the observations in this research. Thereappear to be two explanations for thisdiscrepancy. The first reason is that there areonly 250 inspectors nationwide, inspecting800,000 establishments. This means thatinspections cannot be carried out with greataccuracy. Up until now, landowners cantherefore easily mislead the inspectors byincluding false information in their records.Anonymous sources claim that the recordsmention the names of the children who workat the plantation, but only state ages thatare above eighteen. Furthermore, the wagesthat are put down in the records are muchhigher than the actual wages that are paid.Considering the amount of establishmentsthat the 250 labor inspectors have tomonitor, one can imagine their attentiongoes to a look at the books and not to onsite inspections. Thus employers can get awaywith hiring children, even under theinspection of the government. The secondreason for the inefficiency of laborinspections in relation to child labor is theopinion that children working in agricultureonly work on family farms. As the Officer inCharge of the Bureau of Working Conditionsexplains: “We are not so much focused onagriculture. Our Bureau deals with formalemployer-employee relations. And agriculturalchild labor is found more in the informalsector.” When asked, BWC admits “We arealarmed by the statistics on the number ofchildren working in agriculture, but thesefindings do not coincide with the ones fromour inspections.” BWC does expect child laborto be found on sugarcane plantations oncethere is an explicit focus on child labor in theinspections. Faced with the problem of alabor inspection force of only 250 inspectorsfor all establishments in the country, thegovernment is looking for new monitoringsystems. For instance, they let establishmentsmonitor themselves together with the workersafter instructing them on labor standards.Inspection alone is not enough toguarantee the elimination of child labor. “Theproblem is that the parents are the ones whosend their children to work. So it will be abattle between the state and the parents,”says Mrs. Soriano from the Institute of LaborStudies (ILS), an attached agency of theDepartment of Labor and Employment. Sinceremoving the child from his or her family isnot an option (“We don’t have the capacity toremove the children and give them shelter”),a lot of government efforts are directedtoward changing attitu<strong>des</strong> in thecommunities. “You’ll find very poor familieswhere children do not work, and others thatare relatively well off in which the childrenhave to work. So the root cause of child laboris poverty, but it also depends on theattitude of the parents,” explains anotheremployee of the ILS. The government alsorecognizes that the outdated productionmethods in sugarcane create a huge demandfor seasonal labor on the plantations, thusnot providing families with a steady financialbasis. For this reason government programstry to initiate other sources of income for theparents, outside the plantation.When it comes to chemical hazards it isunclear who should protect the children whilethey are at work. Since they are not supposedto work, existing guidelines for safe use ofagrochemicals are not adjusted to children’ssusceptibility to poisoning. And, as the OSHC(Occupational Safety and Health Center)states: “Manufacturers do not label theirchemicals properly, so usually there is noinformation on the content, on safe use, onhandling emergencies. The retailers and thesellers are absolutely also responsible, as arethe buyers. Sometimes the farmers will buy itby the gallon, so they can find no labels withinformation.” Even if workers knew thisinformation and the measures were facilitatedby employers, this would still not protectchildren at work.Further restrictions on pestici<strong>des</strong> andother chemicals could limit the exposure tohighly toxic substances. Yet it seems that toomany parties have an interest in pertainingthe situation as it is: pest control producersand handlers do not want to see their marketdecreased and the government can not closeits borders to chemicals unless they can provetheir poisonous effect on human beings.Although the government is aware of thetoxicity of pestici<strong>des</strong>, market demands aremore important. “We cannot afford to bechoosy,” jokes Mr. Sabularse from theFertilizer and Pesticide Authority. But this is18
the reality: farmers and landowners want tosell their produce and do whatever is needed.The Occupational Safety and Health Center:“The agrochemical industry promotes the useof pestici<strong>des</strong> and trains the farmers. But theygave the wrong signal: it is OK to use it inlarge amounts.” As said above, adjustingsafety guidelines to children’s bodies is notan option because it would mean a silentagreement with the fact that children areapplying pestici<strong>des</strong>. However, banningpestici<strong>des</strong> is not an option either since toomany stakes are in the pesticide market. Thebest way to protect children from thechemical hazards they encounter in thesugarcane fields then is to remove them fromthis harmful work.19
Change language