• International Falcon Movement
• International Youth Exchanges
• A short history of Human Rights
• Asylum Seekers
• Globalization
• Child Labour
• Fair Trade

From the International Falcon Movement web site
http://www.ifm-sei.org/index.html

The IFM-SEI is an international non-profit organisation, struggling for children rights. It is functioning as an umbrella organisation for different national organisation. Our members are children and youth selforganisation, family organisation and other organisation who are working for the benefit of children and youngsters. We are independent and only the needs of children and youngsters are important for us. Our political background is the worldwide labour movement. We have contacts to several children and human rights organisation and we are co-operation with the socialdemocratic family. We are organising campaigns, for example against childlabour or childpornography, seminars, trainings, camps and other educational activities. All our activities are carried out by ourself or our member organisation.

IFM-SEI is a world movement of different types of organisations that work with children and young people and that accept the aims and principles of IFM-SEI.

The motto of IFM-SEI is "Span the world with friendship", therefore it will encourage and develop international understanding and foster co-operation through the use of camps, seminars, symposia, conferences and specialist educational projects to ensure that participants from member organisations have a greater understanding of common interests and are tolerant of others cultural differences.

The Rights of the Child
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is considered by IFM-SEI as a basic document with which to work despite its limitations concerning the impact on children and young people by the present world economic order.

Equality for All
IFM-SEI campaigns against all forms of discrimination and promotes equality of opportunity for all in its activities. IFM-SEI will ensure that its member organisations do not discriminate on grounds of race, gender, faith, sexual orientation or disability.

IFM-SEI will combat all forms of racism, fascism and xenophobic attitudes and tendencies by co-operating with other International organisations, UN agencies, governmental and non-governmental organisations.

IFM-SEI is dedicated to working for a world where everyone can live in freedom without war or poverty. IFM-SEI believes that there should be a transfer from resources dedicated to the destruction of life to resources dedicated to humanity's needs.

IFM-SEI will undertake peace education and promote peace initiatives wherever and whenever possible. Peace will only be really achieved when all forms of exploitation cease and the world community tackles the North/South divide.

IFM-SEI believes that everyone has the right to a secure, stimulating and healthy environment, in order that they can develop their own talents and abilities.

IFM-SEI will undertake it's educational programme to ensure that it's members develop a co-operative outlook that encourages a critical awareness and self reliance. Children and young people should learn to take part in the democratic process of their organisation.

The following is an extract from the Woodcraft Folk’s International Exchanges Pack.

International work for the Woodcraft Folk can be expressed as the development of a spirit of universal comradeship and understanding of different people and cultures and is embodied in our motto 'Span the World with Friendship'

International work is certainly one of the most important aspects of our work with children. By actually meeting children from other countries, many of the stereotypes and prejudices that children may have experienced can be countered through joint activity. Our children are ambassadors of our motto 'Span the World with Friendship'. The physical part of just meeting other children can break the barriers erected by adults concerning other races and nations.

Every international exchange of children and young people is a small step towards world peace.

Exchanges between children and young people should however not be seen as an end in themselves, but as the culmination and fulfilment of the Folk's world outlook. Groups, be they Elfin, Pioneer, Venturer or DF, should have internationalism as a continuing theme in their programmes. Programmes at camps, whether they include delegation or not, should always have some aspect of the wider world.

International work has become more and more respected in the youth service as an important area of work with young people. In 1983, the Cockerill Report on Youth Exchanges stated..

''International visits and exchange are valuable not only for personal development but as an investment in understanding for a saner future based not necessarily on peoples liking each other but at least knowing each other better. This intrinsic diplomatic value of exchanges is rooted in and cannot be separated from their educational value, although there may be foreign policy reasons for favouring certain types of exchange, for example to designated countries.

Education for responsible citizenship is critically important, and has an international dimension. It is neither contentious with nor wholly separable from formal education. The one should enrich the other. Although carefully prepared youth exchanges are undoubtedly valuable for some young people who have left or will leave school at the earliest age, theirs is by no means an exclusive need "

Starting an Exchange
Your first discussion on an international exchange should take place within your District Association. Exchanges are with Districts, and every exchange by members of that District must have that Districts approval.

When do you decide to become involved in an exchange?
Our exchanges are usually with children between the ages of 10 and 16 years of age, although there is some flexibility. Normally, your exchange would therefore be with Pioneers and Venturers. In recent years we have arranged exchanges for District Fellows and Young Adult and Leaders 16–25 years.

Your first consideration has to be "Is our District ready to be involved in exchange work?" You should have strong Pioneer groups and probably a Venturer group as well, before discussing exchange work.

There is also the additional point that different countries send different age groups of children. Eastern European groups usually send 11–14 year olds; Falcon groups very often include young people up to 17 years.

Leadership of delegations has to be considered carefully. There is no point agreeing to send a group abroad, if no one is prepared to go with them.

Finance also needs to be looked at very carefully. Exchange work is very expensive.

In most European exchanges these reciprocal exchanges will be on a District-to-District basis. Districts can also attend International Camps in Europe, usually organised in Western Europe by the lFM as part of larger Folk delegations.

With these camps there is often considerable expense as there is a camp fee, but they are often valuable for newer districts as a way into international work. These Camps are usually held every three years.

