WDRichards_Rights Versus Reality White Paper

Rights Versus Reality:
Reconciling Child Labor Laws with the
Experiences of Children Working in Ghana’s
Gold Mining Communities
Abstract
The term, “child labor” invokes in the majority of our global population feelings ranging from disapproval to
disdain, monopolizing debates of child labor policies through the ostensibly altruistic citations of “children’s
rights to be children”. Firmly rooted in human rights dialogue, most advocates of children’s rights see child labor
as detrimental to children’s mental, physical and social development and continue to call for blanket bans on all
forms of child labor, especially those activities considered to be the worst forms of child labor. However, there is
a growing movement, led by working children themselves, advocating for international and domestic child labor
laws to consider and attempt to meet the real needs of children, rather than continuing to push for largely
ineffective and idealistic policies that sometimes do more harm than good. This paper explores international
child labor laws and examines these laws and their arguments within the realities of children living in low-
resource, gold mining communities in Ghana. The paper encourages the reanalyzing of current international
child labor regulations and their pragmatism; pushing for a more people-centered, utilitarian approach to
addressing child labor. Ultimately, this document attempts to argue that children’s rights in regards to child labor
laws; and the realities of children’s needing and wanting to work, can indeed be reconciled through community-
based, context-specific and innovative initiatives that promote the wellbeing of the child.

Richards | Rights Vs. Reality 1
Introduction
It is estimated that more than 218 million children around the world are
engaged in some form of work, with approximately 150 million of those children
employed in work considered to be child labor.1 In the least developed countries,
approximately 1 in 4 children between the ages of 5 and 14 participate in work
considered harmful to their health and development; the highest prevalence being
found in sub-Saharan Africa.2
The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines “child labour” as, “work
that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity and that is
harmful to physical and mental development”.3 This definition goes on to specify
that not all forms of work performed by children can be labeled as child labor. It is
only those tasks that are performed by children considered too young to work, that
are harmful to the mental, physical, social and moral wellbeing of the child; and that
interfere or deprive children of attaining education, that are of concern.4 On the
contrary, helping their families around the home, volunteering or work performed
outside of school hours and during vacations are generally suitable forms of work
for children.5 Beyond the distinction between acceptable work for children and
work that constitutes child labor, the ILO further distinguishes between child labor
in general and what is considered to be the worst forms of child labor. Of the
approximated 150 million children engaged in child labor, over half
1 (Diallo, Etienne and Mehran)
2 (United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF Data)
3 (International Labour Organization, What Is Child Labour)
4 Id.
5 (International Labour Organization, Background Information on Child Labour)

of them are said to be victims of the worst forms of child labor, and eliminating the
occurrence of the worst forms remains priority to international and domestic
human rights and children’s rights advocates.
In many low-resource settings around the world, child labor is not only
commonplace, but also viewed as a necessity for subsistence. In the rural gold
mining communities of Ghana, children are often found in small-scale or artisanal
mining fields digging, crushing or washing ore; in many cases alongside their
parents.6 International agencies and non-governmental organizations consider
children working in mines amongst the worst forms of child labor. They reference
children’s lack of school attendance in place of mining and the many health risks
such work imposes as primary reasons for this categorization. Indeed, children
working in Ghana’s gold mines are exposed to many dangers ranging from carrying
heavy loads of ore to amalgamating gold using mercury. Reports have also found
increases in school dropout, prostitution of girls as young as 12 years old, increases
in teen pregnancies; and higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, especially
HIV/AIDS in Ghana’s mining areas.7
Ghana’s domestic laws on child labor are in line with international legislation
and the government of Ghana has historically been a foremost proponent of human
rights in the developing world. In fact, Ghana was the first state to ratify the CRC on
January 5th, 1990.8 However, implementation and enforcement of both national and
domestic laws against child labor continue to be challenged by the realities of
6 (Thorson)
7 (International Labour Organization, Child Labour in Gold Mining)
8 (United Nations Treaty Collection)

