the United States should continue to use international trade forums
to contribute to the abolition of international child labor. Another issue some have

⁶⁹ (...continued)
debate has been captured in Congressional hearings and briefings, including: Federal News
Service (FNS), USIA Foreign Press Center Briefing, June 23, 1999, and FNS, Special White
House Briefing with Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman and National Economic Council
Director Gene Sperling, December 2, 1999.
⁷⁰ Hasnat, Baban, “International Trade and Child Labor.” Journal of Economic Issues, v29,
n2, June 1995, p.419.
⁷¹ The United States has not ratified a number of ILO Conventions, because it argues that
it infringes on national and state sovereignty. Furthermore, it argues that in practice the
United States already complies with the Conventions.
⁷² Lukas, Aaron, “WTO Report Card III: Globalization and Developing Countries.” CATO
Institute: CATO Trade Briefing Paper No. 10, June 20, 2000, p.16.

raised is whether U.S. tariffs and subsidies indirectly contribute to international child
labor. Opponents of the use of U.S. tariffs and subsidies have argued that the United
States might be able to offer trade-friendly options to eliminate child labor, such as
halting direct foreign aid payments to governments that use child labor.
Lack of Global Monitoring Systems
Both the ILO and the United States train labor monitors in foreign countries.
However, most labor monitoring activities are undertaken in the formal sector. As
noted early in this report, most forms of international child labor occur in the
informal sector, such as family farms and home businesses. Countries that already
struggle with insufficient numbers of labor monitors who are often ill-trained and ill-
equipped can not effectively monitor the informal sector. Advocates of the increased
use of labor monitors have debated whether the United States should encourage the
ILO to train labor monitors to inspect labor practices in the informal sector. Others
have suggested that the ILO could offer governments additional technical assistance
to hire more labor monitors. Some argue that alternative methods of supporting labor
monitors, such as encouraging the private sector or non-governmental organizations
to offer support to in-country labor monitors or the ILO in monitoring and
documenting child labor abuses.
Child Labor as a Development Issue
Some have maintained that funding for poverty alleviation, HIV/AIDS, basic
education, and agriculture is insufficient. These observers argue that a
comprehensive anti-child labor agenda should include increased funding for poverty
reduction programs, education initiatives and other development programs. They
maintain that if child labor were approached from a human rights perspective then
the myriad of development issues would be addressed in conjunction with child labor⁷³
programs. Those who see child labor as a development issue argue that countries,
including the United States, should increase funding to other development programs,
such as HIV/AIDS, basic education and agriculture. Others express concern that if
the United States were to increase its funding to anti-poverty initiatives it might have
to cut funding for other programs. At the same time, some argue that the United
States needs to change the way it offers foreign aid overall.

⁷³ See UNICEF, Beyond Child Labor, Affirming Rights. New York: UNICEF, March 2001.

Appendix
Definitions of Child Labor
The ILO divides child labor into three categories:
^!labor performed by a child who is under the minimum age;
^!children engaged in hazardous work; and
^!children in the unconditional worst forms of child labor
Labor that is performed by a child under the minimum age is unacceptable
because this work is likely to impede on a child’s education and full development⁷⁴,
and thus the ILO considers it to be the first form of child labor to be immediately
abolished. The ILO estimates that in 2000 approximately 246 million children⁷⁵
between 5 and 17 years old were engaged in child labor that requires elimination.
Children in hazardous work is defined as children participating in any activity or
occupation which, by its nature or type has, or leads to, adverse effects on the child’s
safety, health (physical or mental), and moral development. Hazards could be as a
result of excessive workloads, physical conditions of work, and/or work intensity⁷⁶
(duration or hours of work even if the activity is deemed non-hazardous or safe).
The ILO estimates that in 2000 more than two-thirds of those in child labor were
engaged in hazardous work. An estimated 171 million children between ages 5 and

17 were estimated to work in hazardous conditions in 2000.⁷⁷

The unconditional worst forms of child labor includes:
^!all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as sale and
trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or
compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory use of children in
armed conflict;
^!the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the
production of pornography, or for pornographic performances; and
^!the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities,⁷⁸

particularly in the production and trafficking of drugs.
⁷⁴ ILO, A Future Without Child Labor: Global Report under the Follow-Up to the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva: ILO, International^th
Labor Conference 90 Session 2002, p.9.
⁷⁵ ILO, Every Child Counts: New Global Estimates on Child Labor. Geneva: ILO Labor
Office, April 2002, p.23.
⁷⁶ Ibid, p.33.
⁷⁷ Ibid, p.10.
⁷⁸ USDOL website, [http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/iclp/aboutcl.htm], June 5, 2002.