Concerning the reciprocal exchanges, they vary from country to country ‑ but there are four main types:

1. Falcon exchanges:
   Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland.
   With these exchanges, the delegation has to pay a camp fee, fares, etc. If you are hosting a group from one of these countries you charge them a camp fee. The costs of their camps are usually high, as they often charge for transport, additional activities etc. Exchanges may well be organised at local level, following the establishment of contacts via the county's national organisation. Size of delegation is negotiable and can include younger children if part of families.
2. Falcon exchanges:
   Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain.
   These exchanges are usually organised with towns or regions. Delegations are usually of' 10 children and 2 leaders, but there is some flexibility with numbers, The delegation will not pay a camp fee, but will cover their own travel fares. They will not be given pocket money. These exchanges are relatively cheap if you go abroad, but hosting can be expensive, as you have to cover their camp fees.
3. Eastern Europe exchanges:
   Poland, Bulgaria and previously the USSR.
   These exchanges are organised through their national offices. Delegations usually consist of 10 children and 2 leaders, inward and outward. In both cases, they provide the interpreter. There will be no camp fee or additional expenditure once in the country. When you host a group you will have to pay their travel costs once in this country and camp costs.
4. Exchanges beyond Europe
   Algeria, Egypt, India, Indonesia. Nicaragua, Western Sahara. Israel and West Bank, Southern America, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Mauritius.
   In most cases, these exchanges are likely to be for 16–20 years and young adult leaders. These exchanges must be organised through Head Office.

The easiest way to host a delegation for the first time is at a regional or national camp where there is the support structure in built. The easiest way to take a delegation abroad is to an IFM International Camp with a large Woodcraft Folk delegation (again additional support). However, the most enjoyable exchanges are when you have one delegation to yourself, at a district camp, and when you return to a small camp abroad.

The International Committee will discuss the options available to you and will always offer help in what ever ways it can, through sending material about previous exchanges, providing training sessions for adults and talking to the parents and/or children if it is felt necessary.

Some districts have developed contacts abroad through previous visits and many pass them on to you. If you are offered a personal contact, you should cheek with Head Office before pursuing the contact.

Any district that wishes to be involved in exchange work has to have the approval of the National Council, through the International Committee.

Adapted from David Shiman, Teaching Human Rights,
(Denver: Center for Teaching International Relations Publications, U of Denver, 1993): 6-7.

The belief that everyone, by virtue of her or his humanity, is entitled to certain human rights is fairly new. Its roots, however, lie in earlier tradition and documents of many cultures; it took the catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto the global stage and into the global conscience.

Throughout much of history, people acquired rights and responsibilities through their membership in a group – a family, indigenous nation, religion, class, community, or state. Most societies have had traditions similar to the "golden rule" of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Hindu Vedas, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, the Bible, the Quran (Koran), and the Analects of Confucius are five of the oldest written sources which address questions of people’s duties, rights, and responsibilities. In addition, the Inca and Aztec codes of conduct and justice and an Iroquois Constitution were Native American sources that existed well before the 18th century. In fact, all societies, whether in oral or written tradition, have had systems of propriety and justice as well as ways of tending to the health and welfare of their members.

Precursors of 20th Century Human Rights Documents
Documents asserting individual rights, such the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents. Yet many of these documents, when originally translated into policy, excluded women, people of color, and members of certain social, religious, economic, and political groups. Nevertheless, oppressed people throughout the world have drawn on the principles these documents express to support revolutions that assert the right to self-determination.

Contemporary international human rights law and the establishment of the United Nations (UN) have important historical antecedents. Efforts in the 19th century to prohibit the slave trade and to limit the horrors of war are prime examples. In 1919, countries established the International Labor Organization (ILO) to oversee treaties protecting workers with respect to their rights, including their health and safety. Concern over the protection of certain minority groups was raised by the League of Nations at the end of the First World War. However, this organization for international peace and cooperation, created by the victorious European allies, never achieved its goals. The League floundered because the United States refused to join and because the League failed to prevent Japan’s invasion of China and Manchuria (1931) and Italy’s attack on Ethiopia (1935). It finally died with the onset of the Second World War (1939).

The Birth of the United Nations
The idea of human rights emerged stronger after World War II. The extermination by Nazi Germany of over six million Jews, Sinti and Romani (gypsies), homosexuals, and persons with disabilities horrified the world. Trials were held in Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II, and officials from the defeated countries were punished for committing war crimes, "crimes against peace," and "crimes against humanity."

Governments then committed themselves to establishing the United Nations, with the primary goal of bolstering international peace and preventing conflict. People wanted to ensure that never again would anyone be unjustly denied life, freedom, food, shelter, and nationality. The essence of these emerging human rights principles was captured in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union Address when he spoke of a world founded on four essential freedoms: freedom of speech and religion and freedom from want and fear. The calls came from across the globe for human rights standards to protect citizens from abuses by their governments, standards against which nations could be held accountable for the treatment of those living within their borders. These voices played a critical role in the San Francisco meeting that drafted the United Nations Charter in 1945.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Member states of the United Nations pledged to promote respect for the human rights of all. To advance this goal, the UN established a Commission on Human Rights and charged it with the task of drafting a document spelling out the meaning of the fundamental rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Charter. The Commission, guided by Eleanor Roosevelt’s forceful leadership, captured the world’s attention.

On December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the 56 members of the United Nations. The vote was unanimous, although eight nations chose to abstain.

The UDHR, commonly referred to as the international Magna Carta, extended the revolution in international law ushered in by the United Nations Charter – namely, that how a government treats its own citizens is now a matter of legitimate international concern, and not simply a domestic issue. It claims that all rights are interdependent and indivisible. Its Preamble eloquently asserts that:

[R]ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.