Ghana’s difficult socio-economic conditions. In Ghana’s gold mining communities,
lack of alternative livelihood options coupled with the costs of education and the
pressures of helping sustain the family are cited by children as the most important
justifications for their decision to work in mining.9
Criticisms of child labor bans cite the many ways and instances in which child
labor legislation has been ineffective and even harmful to the children they intend to
protect.10 A well-documented example is India’s landmark legislation against child
labor: the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation Act) of 1986. The act forbade
children under 14 from working in any industries deemed hazardous, such as
mining and chemicals.11 Undermining popular belief in the efficacy of bans against
child labor, research shows that after the implementation of India’s Child Labor Act,
child labor increased, child wages decreased, and households were found to be in
worse conditions.12
Child labor supporters, (a rather vilified and small, yet growing population),
have stated children’s “wanting” to work as justification for legalizing child labor.
These advocates emphasize the need for policy makers to take into consideration
the desperate circumstances within which many children around the world find
themselves. Just earlier this year in Bolivia one such organization, largely headed by
child workers themselves, led demonstrations that spurred a highly controversial
decision by the Bolivian President, Evo Morales, to lower the minimum age of
9 (Thorson)
10 (Bharadwaj, Lakdawala and Li)
11 Id.
12 Id.

employment to 10 years old13—and this is not an isolated situation. Professor
Kirsten Sandberg, Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, affirmed
that children around the world continue to appeal to the committee of their want to
work to help support themselves and their families.14 The timeliness and urgency of
rethinking top-down international child labor policies and their disputable
usefulness in addressing the issues of child labor are inarguable.
The intent of this paper is not to refute current international child labor laws,
but to advocate for the consideration of alternative methods—within the contexts of
existing laws—to achieving the fundamental goal of improving the lives of children.
This paper seeks to highlight the growing voice of autonomous children who are
pleading for their real needs to be taken into account in the larger dialogue of
children’s rights. Furthermore, initiatives to address issues of child labor must be
rooted within the specific realities of the communities in question, giving onus to
the communities themselves as the guardians and overseers of their children’s
wellbeing.
Framing the Framework:
An examination of the main international conventions on child labor
The issue of child labor is primarily guided by three key international
conventions: the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 138
(1973) on the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, the ILO Convention No.
182 (1999) concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour; and the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1989). These conventions frame the
13 (Estrada)
14 (Sandberg)

concept of child labor and are the foundation upon which signatory countries base
and implement child labor legislation.
ILO Convention No. 138 Concerning the Minimum Age of Employment
The ILO Convention No. 138 concerning the Minimum Age of Employment is
hailed as, “the bedrock of national and international action for the total abolition of
child labour”.15 The 1973 document and its supplemental Recommendation No. 146
obligates signatory states to pursue national policies to ensure that children do not
start working at ages considered too young.
As a flexible document, the ILO Convention No. 138 sets several minimum
age requirements dependent upon the type of work the child is to engage in, and the
level of development of the state in question. The basic minimum age for work
should not be below the age of completion of compulsory schooling and, in all cases,
should not be below 15.16 An exception to this basic minimum age is included for
developing countries, which reads in Article 2, Section 4: “…a Member whose
economy and educational facilities are insufficiently developed may, after
consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, where
such exist, initially specify a minimum age of 14 years.”17 Of course, the convention
specifies that Member states that choose to implement a minimum age of 14 must
provide a statement justifying its reasoning for doing so.
15 (International Labour Organization, Child Labour: Conventions)
16 Id.
17 (International Labour Organization, R-146)

“Light work” as defined by the ILO is, “the market work of children aged 12-
14 that is non-hazardous and for less than 14 hours per week”18. The work has to
meet the criteria of being non-threatening to the health and safety of the child, as
well as ensuring that the work does not hinder the child’s education or vocational
training.19 The minimum age set for light work in the convention for all Member
states is 13 to 15, with possible exceptions for developing countries set at ages 12-
14.
The Convention details that for work considered to be hazardous—described
as any activity “which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out is
likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals of young persons”20—the minimum
age at which children can start working is 18, (and an allowance of 16 under strict
conditions). This rule remains the same for developing countries.
Article 5, Section 3 states that the provisions of the Convention are applicable
“as a minimum” to the following areas of work including mining and quarrying,
manufacturing , construction; electricity, gas and water; sanitary services,
transportation, storage and communication; and agricultural activity for the
production of commercial goods and services.21 Family and small-scale holdings
which produce for local and personal consumption and that do not regularly employ
workers is excluded.22
18 (Edmonds)
19 (International Labour Organization, C-138)
20 Id.
21 Id.