CRS-21
Table 3. USDOL-Funded Child Labor Technical Assistance Projects, FY1995-FY2001
COUNTRYPROJECTAMOUNTFYFUNDEDPROJECT TERMGRANTEE
A
^T^A^L^{FUNDING: US$}⁴⁵^.⁸^MIL^L^I^ON
^ng^la^desh^P^h^{ase 1}^:^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^B^aⁿ^g^l^ad^esh^Gar^m^en^t^$867,273¹⁹⁹⁵^com^p^l^e^t^e^d^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^Man^u^f^actu^r^ers^an^{d Ex}^porters^A^s^s^o^ciation^(B^GMEA^{) Garm}^en^t
^Factories^an^{d th}^{e P}^l^acem^en^{t of}^C^h^ildrenⁱⁿ^Sch^{ool P}^r^og^ram^s
^P^h^{ase 2}^:^Coⁿ^tin^u^a^tioⁿ^o^f^Moⁿ^ito^rⁱⁿ^g^an^d^Verⁱ^fⁱ^catioⁿ^P^r^o^j^{ect in}^$840,779^1996;¹⁹⁹⁷^com^p^l^e^t^e^d^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^B^G^MEA^Factoriesⁱⁿ^B^aⁿ^g^l^ades^h
^P^h^{ase 3}^:^Coⁿ^tin^uⁱⁿ^g^th^{e Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^r^Moⁿ^ito^rⁱⁿ^g^an^d^Ed^u^catioⁿ^$375,572²⁰⁰¹^5/^{01 – 4/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31767}^C^o^m^pon^en^ts^(B^GMEA^{), an}^{d P}^r^{epare f}^o^{r th}^{e In}^teg^r^ationⁱⁿ^{to a}^{Broader Proj}^ectⁱⁿ^t^h^{e G}^a^rm^en^t^Ex^port^In^du^s^t^ryⁱⁿ^Ban^g^l^ades^h
^g/w
^s^.or^P^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^th^{e W}^o^r^s^{t Fo}^r^m^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^$6,000,600²⁰⁰⁰^9/^{00 – 8/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^le^ak^{Selected Form}^{al an}^{d In}^f^o^rm^al^Secto^r^{s Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^r^Statistical
^S^u^rv^ey^(S^IMP^O^C⁾
^://wiki^m^b^o^d^ia^C^o^m^b^atin^g^C^h^{ild L}^a^{bor in}^Hazardou^s^W^o^rkⁱⁿ^{Salt P}^r^odu^ction^,^$999,310²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 2/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC
^h^ttp^Ru^b^b^e^r^P^l^an^tatioⁿ^s^an^d^Fish^/sh^r^im^p^P^r^o^cessin^g^Cen^t^er^{s in}
^C^a^m^bodi^a
^P^r^ev^en^tin^g^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atin^g^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ¹⁰^I^d^en^tif^ied^$14,000,000²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 12/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC
^Hazardou^s^Sectors
^o^ng^o^lia^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^oⁿ^th^{e P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^$569,633¹⁹⁹⁹^10/^{99 – 7/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^Moⁿ^g^o^lia
^l^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^T^r^af^fⁱ^ckⁱⁿ^g^an^d^Co^m^m^e^r^c^{ial Sex}^u^a^{l Ex}^p^l^o^itatioⁿ^$192,809¹⁹⁹⁶^com^p^l^e^t^e^d^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^of^Gⁱ^rl^s
^S^u^s^t^aiⁿ^a^bl^{e El}ⁱ^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^Bon^d^{ed L}^a^{bor i}ⁿ^N^e^pal^(Joiⁿ^t^Proj^ect^$1,953,052²⁰⁰⁰^12/^{00 – 11/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^w^ith^Declaration^P^r^og^ram⁾
^S^u^pportⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e T}ⁱ^m^e^bouⁿ^d^Prog^ram^on^t^h^{e El}ⁱ^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^e^$5,500,000²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 8/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC

^W^o^r^s^{t Fo}^r^m^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^Nep^a^l

CRS-22
COUNTRYPROJECTAMOUNTFYFUNDEDPROJECT TERMGRANTEE
^B^r^ig^h^t^er^Fu^tu^r^e^{s P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^:^Co^m^b^atin^g^Ch^ildⁱⁿ^Nep^a^{l th}^r^o^u^g^h^$4,000,000²⁰⁰¹^2/^{02 – 2/}⁰⁶^Worl^{d Edu}^catⁱ^oⁿ
^Ed^u^catioⁿ
ⁱ^s^t^an^P^h^as^{e 1: P}^r^oj^{ect to P}^h^as^{e C}^h^ildren^Ou^{t of}^th^{e Soccer B}^a^ll^$755,744¹⁹⁹⁷^(com^pl^et^ed)^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^In^du^s^t^ry^{, P}^r^ov^{ide Edu}^cation^a^{l Opportu}ⁿ^ities^,^an^{d C}^oⁿ^d^u^c^t
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^{al an}^d^Ex^terⁿ^{al Mo}ⁿ^ito^rⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^Sialk^o^t
^P^h^as^{e 2: Elim}ⁱⁿ^ation^of^C^h^{ild L}^a^{bor in}^th^{e Soccer B}^a^{ll In}^du^s^t^ryⁱⁿ^$1,109,831²⁰⁰⁰^8/^{00 – 7/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^Sialko^t
^P^r^oj^{ect to P}^h^as^{e C}^h^ildren^ou^{t of}^th^{e C}^a^{rpet Sector, P}^l^{ace T}^h^emⁱⁿ^$2,055,146^{1998, 1999}^4/^{99 – 4/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^Sch^o^o^l^{s, an}^d^Estab^lish^Co^m^p^lian^{ce Mo}ⁿ^ito^rⁱⁿ^g^Sy^stem
^ilippines^Statis^{tical P}^r^og^ram^f^o^{r A}^d^v^o^cacy^on^th^{e Elim}ⁱⁿ^ation^of^C^h^ild^$268,465¹⁹⁹⁵^(com^pl^et^ed)^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31767}^L^a^b^o^r^an^d^th^{e P}^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^r^eⁿⁱⁿ^th^{e P}^h^ilip^pⁱⁿ^e^{s -}^Ch^ild^L^a^{bor Statis}^{tical Su}^rv^ey^(SIMP^O^C⁾
^g/w
^s^.or^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$237,476²⁰⁰¹^7/^{01 – 10/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^le^ak^Tⁱ^m^e^bouⁿ^d^Preparat^ory^Work^$66,506²⁰⁰¹^6/^{01 -}^7/⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^://wiki^ila^nd^P^h^as^{e 1: P}^r^og^ram^{to P}^r^ev^en^{t C}^h^{ild L}^a^{bor an}^{d Forced C}^h^ild^$484,923¹⁹⁹⁵^com^p^l^e^t^e^d^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^h^ttp^P^r^o^s^titu^tioⁿ
^P^h^{ase 2}^:^Coⁿ^tin^u^a^tioⁿ^o^f^th^{e P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^to^P^r^ev^en^{t Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^r^an^d^$261,070¹⁹⁹⁶^com^p^l^e^t^e^d^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^Fo^r^ced^Ch^ild^P^r^o^s^titu^tioⁿ
^m^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^oⁿ^th^{e P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^$499,383²⁰⁰¹^1/^{01 – 6/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC
^L^a^bor
^st^a^{nd So}^ut^{h Ea}^st^I^L^O/J^a^p^aⁿ^/^{U.S. A}^s^ian^Regⁱ^oⁿ^{al T}^r^ip^ar^{tite W}^o^r^k^sh^o^p^oⁿ^Co^r^e^$111,870¹⁹⁹⁹^com^p^l^e^t^e^d^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^L^a^{bor S}^t^an^dards^,^In^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^bor
^ut^{h Asia}^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^T^r^a^ffi^c^kⁱⁿ^g^of^C^hⁱ^l^d^renⁱⁿ^S^o^u^t^h^A^sⁱ^a^$1,789,426¹⁹⁹⁹^2/^{00 – 9/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^aⁿ^g^l^ades^h
^e^pal
ⁱ^La^nka
^ut^{h Ea}^st^Asia^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^to^Co^m^b^{at Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^th^{e Fo}^o^t^w^ear^Iⁿ^d^u^str^yⁱⁿ^$1,961,657¹⁹⁹⁹^10/^{99 – 12/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC

^don^esⁱ^a^Iⁿ^d^oⁿ^{esia, th}^{e P}^h^ilip^pⁱⁿ^e^{s, an}^d^T^h^ailan^d

CRS-23
COUNTRYPROJECTAMOUNTFYFUNDEDPROJECT TERMGRANTEE
ⁱ^lⁱ^ppiⁿ^e^s
^h^ailan^d
^ut^{h Ea}^st^Asia^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^to^Co^m^b^{at Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^th^{e Fish}ⁱⁿ^g^Iⁿ^d^u^str^yⁱⁿ^$983,347^{1999, 2000}^10/^{99 – 12/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^don^esⁱ^a^Iⁿ^d^oⁿ^{esia, th}^{e P}^h^ilip^pⁱⁿ^e^{s, an}^d^T^h^ailan^d
ⁱ^lⁱ^ppiⁿ^e^s
RICA
^T^A^L^{FUNDING: US$}²⁴^.⁸^MIL^L^I^ON
^aⁿ^a^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^oⁿ^th^{e P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^$650,703¹⁹⁹⁹^8/^{99 – 6/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^G^h^an^a
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31767}^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$397,617¹⁹⁹⁹^9/^{00 – 8/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^g/w^l^a^wⁱ^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$387,759²⁰⁰¹^8/^{01 – 11/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^s^.or^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^oⁿ^th^{e P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^$718,928¹⁹⁹⁹^1/^{00 – 6/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^le^ak^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^Nⁱ^g^e^ri^a
^://wiki^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$282,613¹⁹⁹⁹^7/^{99 – 8/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^h^ttp^ut^{h Af}^rica^Rep^o^r^tin^g^oⁿ^th^{e State o}^f^th^{e Natio}ⁿ^’^{s W}^o^r^kⁱⁿ^g^Ch^ild^r^eⁿ^:^$687,697^{1998, 1999}^11/^{98 – 6/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^Statis^{tical P}^r^og^ram^f^o^{r A}^d^v^o^cacy^on^th^{e Elim}ⁱⁿ^ation^of^C^h^ild
^L^a^b^o^r^an^d^th^{e P}^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^o^f^W^o^r^kⁱⁿ^g^Ch^ild^r^eⁿⁱⁿ^th^{e Rep}^u^b^{lic o}^f
^So^ut^{h A}^f^rⁱ^c^a
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Prog^ram^t^o^Elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^{e C}^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^S^o^u^t^h^A^f^ri^ca^$121,929²⁰⁰⁰^7/^{00 – 4/}⁰¹^IL^O^/^IPEC
^nz^aⁿ^ia^S^u^pportⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e T}ⁱ^m^e^bouⁿ^d^Prog^ram^on^t^h^{e El}ⁱ^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^e^$5,406,168²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 5/}⁰⁵^IL^O^/^IPEC
^W^o^r^s^{t Fo}^r^m^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^T^aⁿ^zan^ia
^T^aⁿ^zanⁱ^a^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^borers^Prog^ram^$4,000,000²⁰⁰¹^2/^{02 – 2/}⁰⁶^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ
^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t
^C^eⁿ^t^{er, In}^c.
^a^nda^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Prog^ram^t^o^Elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^{e C}^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^U^g^an^da^$1,196,262¹⁹⁹⁹^5/^{99 – 12/}⁰¹^IL^O^/^IPEC
^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$295,608¹⁹⁹⁹^3/^{00 – 2/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC

CRS-24
COUNTRYPROJECTAMOUNTFYFUNDEDPROJECT TERMGRANTEE
^mbⁱ^a^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^oⁿ^th^{e P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^$630,512¹⁹⁹⁹^9/^{99 – 8/}⁰¹^IL^O^/^IPEC
^La^b^o^rⁱⁿ^Za^m^bⁱ^a
^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$289,775¹⁹⁹⁹^9/^{99 – 6/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^a^{nd Cent}^ra^l^P^h^as^{e 1: C}^o^m^b^atin^g^T^r^af^fⁱ^ckⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^C^h^ildren^f^o^{r L}^a^bor^$225,525¹⁹⁹⁹^(com^pl^et^ed)^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^Ex^p^l^o^itatioⁿⁱⁿ^W^e^{st an}^d^Cen^t^r^a^{l A}^f^rⁱ^ca
ⁱⁿ
^rkⁱⁿ^{a F}^a^s^o
^a^m^e^roon
^a^bon
^h^an^a^P^h^as^{e 2: C}^o^m^b^atin^g^T^r^af^fⁱ^ckⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^C^h^ildren^f^o^{r L}^a^bor^Ex^p^l^o^itatioⁿⁱⁿ^W^e^{st an}^d^Cen^t^r^a^{l A}^f^rⁱ^ca^$4,279,154²⁰⁰¹^7/^{01 – 11/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC
^ory^C^o^as^t
ⁱ
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31767}ⁱ^g^e^ri^a
^g/w^o^g^o
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki^P^h^as^{e 1: R}^e^gⁱ^on^{al P}^r^og^ram^on^th^{e P}^r^ev^en^tion^an^{d R}^eⁱⁿ^teg^r^ation^$312,812²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 10/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^h^ttp^u^r^undⁱ^e^pu^blⁱ^c^of^C^oⁿ^g^o^o^f^Ch^ild^r^eⁿ^Iⁿ^v^o^lv^edⁱⁿ^A^r^m^e^d^Coⁿ^f^{licts in}^Cen^t^r^a^{l A}^f^rⁱ^ca⁽^I^d^en^tif^icatioⁿ^o^f^{a Str}^a^teg^y^f^o^r^Coⁿ^cer^ted^A^c^tioⁿ⁾
^R^of^C^oⁿ^g^o
^w^an^da
^s^t^Africa^P^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^,^W^ith^d^r^aw^{al an}^d^Reh^a^b^ilitatioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^r^eⁿ^En^g^a^g^e^d^$4,743,658²⁰⁰⁰^11/^00–11/⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^eⁿ^y^aⁱⁿ^Hazardou^s^W^o^rkⁱⁿ^th^{e C}^o^m^m^e^{rcial A}^g^ricu^ltu^{re Sector in}
^a^wⁱ^Afrⁱ^c^a
^g^an^da
^aⁿ^zan^ia
^a^m^bⁱ^a
^T^echⁿⁱ^{cal w}^o^r^k^sh^o^p^oⁿ^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^Co^m^m^e^r^c^{ial A}^g^rⁱ^cu^ltu^r^e^$170,381¹⁹⁹⁵⁽^c^om^pl^et^ed)^IL^O/^IP^EC