The influence of the UDHR has been substantial. Its principles have been incorporated into the constitutions of most of the more than 185 nations now in the UN. Although a declaration is not a legally binding document, the Universal Declaration has achieved the status of customary international law because people regard it "as a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations."

The Human Rights Covenants
With the goal of establishing mechanisms for enforcing the UDHR, the UN Commission on Human Rights proceeded to draft two treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its optional Protocol and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Together with the Universal Declaration, they are commonly referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights. The ICCPR focuses on such issues as the right to life, freedom of speech, religion, and voting. The ICESCR focuses on such issues as food, education, health, and shelter. Both covenants trumpet the extension of rights to all persons and prohibit discrimination.

As of 1997, over 130 nations have ratified these covenants. The United States, however, has ratified only the ICCPR, and even that with many reservations, or formal exceptions, to its full compliance.

Subsequent Human Rights Documents
In addition to the covenants in the International Bill of Human Rights, the United Nations has adopted more than 20 principal treaties further elaborating human rights. These include conventions to prevent and prohibit specific abuses like torture and genocide and to protect especially vulnerable populations, such as refugees (Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951), women (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979), and children (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989).

In Europe, the Americas, and Africa, regional documents for the protection and promotion of human rights extend the International Bill of Human Rights. For example, African states have created their own Charter of Human and People’s Rights (1981), and Muslim states have created the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990). The dramatic changes in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America since 1989 have powerfully demonstrated a surge in demand for respect of human rights. Popular movements in China, Korea, and other Asian nations reveal a similar commitment to these principles.

The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations
Globally the champions of human rights have most often been citizens, not government officials. In particular, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have played a cardinal role in focusing the international community on human rights issues. For example, NGO activities surrounding the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, drew unprecedented attention to serious violations of the human rights of women. NGOs such as Amnesty International, the Antislavery Society, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs, Human Rights Watch, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, and Survivors International monitor the actions of governments and pressure them to act according to human rights principles.

Government officials who understand the human rights framework can also effect far reaching change for freedom. Many United States Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Jimmy Carter have taken strong stands for human rights. In other countries leaders like Nelson Mandela and Vaclev Havel have brought about great changes under the banner of human rights.

Human rights is an idea whose time has come. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a call to freedom and justice for people throughout the world. Every day governments that violate the rights of their citizens are challenged and called to task. Every day human beings worldwide mobilize and confront injustice and inhumanity. Like drops of water falling on a rock, they wear down the forces of oppression and move the world closer to achieving the principles expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

From the New Internationalist,
http://www.newint.org/features/asylum/index.html
February 2003

Rowenna Davis, a 17-year old Hampstead School student in London, writes about her experiences growing up in a multicultural environment and her efforts to fight the UK government's asylum policy.

North London. The centre of multiculturalism in one of the most multiethnic cities in the world. In a diverse inner city comprehensive, it's 11am. Break time. We pour down the steps and through the double doors into a bubbling room full of students. Some people might say the room is swamped but to me it's only swamped with talking, shouting, energy and laughter. After all, we speak 55 languages in my school and there's a lot to say.

It's the thing I value most about Hampstead School. Conversations everywhere with everyone - people circulate with cheese on toast in one hand and a can of Coke in the other. We sit on comfy chairs and chat to whoever's in hearing distance black, white, Asian, male, female, big, small, round, square. From the outside we might look like a politically correct advert for junk food, but on the inside we feel like what we are: a rowdy bunch of teenage friends hanging out and growing up in the common room.

Flinging my bag over the nearest obstacle, I jump and sit cross-legged on the chair next to Bez. He's a friend of mine. He's a Kosovan refugee. He's a drain on resources. He's a human being. Bez is always late for break because he runs a basketball club for the year 7's on Monday and a chess club for year 12's on Thursday in between helping out in the library. We're writing a play together about his experiences in Eastern Europe I've learnt more from him than he has ever learnt from me and he's given back more to the school than any contribution it ever gave him. But the government, despite it's rhetoric, knows that asylum seekers bring benefits as well as challenges. As the Home Office website states, 'In 1999-2000, migrants contributed £2.5 billion more in taxes than they consumed in benefits.'

Bez asks me what lesson I've just had, 'Self and Society' I groan, rolling my eyes. 'Racial tolerance, as if I don't tolerate you enough!' Together, we laugh and move on to next lesson.

'No Borders' demo in Strasbourg, France 2002. Photo: Vanessa Baird

Apparently, according to the worksheet in 'S and S', we're living in a globalising world, a world in which national barriers and racism are breaking down. People have got more communication options: airports, railways, internet, e-mail. People are realising that while it's important to have a national identity, we have to remember that the bonds that make us African, Asian, American, Iranian are strong, they are not as strong as the bonds that unite us as a species, as the human race.

As a product of this country's education system, I feel it is only right to defend the interest of minorities in the face of government legislation and one-sided media coverage. It is what I have been taught to do. I defend it now as I defended it in the House of Lords and the House of Commons last year. The Asylum Seeker Bill passed by the government authorised the use of segregated education and the removal of asylum seekers out of schools such as mine, holding them in 'detention centres' (otherwise known as 'prisons'. Don't believe me? Talk to the people who've been inside - I have.) Inside these centres students of different ages, abilities and needs will be taught an unspecified curriculum without qualifications for an unspecified amount of time. Segregated from British citizens and unable to leave without permission they will be taught how to integrate in to British society.