In addition to setting clear age requirements for types of work children can
and cannot engage in, the Convention emphasizes that these requirements are to be
seen as starting points. All signatories are to be working toward increasing these
minimum age allowances progressively, “to a level consistent with the fullest
physical and mental development of young persons”.23 Recommendation 146 then
specifies that the aim of all Member states should be to eventually raise the
minimum age of admission to employment or work for all sectors to 16 years.24
There are two articles within the Convention that allow for certain
exceptions to the prohibition of work. The first of these is Article 6. This article
stipulates that work done by children in schools for general, vocational or technical
education, or in other training institutions, is permissible.25 The second exception is
found in article 8, which allows for the granting of permits to children to participate
in artistic performances.26 Both of these exceptions provide conditions limiting the
number of hours a child can work as well as the requirement of maintaining
satisfactory health and safety standards.
Article 6 is particularly notable for the purposes of this paper because it
considers the value in providing children with the opportunity to learn through
work. The responsibility for determining which forms of work would be permissible
in accordance with this article is placed upon “the competent authority, after
consultation with the organisations of employers and workers concerned…”27
23 See Article 1 (International Labour Organization, C-138)
26 Id.
27 Id.

Although the Convention makes it clear that implementing and enforcing all of the
standards are the obligation of the government, one could argue that the drafters
are intentional in the indefinite use of the phrase “competent authority”.
Competency is not a trait of heads of states alone. Local governments, community
leaders, parents and guardians; teachers and trainers could all be considered
competent authority figures. The supplemental Recommendation 146 expands upon
the provisions in Article 6, stating;
“measures should…be taken to safeguard and supervise the conditions in
which children and young persons undergo vocational orientation and
training within undertakings, training institutions and schools for vocational
or technical education and to formulate standards for their protection and
development.”28
The state holds the ultimate obligation to implement policies that are aimed toward
achieving the standards of the Convention and, as part of that obligation, ought to
ensure through close monitoring and supervision that the policies are being
adhered to. Yet, no state government, whether developed or developing, is capable
of monitoring every learning institution or place of employment without the
partnership of local authorities and community actors. The realization that policies
cannot stand alone, but are dependent upon participation of the people they impact,
serves as impetus for considering, and then building upon local capacities and
understandings. In so doing, communities are empowered to take ownership of
these laws and more effectively ensure that the standards are being observed within
their borders.

ILO Convention No. 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour
While the Minimum Age Convention focuses on the progressive eradication of
child labor, ILO Convention 182 and its supplemental Recommendation 190 seek to
eliminate the worst forms of child labor immediately. The Convention’s emphasis on
the urgency of eliminating the worst forms of child labor is also supported by the
international focus and priority this issue receives. Article 3 of the Convention
details the worst forms of child labor as;
“(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and
trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory
labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in
armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the
production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular
for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant
international treaties;
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out,
is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.”29
The worst forms listed in Article 3 are further categorized into two classifications;
worst forms activities “by definition” and worst forms “by condition”.30 The first
three sections (a-c), also referred to as “unconditional worst forms” are universally
unacceptable all the time in all circumstances.31 There exists no situation in which
using children (or adults) as slaves or for illegal sexual or drug-related activity
ought to be allowed, nor are there any changes that could be made to improve the
conditions of such activity.
30 (International Labour Organization, Textbook for University Students)
31 Id.

In contrast, forms of work that fall within the fourth category, section (d), are
considered to be hazardous work. These activities are deemed dangerous because of
the conditions under which such work is performed. Circumstances could be altered
to improve those conditions to acceptable standards, at which time the work ceases
to be considered a “worst form”.32 Unlike in Convention No. 138 where specific
industries such as mining and manufacturing are mentioned, Convention No. 182
leaves the responsibility of determining which types of work are hazardous to the
states. In so doing, states are able to take into consideration the unique problems
they face, and the understandings of hazardous work could vary from country to
country. Article 4 of the Convention specifies that;
“1. The types of work referred to under Article 3(d) shall be determined by
national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation
with the organisations of employers and workers concerned, taking into
consideration relevant international standards…”33
As with Convention 138, the mention of “competent authority” arguably allows
for input and decision-making powers to also be owned by capable, non-state
actors.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation 190 expand upon the relevant
international standards to be considered as Members determine which types of
work are deemed hazardous. The list is comprised of:
“(a) work which exposes children to physical, psychological or sexual abuse;
(b) work underground, under water, at dangerous heights or in confined
spaces;
(c) work with dangerous machinery, equipment and tools, or which involves
the manual handling or transport of heavy loads;
32 (International Labour Organization,Textbook for University Students)

