Government-funded programmes and services for vulnerable - Unicef

Department of Labour
in KwaZulu-Natal ‘had had to trade their right to education for the right to food for the
family’ (Ewing 2003: 6).
In addition to paid labour, domestic chores like fetching fuel and water and caring for
siblings can be as harmful to a child’s education as paid labour. This is particularly
problematic in poor households which do not have access to running water and electricity
(DoL 2007). A study conducted by the TECL (Towards the Elimination of the Worst Forms
of Child Labour) project sought to assess the impact of fetching water on children’s
education. The study found, inter alia, that children in the rural areas that were studied
spent on average 12.5 hours a week collecting water. This time was as high as 40 hours
a week for some children. The impact on the children’s education was negative: children
complained of being late at school, being unable to concentrate in class, having poor
morale and needing to leave school as early as possible to collect water. The impact
on educational outcomes appears to be significant: 85 per cent of the children involved
in fetching water, compared to 15 per cent of those who were not, were not in the
appropriate age group for their grade (DoL 2007: 49).
The National Child Labour Programme of Action (NCLPA) recognises the negative impact
of poverty and HIV/AIDS on child labour. It recognises that children affected by poverty
and/or HIV/AIDS are often forced into taking on additional domestic responsibilities as
well as (often exploitative) paid work. 89 The NCLPA seeks to address this problem by
obligating the DoE to develop programmes for the identification of children with added
domestic responsibilities and to take corrective action by reporting these children to
the DoSD and linking them up with grants. Recent research revealed that at the level of
the DoE, there was little knowledge of the obligations imposed on it by the NCLPA. In
addition, there does not seem to be much evidence of building the capacity of teachers
and implementing the obligations related to children and domestic responsibilities. In
fact, there appears to be reluctance on the part of DoE officials to get involved in the
domestic responsibility arena. Education officials appear to be of the opinion that they
are ill equipped and not the ideal department to deal with the matter of additional
domestic responsibilities for children (Giese & Koch 2008b). As a result, there is a growing
policy and implementation gap in addressing the additional domestic responsibilities of
vulnerable children.
The definition of child labour in the NCLPA is wider than in the Basic Conditions of
Employment Act. The NCLPA definition includes chores in the home or work for the
family if these are excessive or unsuitable. The Act, however, appears to limit the
definition of child labour to work for remuneration. The Act does not define child
labour, or employment, but does define an employee as ‘any person who works
for another person or for the state and who receives or is entitled to receive any
remuneration’ (Chapter 1: definitions). The NCLPA obliges the DoE to address excessive
domestic responsibilities; however, the Department does not appear to be fulfilling this
responsibility. The DoL, on the other hand, is not authorised by the Act to address this
form of child labour.
The dilemma of enforcing child labour policies
Because children in vulnerable households work to contribute to alleviating poverty
in the home, the issue of child labour creates an implementation conundrum in that
89 National Child Labour Action Programme, 2008–2012
183