Morally, the Bill stands against everything I was ever taught about inclusion or was that just a token piece of political correctness on my syllabus? Logically, it doesn't make economic sense. Would it not be more rational to give money directly to our schools and integrate the children and share the resources with everyone? Is it really going to take up fewer resources to employ a whole new set of teachers, to buy a whole separate set of tables, chairs, computers, stationary and gym equipment?

After speaking against the Bill in the House of Lords with a cross section of head teachers, parents, school staff, religious workers and human rights groups, the bill was rejected in the House of Lords by one vote. On return to the Commons we spoke again but only a few MPs showed up— one more symptom of how the voices of this country are being silenced. Who would listen to a student? After all, I'm just a 17-year-old English girl who goes to a multiethnic school. What would I know about whether diversity in education is a good thing?

I'm not saying there aren't problems with helping such a large number of asylum seekers adjust. Many are emotionally strained and need the support of a welcoming community in which they are allowed to rebuild their lives. But there is a difference between being naive and wanting to do the right thing not just for asylum seekers, but for British citizens as a whole. I'm not suggesting we throw our immigration policy to the winds. I'm suggesting that we accept that in this globalising world money flows and people will inevitably flow with it. I'm suggesting that we look at the benefits immigration can bring as well as the problems' (something you've put on my geography syllabus Mr Blair!). The majority of migrants are young and skilled and in a country fighting to deal with an increasingly high dependency ratio and an ageing population (2002 was the first year the number of people over 65 outnumbered those under 16) we need to realise those benefits.

Photo: Vanessa Baird

We also need to address why people are moving. If we could instead invest the money spent on detention centres into other countries in order to increase citizen's internal opportunities, there would be less cause for people to move in the first place.

One thing is for sure; refugees are created out of political and economic instability and we aren't going to make things more stable by starting a war in the Middle East. If we do go, expect an influx of refugees. Be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions; that's another thing I learnt at school.

My friends and I consider it a great benefit to grow up colour blind. Although we don't judge by appearances, we can see right through this Immigration Act. Unless you put inequality, segregation and intolerance on my curriculum Mr Blair I'm afraid this country's asylum seeker policy will not pass the test.

See also: NI Issue 350
Refugees: The case for open borders
http://www.newint.org/issue350/contents.htm

Globalization

Many of the problems and challenges arising from globalization are highlighted in this statement from the Porto Alegre meeting of the World Social Forum in 2001: Porto Alegre Call for Mobilisation

Social forces from around the world have gathered here at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. Unions and NGOs, movements and organizations, intellectuals and artists, together we are building a great alliance to create a new society, different from the dominant logic wherein the free-market and money are considered the only measure of worth. Davos represents the concentration of wealth, the globalization of poverty and the destruction of our earth. Porto Alegre represents the hope that a new world is possible, where human beings and nature are the centre of our concern.

We are part of a movement which has grown since Seattle. We challenge the elite and their undemocratic processes, symbolised by the World Economic Forum in Davos. We came to share our experiences, build our solidarity, and demonstrate our total rejection of the neoliberal policies of globalisation.

We are women and men, farmers, workers, unemployed, professionals, students, blacks and indigenous peoples, coming from the South and from the North, committed to struggle for peoples' rights, freedom, security, employment and education. We are fighting against the hegemony of finance, the destruction of our cultures, the monopolization of knowledge, mass media, and communication, the degradation of nature, and the destruction of the quality of life by multinational corporations and anti-democratic policies. Participative democratic experiences – like that of Porto Alegre – show us that a concrete alternative is possible. We reaffirm the supremacy of human, ecological and social rights over the demands of finance and investors.

At the same time that we strengthen our movements, we resist the global elite and work for equity, social justice, democracy and security for everyone, without distinction. Our methodology and alternatives stand in stark contrast to the destructive policies of neo-liberalism.

Globalisation reinforces a sexist and patriarchal system. It increases the feminisation of poverty and exacerbates all forms of violence against women. Equality between women and men is central to our struggle. Without this, another world will never be possible.

Neoliberal globalization increases racism, continuing the veritable genocide of centuries of slavery and colonialism which destroyed the bases of black African civilizations. We call on all movements to be in solidarity with African peoples in the continent and outside, in defense of their rights to land, citizenship, freedom, peace, and equality, through the reparation of historical and social debts. Slave trade and slavery are crimes against humanity.

We express our special recognition and solidarity with indigenous peoples in their historic struggle against genocide and ethnocide and in defense of their rights, natural resources, culture, autonomy, land, and territory.

Neoliberal globalization destroys the environment, health and people's living environment. Air, water, land and peoples have become commodities. Life and health must be recognized as fundamental rights which must not be subordinated to economic policies.

The external debt of the countries of the South has been repaid several times over. Illegitimate, unjust and fraudulent, it functions as an instrument of domination, depriving people of their fundamental human rights with the sole aim of increasing international usury. We demand its unconditional cancellation and the reparation of historical, social, and ecological debts, as immediate steps toward a definitive resolution of the crisis this Debt provokes.

Financial markets extract resources and wealth from communities and nations, and subject national economies to the whims of speculators. We call for the closure of tax havens and the introduction of taxes on financial transactions.

Privatisation is a mechanism for transferring public wealth and natural resources to the private sector. We oppose all forms of privatisation of natural resources and public services. We call for the protection of access to resources and public goods necessary for a decent life.