(d) work in an unhealthy environment which may, for example, expose
children to hazardous substances, agents or processes, or to temperatures,
noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health;
(e) work under particularly difficult conditions such as work for long hours
or during the night or work where the child is unreasonably confined to the
premise of the employer.”34
Although the minimum age required for hazardous work is 18 years, the
Recommendation provides that national laws or the competent authority could
authorize employment at the age of 16 if the child’s health and morals are protected
and the child has been provided specific training for the activity.35
Article 6 of the Worst Forms Convention encourages Member states to design
and implement programs, in consultation with employers, workers and “other
concerned groups”, that aim to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.36 This is
significant in that the Convention goes beyond broad legislative provisions and
seems to encourage the involvement of all those that are impacted including
children, parents and guardians, community members and local leaders in
partnership with employers and the relevant ministries and government bodies.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
The issue of child labor is directly addressed in Article 32 of the CRC. In tune
with both the ILO Conventions 138 and 182, this article echoes the condemnation of
children engaging in economic activities that are hazardous to their health or social
development, and that interfere with their education.37 Signatories to the CRC
commit themselves to;
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 (United Nations, CRC)

 Setting a minimum age or ages for the admission of employment;
 providing for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of
employment; and
 ensuring the effective enforcement of the above provisions via penalties
and sanctions.38
The Convention takes a comprehensive approach to the rights of the child,
emphasizing that all the provisions set forth in the CRC are indivisible and
interrelated.39 This means that all decisions in regards to the right of children to be
protected from economic exploitation must take into consideration all of the other
rights set forth in the Convention.
The significance of a separate convention specifically for children, according
to Professor Sandberg, was to show the world and children that they are rights-
holders.40 Children are not simply passive subjects upon which rights are enforced.
they are active rights-bearers. Article 12, Paragraph 1 of the CRC asserts that,
“States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own
views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the
views of the child being given weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the
child.”41 Additionally, Article 13 recognizes the child’s right to freedom of expression
as well as the freedom to receive, seek and share information and ideas.42 These
provisions underscore the importance of children to participate and become active
actors in decision-making processes relevant to them.43
38 Id.
39 (United Nations Children's Fund, Using the CRC and Protocols for Children)
40 (Sandberg)
41 (United Nations, CRC)
42 Id.
43 (Doek)

In deliberations on the protection of children from economic exploitation,
governments have the obligation, per the CRC, to consider the opinions and well-
informed views of working children. This is the precise stance the Union of Child
and Adolescent Workers of Bolivia (UNATSBO) took to defend children’s right to
work. An organization comprised of over 15,000 members ranging from ages 8 to
18, UNATSBO staged protests demanding that their president lower the minimum
age to work from the ILO-mandated 14 years to 12, and grant child workers ID cards
that would allow them better access to health services, discounts on school supplies
and allow them to file complaints against abusive employers.44 As previously
mentioned, the voices of the Bolivian children were heard and in June of this year,
the Legislative Assembly rewrote parts of Bolivia’s Code for Children and
Adolescents. The new law permits children 12 years and older to work under
contract with parental consent, and children aged 10 can be self-employed under
specific conditions—the most important of those being that the children must stay
in school.45
As expected, UNICEF, the ILO and various other advocates of international
human rights standards are in fierce opposition to President Morales’ decision. Jo
Becker, children’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch (HRW), warned
that, “lowering the minimum age of employment is counterproductive and out of
step with the rest of the world.”46 Others have cited the familiar arguments that
child labor feeds into the cycle of poverty, prevents children from going to school;
44 (Otis)
45 Id.
46 (Human Rights Watch)

keeps job opportunities from parents since employers are more likely to hire
children as cheap laborers, and increases the risk of children being exploited.
However, the government of Bolivia argues that the new law aims to protect
children, while acknowledging the realities of the country’s developing status. In a
country where over 800,000 children work, over half of those working children are
under the age of 14.47 The child workers of UNATSBO contend that they are actually
working in many cases in order to stay in school, they gain valuable developmental
and hard skills from work experiences, and they work to add income to their
households—which increases their standard of living.48 President Morales, a former
child laborer himself, supports the views of the child labor union. Instead of
penalizing these children by outlawing child labor, President Morales states, his goal
is to protect them.49 The bill also calls for increased staff to monitor employers of
children, special financial provisions for families who keep their children in schools,
and penalties for abusive employers.50 A Bolivian politician and supporter of the
new bill aptly explained, “a step back would be turning a blind eye to the reality for
the boys and girls who work…we aren’t making laws for developed countries. We’re
making laws for Bolivians.”51
Though it is too soon to determine the efficacy and consequences of Bolivia’s
new child labor policies, they are presented here to stress the relevance of
reconsidering international and national methods of dealing with the issue of child
47 (Otis)
48 (Otis)
49 Id.
50 (Otis)
51 (Watson)