ⁱⁿ^A^f^rⁱ^ca

CRS-25
COUNTRYPROJECTAMOUNTFYFUNDEDPROJECT TERMGRANTEE
ERICA, SOUTH AMERICA AND THE CARRIBEAN
^T^A^L^{FUNDING: US$}⁴¹^MIL^L^I^ON
^azⁱ^l^C^o^m^b^atⁱⁿ^g^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^t^h^{e S}^h^{oe In}^du^s^t^ry^of^V^a^l^e^dos^Sⁱⁿ^o^s^,^$308,958¹⁹⁹⁵^(com^pl^et^ed)^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^B^r^azil
^S^I^MPO^C^{– C}^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$1,663,599¹⁹⁹⁹^9/^{99 – 5/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^lo^m^b^ia^P^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^Sm^all-^Scale^$800,477²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 12/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^T^r^ad^itioⁿ^a^{l Min}ⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^Co^lo^m^b^ia
^mⁱ^nica^{n Republic}^Prev^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d El}ⁱ^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^T^o^m^a^t^o^Produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^$865,412²⁰⁰⁰^8/^{00 – 9/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^P^r^ep^ar^ato^r^y^A^c^tiv^{ities f}^o^r^th^{e T}ⁱ^m^e^b^o^uⁿ^d^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^oⁿ^th^e^$1,306,243²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 11/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC
^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^th^{e W}^o^r^s^{t Fo}^r^m^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^th^{e Do}^mⁱⁿⁱ^can
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31767}^R^e^pu^blⁱ^c
^g/w^S^a^l^vad^or^C^o^m^b^atⁱⁿ^g^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^t^h^{e F}ⁱ^rew^o^rk^s^In^du^s^t^ry^$1,008,327¹⁹⁹⁹^4/^{00 – 2/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC
^s^.or
^le^ak^S^u^pportⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e T}ⁱ^m^e^bouⁿ^d^Prog^ram^on^t^h^{e El}ⁱ^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^e^$4,034,351²⁰⁰¹^1/^{02 – 12/}⁰⁵^IL^O^/^IPEC
^W^o^r^s^{t Fo}^r^m^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^{El Salv}^ad^o^r
^://wiki^Co^m^b^a^tⁱ^{ng Chi}^l^d^La^b^o^r^t^h^r^o^{ugh E}^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n i}ⁿ^Tⁱ^m^e^b^o^und^$4,000,000²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 2/}⁰⁶^IL^O^/^IPEC
^h^ttp^Prog^ram^s^-^El^S^a^l^v^ador
^atem^al^a^C^o^m^b^atⁱⁿ^g^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^t^h^{e F}ⁱ^rew^o^rk^s^In^du^s^t^ry^$1,235,853¹⁹⁹⁹^6/^{99 – 11/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^Elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^t^h^{e Broccol}ⁱ^In^du^s^t^ry^$872,762²⁰⁰⁰^10/^{00 – 3/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^P^h^as^{e 2: P}^r^og^res^sⁱ^v^e^Eradication^of^C^h^{ild L}^a^{bor in}^Grav^el^$584,918²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 11/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC
^P^r^odu^ctionⁱⁿ^R^e^talh^u^l^eu^{, Gu}^atem^ala
^tⁱ^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^to^Elimⁱⁿ^{ate Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^r^an^d^an^A^c^tioⁿ^$1,223,535¹⁹⁹⁸^1/^{99 – 12/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^to^Co^m^b^{at Ch}^ild^Do^m^e^{stic Ser}^v^ice
^o^ndura^s^Elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^t^h^{e Mel}^oⁿ^In^du^s^t^ry^$792,240²⁰⁰⁰^10/^{00 – 3/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^ai^ca^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^f^o^r^th^{e Elim}ⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^an^d^P^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^o^f^Ch^ild^$562,687²⁰⁰¹^10/^{01 – 9/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^L^a^b^o^r^{, in}^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^{a Statistical Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^r^Su^r^v^ey
^Co^m^b^atin^g^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^th^{e P}^r^o^d^u^ctioⁿ^o^f^B^a^{sic Gr}^ain^s^&^$681,021^{1999, 2000}^4/^{00 – 9/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC

^Fa^r^mⁱ^ng/^St^o^c^kb^r^e^e^dⁱⁿ^g

CRS-26
COUNTRYPROJECTAMOUNTFYFUNDEDPROJECT TERMGRANTEE
^Elimⁱⁿ^ation^of^C^h^{ild L}^a^{bor at L}^a^C^h^u^r^{eca Garbag}^{e Du}^m^p^sⁱⁿ^$1,133,830²⁰⁰⁰^10/^{00 – 6/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^M^a^na^gua
^erica^C^o^m^b^atin^g^C^h^{ild L}^a^{bor in}^C^eⁿ^t^{ral A}^m^{erica an}^{d th}^{e C}^a^ribbean^:^$1,000,000^{1997, 1998}^(com^pl^et^ed)^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^sta^Ric^a^Mu^ltip^{le Co}^uⁿ^t^rⁱ^{es an}^d^A^c^tiv^ities
^o^mⁱⁿⁱ^can^R^e^pu^blⁱ^c
^S^a^l^v^ador
^atem^ala
^u^a
^erica^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$2,210,173¹⁹⁹⁹^10/^{99 – 12/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^e^lize
^sta^Ric^a
^o^mⁱⁿⁱ^can^R^e^pu^blⁱ^c
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31767}^S^a^l^v^ador
^g/w^atem^ala
^s^.or^o^nd^ur^a^s
^le^ak^u^a
^a^m^a
^://wiki^erica^Regⁱ^oⁿ^{al P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^to^Elimⁱⁿ^{ate Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^th^{e Co}^f^f^{ee Secto}^r^$6,112,187¹⁹⁹⁹^9/^{99 – 3/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^h^ttp^sta^Ric^aⁱⁿ^C^eⁿ^t^{ral A}^m^{erica an}^{d th}^{e Dom}ⁱⁿⁱ^can^R^e^pu^blic
^o^mⁱⁿⁱ^can^R^e^pu^blⁱ^c
^S^a^l^v^ador
^atem^ala
^o^nd^ur^a^s
^u^a
^erica^Co^m^b^atin^g^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^Co^m^m^e^r^c^{ial A}^g^rⁱ^cu^ltu^r^eⁱⁿ^Cen^t^r^a^l^$1,122,501²⁰⁰⁰^4/^{00 – 3/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^o^mⁱⁿⁱ^can^R^e^pu^blⁱ^c^A^m^{erica an}^{d th}^{e Dom}ⁱⁿⁱ^can^R^e^pu^{blic -}^M^an^ag^em^en^{t an}^d
^atem^ala^C^oordiⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^o^nd^ur^a^s
^u^a
^ut^{h Am}^erica^Co^m^b^atin^g^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^th^{e Sm}^all-^{Scale T}^r^ad^itioⁿ^a^{l Min}^e^{s in}^$2,859,123¹⁹⁹⁹^5/^{00 – 7/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC

^o^liv^ia^So^ut^{h A}^m^e^rⁱ^c^a
^a^dor

CRS-27
COUNTRYPROJECTAMOUNTFYFUNDEDPROJECT TERMGRANTEE
^ut^{h Am}^erica^C^o^m^b^atⁱⁿ^g^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^D^o^m^e^s^tⁱ^c^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce i}ⁿ^S^o^u^t^h^A^m^eri^c^a^$4,672,104²⁰⁰⁰^1/^{01 – 3/}⁰⁴^IL^O^/^IPEC
^r^azil
^lo^m^b^ia
^a^r^a^gua^y
^ut^{h Am}^erica^C^o^m^b^atin^g^C^h^{ild P}^r^os^titu^tionⁱⁿ^Sou^t^h^A^m^erica^$1,995,464²⁰⁰⁰^{1/01 – 8/04}^IL^O/IP^EC
^r^azil
^a^r^a^gua^y
PE AND THE MIDDLE EAST
^T^A^L^{FUNDING: US $}²^.⁹^MIL^L^I^ON
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31767}^m^a^nia^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Prog^ram^t^o^Elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^{e C}^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor i}ⁿ^R^o^m^aⁿⁱ^a^$586,168¹⁹⁹⁹^9/^{99 – 12/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^g/w
^s^.or^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$288,647¹⁹⁹⁹^10/^{99 – 9/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^le^ak^ra^ine^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^f^o^r^th^{e P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Elimⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^o^f^th^{e W}^o^r^s^t^$627,979²⁰⁰¹^4/^{01 – 3/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^://wiki^Fo^r^m^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^rⁱⁿ^Uk^r^aⁱⁿ^e
^h^ttp^eⁿ^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Prog^ram^t^o^elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^{e ch}ⁱ^l^d^l^a^{bor i}ⁿ^Y^e^m^eⁿ^$1,401,538²⁰⁰⁰^10/^{00 – 11/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC

CRS-28
COUNTRYPROJECTAMOUNTFYFUNDEDPROJECT TERMGRANTEE
RLDWIDE
^T^A^L^F^{UNDING: US}^{$16 MIL}^L^I^ON
ide^S^u^pport^Ef^f^o^rt^s^of^t^h^{e G}^l^obal^March^A^g^aiⁿ^s^t^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor at}^t^h^e^$174,178¹⁹⁹⁶^(com^pl^et^ed)^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^Co^uⁿ^t^r^y^L^e^v^e^{l an}^d^{at its Cu}^lmⁱⁿ^atioⁿⁱⁿ^Gen^e^v^a^.
^IP^EC^{Global C}^a^m^p^aigⁿ^{to R}^a^is^{e A}^w^aren^es^s^an^{d Un}^ders^tan^dⁱⁿ^g^$1,243,000¹⁹⁹⁹^3/^{00 -}^12/⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^ab^o^u^{t th}^{e W}^o^r^s^{t Fo}^r^m^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^r
^A^m^en^dm^en^t^t^o^G^l^obal^C^a^m^p^ai^gⁿ^$175,150²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 2/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^P^u^b^licatioⁿ^an^d^P^r^esen^tatioⁿ^Materⁱ^{als f}^o^r^T^h^{e G}^l^obal^Ca^m^p^aⁱ^gn^$236,825²⁰⁰⁰^(com^pl^et^ed)^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^A^g^ain^s^{t C}^h^{ild L}^a^{bor C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce: W}^a^s^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^{, D.C}^.
^D^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^an^{d s}^u^pport^t^o^t^h^{e i}^m^pl^em^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Tⁱ^m^e^bouⁿ^d^$4,766,549²⁰⁰¹^1/^{01 – 9/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31767}^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^to^Co^m^b^{at Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^r
^g/w
^s^.or^Preparatⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d des}ⁱ^gⁿ^of^IPEC^proj^ect^docu^m^en^t^s^$1,203,467²⁰⁰¹^2/^{01 – 7/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^le^ak^S^I^MPO^C^-^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^a^{bor S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^$1,489,395²⁰⁰⁰^11/^{00 – 12/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^://wiki^Proj^ect^Im^pl^em^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^S^u^pport^$852,800²⁰⁰⁰^10/^{00 -}^8/⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^h^ttp^Proj^ect^Im^pl^em^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^T^echⁿⁱ^cal^S^u^pport^$297,015²⁰⁰¹^1/^{01 -}^3/⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
^I^m^p^r^o^vⁱⁿ^g^d^a^{ta co}^llectioⁿ^,^an^aly^s^{is an}^d^dⁱ^ssemⁱⁿ^a^tioⁿ^o^f^$5,403,225²⁰⁰¹^4/^{01 – 3/}⁰³^IL^O^/^IPEC
ⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^ation^an^{d res}^earch^on^ch^{ild labor, es}^pecially^its^w^o^rs^t
^f^o^r^m^{s -}^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^r^{Statistical Su}^r^v^ey⁽^S^I^M^P^O^C)
^A^s^{ia an}^{d P}^acifⁱ^{c Econ}^om^{ic Foru}^m^(A^P^E^C⁾^A^w^aren^es^s^R^a^isⁱⁿ^g^$240,305²⁰⁰¹^9/^{01 – 11/}⁰²^IL^O^/^IPEC
^Cam^p^aigⁿ^:^Elimⁱⁿ^atin^g^th^{e W}^o^r^s^{t Fo}^r^m^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^L^a^b^o^r^an^d
^P^r^ov^idin^g^Edu^cation^a^{l Opportu}ⁿ^ities
^In^di^cat^{or Work}^s^h^op^$45,065²⁰⁰¹^com^p^l^e^t^e^d^I^L^O^/^I^PEC
^{U.S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^L^a^b^o^r^{, B}^u^r^eau^o^f^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l A}^f^f^a^ir^{s, Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^th^{e I}ⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l Ch}^ild^L^a^b^o^r^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^.

Table 4. Estimates of Economically Active Children in 2000
(in thousands)
Age Group & RegionNumber ofChildrenNumber atWorkWork Ratio (%)
5-9 Years
Developed Economies59,6008001.4
Transition Economies27,7009003.1
Asia & the Pacific335,40040,00012.3
Latin America & the54,4005,80010.6
Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa88,80020,90023.6
Middle East & North Africa44, 2004,80010.8
10-14 Years
Developed Economies59,4001,7002.8
Transition Economies34,7001,5004.2
Asia & the Pacific329,70087,30026.5
Latin America & the53,70011,60021.5
Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa78,10027,10034.7
Middle East & North Africa43,7008,60019.6
15-17 Years
Developed Economies36,70011,50031.3
Transition Economies20,6006,00029.1
Asia & the Pacific179,50086,90048.4
Latin America & the31,20010,30035.0
Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa40,30018,10048.4
Middle East & North Africa23,7007,50031.8
^Source:^IL^O,^Ever^{y C}^hⁱ^l^d^C^ount^s^:^N^e^w^G^l^obal^Es^tⁱ^m^at^es^{on C}^hⁱ^l^d^L^abor.