Multinational corporations organise global production with massive unemployment, low wages and unqualified labour and by refusing to recognise the fundamental worker’’s rights as defined by the ILO. We demand the genuine recognition of the right to organise and negotiate for unions, and new rights for workers to face the globalisation strategy. While goods and money are free to cross borders, the restrictions on the movement of people exacerbate exploitation and repression. We demand an end to such restrictions.

We call for a trading system which guarantees full employment, food security, fair terms of trade and local prosperity. Free trade is anything but free. Global trade rules ensure the accelerated accummulation of wealth and power by multinational corporations and the further marginalisation and impoverishment of small farmers, workers and local enterprises. We demand that governments respect their obligations to the international human rights instruments and multilateral environmental agreements. We call on people everywhere to support the mobilizations against the creation of the Free Trade Area in the Americas, an initiative which means the recolonization of Latin America and the destruction of fundamental social, economic, cultural and environmental human rights.

The IMF, the World Bank and regional banks, the WTO, NATO and other military alliances are some of the multilateral agents of neoliberal globalisation. We call for an end to their interference in national policy. These institutions have no legitimacy in the eyes of the people and we will continue to protest against their measures.

Neoliberal globalization has led to the concentration of land ownership and favored corporate agricultural systems which are environmentally and socially destructive. It is based on export oriented growth backed by large scale infrastructure development, such as dams, which displces people from their land and destroys their livelihoods. Their loss must be restored. We call for a democratic agrarian reform. Land, water and seeds must be in the hands of the peasants. We promote sustainable agricultural processes. Seeds and genetic stocks are the heritage of humanity. We demand that the use of transgenics and the patenting of life be abolished.

Militarism and corporate globalisation reinforce each other to undermine democracy and peace. We totally refuse war as a way to solve coflicts and we oppose the arms race and the arms trade. We call for an end to the repression and criminalisation of social protest. We condemn foreign military intervention in the internal affairs of our countries. We demand the lifting of embargoes and sanctions used as instruments of aggression, and express our solidarity with those who suffer their consequences. We reject US military intervention in Latin America through the Plan Colombia.

We call for a strenghtening of alliances, and the implementation of common actions, on these principal concerns. We will continue to mobilize on them until the next Forum. We recognize that we are now in a better position to undertake the struggle for a different world, a world without misery, hunger, discrimination and violence, with quality of life, equity, respect and peace.

We commit ourselves to support all the struggles of our common agenda to mobilise opposition to neoliberalism.

Source: International Labour Organization; October, 1998
http://www.ilo.org/

Child Labor is when young people (under 15 but sometimes as young as five or six) are forced to work because their parents can’t work or don’t make enough money at their jobs to support their family.

There are two kinds of work that kids do, and only one of them is child labor. Child Labor is:

• Work that is done all day by kids under the age of 15
• Work that stops kids from going to school
• Work that is dangerous and may hurt kids physically, emotionally or mentally

The other kind of work that kids do is just helping out the family or earning money for outside-of-school activites. While this work may be really boring it is not child labor.

Child labor is not:

• Chores done around the house before or after school
• Internships (when you go and work for an organization or company during the summer or over a vacation to learn about a specific kind of work)
• Apprenticeships (times when you are learning about something and doing it at the same time. For example: Electricians often have apprentices learn the trade while helping out around the shop.)
• Helping out at a family farm or business as long as it doesn’t keep you from going to school or doing your homework
• Once you are 16 you can chose to work after school or on weekends to earn extra moneylang=EN-GB style='font-family:Verdana'>

The following section is an extract from a Christian Aid policy briefing on Child Labour. The full document can be read at: style='font-size:8.0pt;'>http://www.globalmarch.org/virtuallibrary/unicef/2002/childlab.htm

Introduction
Child labour is a challenging issue, one which raises difficult questions and does not have a clear-cut solution. However, it is important that an organisation such as Christian Aid that works in places where child labour is all too common, has a position on the problem. This policy briefing sets out Christian Aid's approach to child labour. It aims to inform the practice of staff and partners, as well as other interested partners.

Christian Aid is committed to supporting efforts to protect and promote the rights of children, as part of our commitment to the poor and marginalised. There are an estimated 250 million working children worldwide, many of whom are denied the right to an education and the the chance to enjoy their childhood. Of particular concern to Christian Aid are those children who work in highly dangerous and exploitative conditions - conditions which damage their health and long-term physical and mental development.

Christian Aid and child labour
Over the last decade, child labour has received increasing attention from many different organisations, including human rights groups, development agencies, governments, trade unions, UN agencies and the private sector. Christian Aid was one of the first international development non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to campaign against child labour. We now work in collaboration with such agencies as part of a global movement to protect children from hazardous and exploitative labour. A central part of Christian Aid's approach is our belief that the elimination of child labour cannot be tackled in isolation, but needs to be part of a broader strategy of eradicating poverty and injustice.

The first campaign: India in 1989
Christian Aid began supporting campaigns against child labour in India. Since 1989 we have supported the South Asia Coalition Against Child Servitude (SACCS) who have led a campaign to rescue children from bonded labour in India. More recently we have supported a number of initiatives against child labour, including the Global March Against Child Labour, the Rugmark initiative which sought to eliminate child labour from the carpet industry in South Asia, and the campaign against the use of children in the manufacture of footballs in India. These campaigns have all played an important role in raising the problem of child labour among the general public, the media and governments. Of particular note is the central role that the Global March Against Child Labour played in getting the International Labour Organisation to adopt the convention on The Worst Forms of Child Labour (no.182) in 1999.