labor. Although the bill is a policy change at the national level, it is one that is born
of the lives and demands of the people most impacted. The bill also highlights the
ongoing challenge of balancing international standards with socio-cultural realities.
The Bolivian government’s decision is both a pragmatic resolution and a gamble
with regard to the international community.
Rights in Reality
Rethinking approaches to addressing child labor in Ghana’s ASM sector
From the national policy standpoint, Ghana has put in place a comprehensive
legal framework for the protection of children from economic exploitation. As was
stated earlier, Ghana was the first state to ratify the CRC. Ghana is also party to the
ILO Convention No. 182 Concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which was
ratified in June of 2000. Although it has not ratified the ILO Convention 138 on the
Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, Ghana’s domestic child labor law, The
Children’s Act (1998), sets the minimum age of employment at 15 for both the
formal and informal sector. The law also prohibits children younger than 18 from
engaging in activities deemed hazardous.52 The 1992 Constitution guarantees the
protection of children from all forms of work that pose a threat to their education,
health or development and supports free and compulsory basic education.53 Created
upon recommendation by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in it’s 2006
concluding observations, Ghana launched a National Plan of Action for the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour in 2011. This plan provides a far-
52 (International Labour Organization, Ghana:Child Labour Data Country Brief)
53 (Sahal and West African Club Secretariat/OECD)

reaching framework to significantly reduce the worst forms of child labor by 2015.54
To this end, 23 separate government agencies were given specified roles to raise
awareness of, monitor, address and penalize the worst forms of child labor.55 Lastly,
with recognition that child labor is primarily a product of poverty, Ghana’s Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper II (2006-2009) and the Medium Term National Policy
Framework (2010-2013) incorporate plans for eliminating child labor through the
reduction of poverty, increased and improved employment opportunities and social
protections, and increased and improved access to rights for all.56
While Ghana’s legal framework stands among the most comprehensive in the
region, it is wrought by weak institutional capacity and insufficient funding
apportioned to implement and enforce these regulations. Furthermore, deep-rooted
socio-cultural understandings and accepting attitudes toward child labor make
absolute execution of the policies virtually impossible. These shortcomings are
further exacerbated by Ghana’s economic constraints. In it’s 2006 concluding
observations, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed deep concerns
over the number of children participating in economic work and particularly, “the
high percentage of this group [who] are involved in work that is hazardous,
dangerous and jeopardizes their health, education and development.”57 The
Committee went on to acknowledge, under ‘factors and difficulties impeding the
implementation of the Convention’, that; “the difficult socio-economic conditions,
high-level external debt and poverty place limitations upon the State Party’s
54 Id.
55 (International Labour Organization, Evaluation Summaries)
56 (Sahal and West African Club Secretariat/OECD)
57 (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC))

financial and human resources and hamper the achievement of effective enjoyment
of the rights of the child.”58
Situating Ghana’s Minors in Mining
2013 statistics of child Labor in Ghana put the number of working
children ages 5 to 14 at approximately 2,732,596 or 43.5 percent of the total
population. Children ages 7 to 14 that combine work and school are estimated at
about 39.8 percent of the population.59 Of these working children, approximately
10,000 of them are estimated to be working in hazardous conditions in small-
scale gold mines.60
In West Africa, most children who work in mining are involved in artisanal or
informal mining, more commonly known as galamsey in Ghana. Children generally
do not work in large-scale industrial mining, which requires underground shafts or
heavy machinery.61 It is not uncommon to find several members of one family at a
mine site, as artisanal mining is often seen as a family activity.62 In many rural areas
of gold-rich Ghana, mining is an alternative to agricultural work or other work in the
informal sector. In many cases, farmers become seasonal mine workers as a means
of supplemental household income.63
Children’s work in artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) is considered
amongst the worst forms of child labor, both by international standards as well as
by national regulations. However, due to the elusive and informal nature of
58 (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC))
59 (United States Department of Labor)
60 (Free the Slaves; Participatory Development Associates; Social Support Fund)
61 (Thorson)
62 (International Labour Organization, Child Labour in Gold Mining)
63 (Hison)

galamsey, monitoring and protecting children in mining communities proves
extremely challenging.64
There are a number of push and pull factors at play in understanding the
reasons children work in mines. Extensive research has shown, however, that the
most important reason is poverty. When families in desperate circumstances see no
other means of survival, “children’s labour contribution may be important for
household food security, especially if few alternative opportunities exist to earning
income.”65 Additionally, although international and domestic regulations emphasize
the importance of education to a child’s development, the reality is that many rural
ASM communities do not have sufficient provisions of public education or health
facilities.66 An emerging theme in studies on the causes of child labor actually
highlights the high value many children and adults place on education as a driver.
Many children in mining communities work out of necessity in order to finance their
own education.67 Contrary to the popularly recited and widely believed claim that
children who work in ASM drop out of school, research reveals the increased trend
of children balancing work and school. These children usually work after school
closes until dusk, on weekends and/or during vacations from school.68 Through
working, children also learn about basic economic skills and responsibilities.
Exposing children to mining sites is in some cases seen as contributing to the
child’s development. The belief in learning through observation and experience
64 (Free the Slaves; Participatory Development Associates; Social Support Fund)
65 (Thorson)
66 (Hilson)
67 Id.
68 (Thorson)

motivates some parents to take their young children with them to ASM sites.69
Although this may seem troublesome, the rational is defensible. The lack of
alternative livelihood options within these communities increases the appeal of
mining work. Simply put, children who stay within their home regions may be faced
with only two options; farm or mine. Miners in the Ashanti region of Ghana can earn
almost 10 times as much as farmers.70 Furthermore, youth unemployment in these
mining communities is astronomical. Children who are above the minimum age
requirement and are out of school find it hard to find work in their home regions. As
an example, the unemployment rate in Northern Ghana for youth aged 15-24 years
is reported between 70-90 percent, more than double that of the national average at
30 percent.71 With very limited job opportunities at home, children in mining
communities either migrate to find work or see mining as a more lucrative option
locally. In this way, parents’ decision to take their children to mining sites could be
argued as an opportunity for learning while being present.
Another important aspect of mining communities is the various kinds of
social networks that are created. Although little research has been done to
understand the extent and influence of these particular networks, it is well known
that families of low-resource communities often find ways to band together to
provide social support; whether through informal rotating savings and loans
schemes, or simply by providing child care for one another. For children involved in
mining activity or present at mining sites, social relationships are formed with
69 (Hilson)
70 Id.
71 (Thorson)

mining crews and these types of relationships play a key role in provisions of
security, as well as entry into a social group as the children become older.72 Critics
of children in mining sites also cite “loss of childhood” as one of the hazards. Yet,
through in-depth observation of children in mining communities, researchers find
that the ways in which children in ASM sites “combine work and play is not a form
of resistance to deep poverty alone but a characteristic of the everyday of most
children whose socialization involves work in different forms.”73 It is essential to
examine the ways in which child workers, community members and leaders;
parents and guardians, local governing figures and employers relate to one another,
and their physical and social environment—especially in terms of how they
understand each other’s roles and responsibilities within these settings.
In the absence of enforceable policies and lack of financial and social
resources, international and local non-state and state actors have turned to
awareness-raising campaigns rooted in the universal rights perspective.74 Many of
these initiatives incorrectly assume that children are working in mining sites
because their parents and guardians, and the children themselves, are unaware of
the risks they are exposed to. These types of approaches only see children as
vulnerable and needing protection. The idea of children having autonomy and being
able to make and articulate clear decisions for themselves is excused as a symptom
of their ignorance. However, research on children’s perceptions of mining work
shows that not only are they aware of the dangers of exposure to mercury, of falling
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 (Thorson)

into pits, the environmental degradation caused by mining activity and so on, they
can offer suggestions for how to improve these circumstances! Instead of sweeping
altruistic generalizations, policy makers and local leaders need to examine what
children themselves think about mining and the other possible occupations, as well
as the trade-offs they have to make when deciding to engage in such activity.
Additionally, considerations need to be made as to the alternative auxiliary activities
children in these communities could be pushed into in the absence of mining work.
Envisioning a community-based approach to child protection in Ghana’s ASM sector
The majority of programs and interventions aimed at addressing child labor
focus on the elimination of children working in mine sites. There exists (to public
knowledge) no programs that seek to provide and enhance child protection and
education services within mining communities; or programs that work towards the
protection of children’s rights as mine workers. This is rather surprising, given the
allowances in relevant international conventions for more innovative and practical
strategies to addressing child labor in mining.
First, child labor in mining is currently considered a “worst form”, however,
it falls within the limitations (as aforementioned) of a conditional worst form.
Conditions—and the work children are permitted to do, can be regulated and
improved upon so that this activity is no longer considered detrimental to the child’s
wellbeing. Due to the primarily elusive landscape of ASM work in Ghana, this
regulation could not successfully come from the state. Instead, organization and
capacity-building within communities could be the key. Giving local onus to the