Although the experiences of our partners in India have dominated our campaigning work on child labour, we also support a wide range of partners in other countries who promote children's rights. This includes a campaign against child prostitution, pornography and trafficking in South East Asia, protecting street and working children in Latin America, and campaigning for children's rights in South Africa. Such examples of the work of Christian Aid partners on promoting children's rights are expanded upon in the text boxes.

We recognise that the reasons children work are complex, diverse and context-specific. In each context there is a unique range of factors that have denied children their basic rights. Consequently there are no simple, universal solutions to removing children from exploitative and dangerous types of work. It is therefore essential that thorough research and analysis is carried out before intervening, and Christian Aid will expect partners to have done this before we support their efforts to protect children from exploitation. Unless the reasons children work are understood, any solutions may, at best, be of little help and, at worst, make the situation even more harmful to children.

A child rights approach: what the UN and ILO say
While Christian Aid recognises there are no universal solutions to combating child labour, we believe any solution must be based on promoting the rights of the child. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was passed by the UN in 1989 and provides an international legal framework for the promotion and protection of children's rights. It has been ratified by all but two countries in the world and has been instrumental in making governments more aware of their obligations towards children. The CRC sets out a clear vision for children's rights that has inspired many organisations to adopt a much more child-centred approach to working with children.

The CRC is based on four fundamental principles:

• there must be no discrimination of any kind against any child, such as on grounds of gender, ethnicity, caste, religion or race.
• the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration in all decisions affecting children.
• the survival and development of the child must be ensured; every child has the inherent right to life and to education.
• the views of the child must be taken into account in any decisions that affect him/her, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Any action affecting children must be based on these principles. Although these principles are open to interpretation, they do set out a basic framework for protecting children's rights.

The CRC also explicitly addresses the issue of child labour in Article 32:

States parties recognise the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health and physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

This is expanded in Article 34 against sexual exploitation, in Article 35 on the sale, trafficking and abduction of children, and in Article 36 which states that 'State parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child's welfare'. The CRC is not against all forms of child work but focuses on those which are damaging to children.

In relation to child labour, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has also passed two international human rights conventions in order to protect children from harmful forms of child labour. A third ILO Convention, no. 29 on forced labour that was adopted by the ILO in 1930, is also relevant in relation to the specific case of bonded child labour.

The Minimum Age Convention (no. 138) was adopted by the ILO in 1973. The main requirement of this convention is that states ratifying it must establish a minimum age for children to work. This covers all forms of economic activity, not just waged employment, although work on small family farms, domestic work in the household and educational work are excluded. The minimum age must be higher than the age that children are required to be in school, but the convention states that this should be no lower than 15 years. Provision is made for a temporary minimum age of 14 years in under-developed countries. However, the convention sets 18 years as the minimum age for hazardous work, while allowing light, part-time work at 13 years, or 12 years in under-developed countries.

There are some limitations with Convention 138 in relation to relevance and enforcement. Most child labour takes place on small family farms or within the household - which are exempt from the convention - or in the informal sector where enforcement is very difficult. In these contexts, the application of a minimum age may seem rather arbitrary. A further problem of enforcement in some contexts is establishing the exact age of a child. Convention 138 reflects the ILO's focus on the formal labour market in which its concern is as much to safeguard reasonable employment opportunities for adults as to protect children. It is thus a particularly important convention in the context of industrialisation and the growth of formal employment, although is less useful in relation to the employment of children in rural areas and informal sectors.

A new ILO Convention has recently been adopted that is much more focused on protecting children. Convention 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action For the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour was passed by the ILO in 1999. This is more specific than the CRC and ILO Convention 138, and has also brought a new urgency to combating the worst forms of child labour, an urgency which is lacking in the CRC.

Convention 182 identifies the following as the worst forms of child labour, the ones which require immediate action (Article 3):

• 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 recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
• prostitution or pornography;
• illicit activities;
• work which . . . will harm health, safety or morals of children.

In the accompanying Recommendation (No. 190) to the Convention, those states which have ratified the Convention are asked to consider the following as hazardous to children:

• work which exposes children to physical, psychological or sexual abuse;
• work underground, under water, at dangerous heights or in confined spaces;
• work with dangerous machinery, equipment and tools, or which involves manual handling or transport of heavy loads;
• 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;
• 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 premises of the employer.lang=EN-GB style='font-family:Verdana'>

These international conventions - the CRC and ILO Conventions 138 and 182 - provide clear obligations to states about eliminating exploitative child labour. In particular, ILO Convention 182 provides more clarity about what actually constitutes the worst forms of child labour, while the CRC provides the fundamental principles that must be applied if children's rights are to be respected. Together they provide a strong legal framework for protecting children from the worst forms of child labour. States that ratify these conventions are subject to inspection and monitoring procedures administered by UN bodies and can be held accountable to international law for failure to implement the requirements set out in the conventions.

The causes of child labour
Christian Aid recognises that, in order to promote the rights of children not to be economically exploited, it is necessary to understand firstly the reasons why children enter such forms of work. Child labour is a complex issue requiring careful analysis.

Poverty
It is widely recognised that poverty is the most fundamental cause of child labour. Most of the worst cases of child labour involve children from poor families in developing countries. To eliminate child labour in the long term it is therefore necessary to break the cycle of poverty that underlies much child labour. For example, children of former child labourers often end up as child labourers themselves. Many child labourers grow up illiterate, unskilled and with serious health problems. As a consequence, many of them are unable to support their own families in adulthood, so their own children may get drawn into work to support the family.