communities themselves to be the supervisors of their children may prove much
more effective in safeguarding children in mine work.
Secondly, Article 6 of the Minimum Age Convention pardons vocational and
educational training.75 The argument for viewing work in mines as viable, (and often
one of the only), options is substantiated by the lack of alternative livelihood
activities in many rural mining areas. Since the chances of children in these
communities going into mining work as adults are increased, providing
opportunities for vocational training in this field seems reasonable. Proper training
could result in better mining practices, which could, in turn, help alleviate the
environmental damage done by crude, traditional mining methods. Children could
learn how to navigate the different tasks related to mining in safer ways while
gaining hard skills for the future. In line with the conditions of Article 6, these
vocational training programs would set limits on the number of hours and the types
of work children of different ages could engage in; as well as ensuring the formal
education of those who can and do go to school is not interrupted.
Third, Article 6 of the Worst Forms Convention gives the responsibility of
deciding which types of work are truly “worst forms” to the Member states, in
consultation with all other concerned groups.76 This means that the involvement of
child mine workers, their parents or guardians, employers and local and national
leadership is required. The roles of parents and guardians often extend to the
community level. Utilizing the close and protective networks formed within mining
communities, and the role of parents and guardians as defenders of the children,
75 See Section on ILO Convention 138
76 See section on ILO Convention 182

local mechanisms for community monitoring and reporting could be developed and
implemented. These associations would have to be community-owned and local
chiefdoms or other indigenous forms of government could be engaged in a formal
complaint system.
Finally, the CRC is very clear on the importance of children owning their
rights, and the obligation for adults to respect these rights.77 The child workers of
Bolivia used this provision to advocate for their autonomy as laborers who need to
be protected. In various parts of the world where child labor is pervasive, children
are remonstrating for their right to work. The inherent linkages between children
“wanting” and “needing” to work, especially in low-resource settings, needs to be
further assessed, especially in regards to the provision (or lack thereof) of
educational and social services.
The fundamental culprit of child labor in many parts of the world is poverty. While
international and domestic policies boast poverty reduction strategies and elaborate
plans to increase national economic standings, approximately 1 billion children are
still living in poverty worldwide.78 Millions of these children turn to, or are forced
into, child labor in order to survive. Instead of operating in the ideal, children’s
rights—and human rights in general—ought to be realized in pragmatic ways. This
paper specifically presents the case of reimagining child labor in Ghana’s ASM
sector, but the principle argument is that approaches to addressing issues of child
labor have to be context-specific, and embedded and accepted within the
77 See section on Convention on the Rights of the Child
78 (United Nation Children's Fund)

communities themselves in order to be most effective at protecting and promoting
children’s welfare.
Works Cited
Bharadwaj, Prashant, Leah K. Lakdawala and Nicholas Li. Perverse Consequenes of Well
Intentioned Regulation: Evidence From India's Child Labor Ban. working Paper 19602. National
Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge: NBER, 2013.
Diallo, Yacouba, Alex Etienne and Farhad Mehran. Global Child Labor Trends: 2008-2012.
International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). Geneva: International
Labour Organiation, 2013.
Doek, Jaap E. "The CRC and the elimination of economic exploitation of children." Stopping the
economic exploitation of children: new approaches to fighting poverty as a means of
implementing human rights? Hattingen, 2002.
Edmonds, Eric V. Defining child labour: A review of the definitions of child labour in policy
research. Working Paper. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC).
Geneva: International Labour Organization, 2008.
Estrada, Marcela. "Bolivia Defies Treaties, Gives Go-Ahead for Child Labor: Morales supports
employment for 10 year olds on up." 30 June 2014. PanAm Post: News & Analysis in the
Americas. 18 November 2014 <http://panampost.com/marcela-estrada/2014/06/30/bolivia-defies-
treaties-gives-go-ahead-for-child-labor/>.
Free the Slaves; Participatory Development Associates; Social Support Fund. child Rights in
Mining: Pilot Project Results & Lessons Learned. Addressing Sex Trafficking, Worst Forms of
Child Labor and Other Exploitation and Abuse in Informal Mining Communities. Obuasi: Free
the Slaves, 2014.
Hilson, Gavin. "'A Load too Heavy': Critical Reflections on the Child Labor Problem in Africa's
Small-scale Mining Sector." Children and Youth Services Review 30.11 (2008): 1233-1245.
Hison, Gavin. "Child Labor in African Artisanal mining communities: Experiences from
Northern Ghana." Development and Change 41.3 (2010): 445-473.
Human Rights Watch. "Bolivia: Dont Lower Age for Child Labor-Change would be a
Backward Step for Country's Children." 24 January 2014. Human Rights Watch. 25 November
2014 <http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/24/bolivia-don-t-lower-age-child-labor>.
International Labour Organization. Background Information on Child Labour and ILO. 16
November 2014 <http://ilo.org/ipec/Campaignandadvocacy/Youthinaction/C182-Youth-
orientated/C182Youth_Background/lang--en/index.htm>.
—. "C 138-Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138): Conventin Concerning the Minimum
Age for Admission to Employment (Entry into Force: 19 Jun 1976)." 26 June 1973. International

Labour Organization. 18 November 2013
<http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C
138>.
—. "C182-Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182): Convention concerning the
Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (Entry
into force: 19 Nov 2000)." International Labour Organization. 16 November 2014
<http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_ILO_C
ODE:C182>.
—. Child Labour in Gold Mining. International Labour Organization. Geneva: IPEC, 2006.
—. Child Labour: A textbook for university students. International Programme on the Elimination
of Child Labour. Geneva: International Labour Organization, 2004.
—. Child Labour: Conventions. 13 July 2011. 18 November 2014
<http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/moscow/areas/ipec/conv.htm>.
—. Evaluation Summaries: National programme for the elimination of child labour in Ghana.
International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). Geneva: International
Labour Organization, 2013.
—. Ghana: Child Labour Data Country Brief. International Programme on the Elimination of
Child Labour (IPEC). Geneva: International Labour Organization, 2007.
—. "Girls in Mining: Research Findings from Ghana, Niger, Peru and the United Republic of
Tanzania." Working Paper. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC),
2007.
—. "R146-Minimum Age Recommendation, 1973 (No. 146): Recommendation Concerning
Minimum Age for Admission to Employment." 26 June 1973. International Labour Organziation.
18 November 2014
<http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_ILO_C
ODE:R146>.
—. "R190-Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999 (No. 190)." 17 June 1999.
International Labour Organization. 19 November 2014
<http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTR
UMENT_ID:312528:NO>.
—. What is Child Labour. 16 November 2014 <http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--
en/index.htm>.
Otis, John. "Newest Legal Laborers in Bolivia: Children." 29 October 2014. The Wall Street
Journal: Latin America News. The Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2014
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/newest-legal-laborers-in-bolivia-kids-1414627368>.
Sahal and West African Club Secretariat/OECD. "Emerging good practice in combating the worst
forms of child labour in West African cocoa growing communities." 2011.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Working Methods and Dilemmas. Dirs.
Vulnerability and the Human Condition and Barton Center for Child Law and Policy. Perf.
Kirsten Sandberg. Emory Univrsity School of Law, Atlanta. 18 November 2014.
Thorson, Dorte Dr. Children Working in Mines and Quarries: Evidence from West and Central
Africa. Briefing Paper No. 4. United Nations Children's Fund. Senegal: UNICEF, 2012.
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). "UN Committee on the Rights of the Child:
Concluding Observation, Ghana." 17 March 2006. RefWorld. 29 November 2014
<http://www.refworld.org/docid/45377ed30.html>.
United Nations Children's Fund. "The State of the World's Children 2005: Children Under
Threat." UNICEF, 2004.
UNICEF. Child Labour. November 2014. 16 November 2014 <http://data.unicef.org/child-
protection/child-labour>.
—. "Using the CRC and Protocols for children." 25 June 2014. UNICEF: Conventions on the
Rights of the Child. 22 November 2014 <http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_using.html>.
United Nations. "Convention on the Rights of the Child." 2 September 1990. United Nations
Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 20 November 2014
<http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx>.
United Nations Treaty Collection. "11. Convention on the Right of the Child." 12 July 2014.
United Nations Treaty Collection. 13 November 2014
<https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-
11&chapter=4&lang=en>.
United States Department of Labor. "Ghana: 2013 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor."
2014. US Department of Labor Bureau of International Labor Affairs. 3 December 2014
<www.dol.gov/ilab.reports/child-labor/ghana.htm>.
Watson, Katy. "Child Labour Laws: A step bac for advancing Bolivia?" 19 November 2014. BBC
News: South America. 25 November 2014 <http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30117126>.

WDRichards_Rights Versus Reality White Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to WDRichards_Rights Versus Reality White Paper

Similar to WDRichards_Rights Versus Reality White Paper (20)

WDRichards_Rights Versus Reality White Paper