Social position
Yet poverty is not the only explanation and other factors play a significant role. Social differentiation within societies - gender, class, ethnicity and caste - can all be critical in influencing which children are most vulnerable to exploitation. Family structures, cultural values and attitudes towards education are also important factors. Children in urban settings are often vulnerable to different forms of exploitation to those in rural communities.

Family situation and gender
Also, within the same community, some children may be at more risk than others. For example, children from single-parent households may be under more pressure to work than those in which both parents are present, and children from large families more likely to work than those from smaller families. Even within the same household older children may be under more pressure to work than younger children, and girls expected to work more than their brothers.

A different attitude to work
Christian Aid supports the Convention on the Rights of the Child as applicable to all children throughout the world. But while child rights are universal, Christian Aid also recognises that different societies have different notions of childhood. For many societies, the modern, western idea that childhood should be a time for education and play is quite alien. Many see work as a central part of childhood and as a means by which children learn the skills they need in adult life. This is the reality in many of the societies in which Christian Aid partners work. This implies that measures which seek to remove children from exploitative labour need to recognise the importance of work in many societies to both adults and the children themselves. Unless alternative forms of work are found that are not exploitative and detrimental to their education, children are likely to return to exploitative forms of child labour.

No alternative
One of the key principles of the CRC - children's participation in decisions that affect them - is vital in understanding the causes of child labour. If children are to benefit from initiatives to remove them from harmful work places, or improve the conditions within which they work, such initiatives must be based on children's perceptions of work and on what changes they would like to see. This may throw up challenging and discomforting views: many studies have found that children want to continue to work, usually because they or their families are dependent on their income, but also because they may find school of little value. When asked, children often say they prefer to work in a factory or workshop for money rather than at home, where they may be subject to abuse and receive no money for their work. And while no child is likely to say that they want to continue working in a harmful environment, many may feel they have no alternative because of the lack of other income-generating activities. Children from poor households may think that not working is simply not a real option, so continue to undertake harmful work if they have no other options. This presents very real challenges for organisations such as Christian Aid and our partners who support children's rights.

Targeting the worst forms of child labour
Christian Aid recognises that not all work is harmful to children. Work has, under certain circumstances, the potential to bring many positive benefits to children. Work can be an integral part of the child's development, teaching them skills which will be of great benefit later in life. For many poor households, children can make a valuable contribution to family income. Work can also help teach children to develop a sense of responsibility to others. Yet work can also have extremely negative effects on children. This is a major concern for Christian Aid.

A distinction is sometimes made between child 'work' and child 'labour'; while the former is work carried out by children which is not harmful to them, the latter refers to exploitative forms of work. However, in many situations it is very difficult to define precisely which types of work are harmful to a child and which are not. Take, for example, children in rural communities who assist their families in agricultural work. Assisting parents in agricultural tasks is essential if children are to learn to farm themselves later. In many places the demand for extra labour at certain points in the agricultural calendar mean that families are dependent on children at these times. The issue is one of degree: help with planting or harvesting at certain points in the year, or light daily tasks such as milking are activities which need not be detrimental to children's development, and may bring many positive benefits to the child. Yet heavy manual work, or working such long hours that the child has neither the time nor energy to attend school or to play, are potentially damaging.

In addition to the tasks undertaken, the working conditions must also be taken into consideration. For example, many children in India are employed in the manufacture of beedis, a local cigarette. The actual work of rolling a cigarette is a light task, but when a child has to make beedis for long hours, crouched on the floor with poor light and ventilation, and with an abusive employer, such work is likely to be physically and emotionally harmful. Similarly, helping with domestic tasks such as cooking and cleaning becomes harmful when, for example, the child is working very long hours so that schooling suffers, or if the child works in a household where they are subject to physical or sexual abuse.

It is more helpful to think of child labour as a continuum; at one end there are the most harmful and dangerous types of work done by children; at the other end there are types of work that are neither exploitative nor detrimental to children. In between there are types of work that are not in themselves necessarily harmful but can be so under certain conditions. Christian Aid believes that some tasks undertaken by children are without question extremely harmful to them and steps must immediately be taken to end such practices. We believe that any type of work that is hazardous to a child can never be in the 'child's best interest'. We will therefore focus our support on programmes that target the elimination of the worst forms of child labour, as defined in ILO Convention 182 and its Recommendation 190, (see above).

There are other, less harmful types of child labour - such as working as a waiter in a tea shop or as a street vendor - which are not covered in ILO Convention 182. Tackling these is not generally a priority, added to which we recognise that removing children from the work place in such situations is not always in their best interests. For this reason we will support partners who promote the rights of working children through working to improve the conditions in which they work, and providing them with schooling which meets the special needs of working children.

Strategies for action by Christian Aid
Christian Aid welcomes the ratification of ILO Convention 182 by many governments, and, through our partners, will campaign for more governments to follow suit. We will also support partners who monitor governments' implementation of the convention, particularly by the introduction of national legislation which outlaw the worst forms of child labour.

However, while introducing new legislation is essential in establishing a legal framework for combating child labour, it is not in itself enough. The enforcement of legislation to prohibit child labour must protect children. The danger is that legislation can end up penalising or criminalising them, leaving them even more vulnerable to abuse. If children are to be removed from the work place, then alternative sources of livelihood for them and their families must be found. Otherwise children may need to seek alternative sources of work. Often this is in the informal economy where regulation by the state is more difficult and where working conditions are often far worse than in the formal sector.

Listening to children?
Strategies for taking action against child labour can only be developed once the causes of child labour in each context are understood. Over the last decade many well-meaning initiatives to remove children from the workplace have failed because little analysis was made of why children were engaged in such exploitative forms of work. Talking with children about their needs, fears, hopes and desires is also essential for identifying effective strategies.

Nevertheless, in some situations there is a potential conflict between the views of the child on the one hand and the protection and development of the child on the other. This is particularly the case with young children who may be unaware of the hazardous nature of their work, or the long-term impact of such work on their health, such as working with toxic chemicals. The CRC states that the weight given to the child's view depends on age and maturity. In such situations it is still important that the views of the child be heard, but adults will need to judge what is in the best interests of the child when it comes to devising strategies for action.

Impact on adults' work
Child labour also has an impact on the adult labour market. Children can be more easily exploited than adults and may be prepared to work for less money. Not only does this deny work opportunities to adults, but can lead to a lowering of the general rates of pay in the sectors in which children work. This can keep poor families in poverty if it means adult family members have no access to secure forms of employment or livelihood. Tackling child labour through improving employment opportunities and conditions for adults is a long-term measure that we support. However, Christian Aid believes that child protection and child development must take precedence over concerns about the impact of child labour on the adult labour market.

Action on different levels

Changing international law
The complexity of the problem of child labour needs addressing at different levels. High profile campaigns such as the Global March Against Child Labour and ECPAT have played a critical role in changing international law and raising global awareness of the problem of child labour. These campaigns have taken uncompromising positions in lobbying governments to introduce strong legislation to protect children from exploitation. Christian Aid will continue to support such campaigns. Changing international and national legislation to provide greater protection to children is essential if the worst forms of child labour are to be eliminated. Christian Aid shares the long term mission of the Global March Against Child Labour, 'to mobilise worldwide efforts to protect and promote the rights of all children, especially the right to receive a free, meaningful education and to be free from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be damaging to the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development'.

Grassroots work
While it is essential that governments implement tough measures to make this vision a future reality, Christian Aid also recognises the importance of supporting civil society organisations working on more localised, grassroots initiatives that directly support working children. Such initiatives involve seeking alternative sources of income, and providing education and health care for working children. Sometimes the approach requires efforts to improve the conditions within which children work. While it is essential to protect children who undertake tasks that are not in themselves harmful, but where the conditions are harmful, removing them from the work place may not always be the best way of helping. A more realistic means of protecting children in the short term may be to improve working conditions by reducing children's hours, to establish a better environment at the work place and to ensure that employers follow agreed codes of conduct in their treatment of children.

Direct action
In some contexts there are good reasons to take a stronger approach against child labour. There may be extreme cases, notably bonded child labour or enslavement, where immediate action must be taken to remove children from the work place. In India, for example, Christian Aid's partners have taken an uncompromising stand against bonded child labour and physically rescued children from bonded labour workplaces. Although recognising that bonded labour is rooted in the Indian caste system and poverty, partners argue that taking a more liberal, gradualist approach to child labour in this context is to accept the status quo in which millions of children, especially from lower caste or 'dalit' families, work in conditions similar to slavery. Yet removing children is not enough; they need support to rehabilitate them back into their communities, or education and alternative sources of livelihood. Rescuing children should always only be part of a broader, long-term programme of tackling the causes of bonded labour and enslavement.

Christian Aid believes that there are many valid approaches to combating child labour, and that different strategies are needed at different levels and in different contexts. Christian Aid's main priority, above all, is to support effective action that brings about genuine, long-term improvements to the lives of children. We believe partners need to carefully monitor and evaluate the situation of children who have been the subject of efforts to combat child labour, in order to assess the long-term impact of such efforts. This will also facilitate institutional learning within Christian Aid and its partners about how best to tackle the problem of child labour.

Fair Trade

Extract from the European Fair Trade Foundation’s web site
http://www.eftafairtrade.org/

Fair trade - history, principles and practice
"Many consumers in Western countries are aware that the world's wealth is distributed in a very unequal manner, and that the products offered are much too cheap to ensure a decent living to producers in the developing countries. They would like to contribute to a change in this situation, but do not know how to go about it". Fair trade offers to consumers, businesses, citizens and decision-makers a concrete, simple method to act to improve the situation of producers in the South.

Through the awareness-raising work of many NGOs, fair trade organisations, trade unions, environmental movements, journalists and others in both the North and the South, there is an increasing number of people in developed countries who recognise - as the quote above notes - that goods are offered too cheaply to ensure a decent return to producers in developing countries. However, by and large, they are unsure what they can do to redress this situation. According to Pierre Calame, the most threatening element (to hange) is precisely this widespread sense of impotence.

Fair trade offers a direct, simple method to improve the situation of producers in developing countries. By purchasing a fair trade product or by stocking and promoting fair trade product lines, consumers and businesses can play a significant role in improving the balance of global wealth and power in a simple day-to-day transaction. By joining awareness-raising campaigns organised by fair trade organisations, citizens can pressure businesses to act responsibly towards all those who have a stake in their operations - from producers to consumers, thus ensuring socially, economically and environmentally sustainable production and trade. Through fair trade campaigns, citizens can also encourage political decision-makers to introduce measures in international legislation governing production and trade to ensure a more human-centred, equitable world trade order.

The fundamental characteristic of fair trade is that of equal partnership and respect - partnership between the Southern producers and Northern importers, fair trade shops, labelling organisations and consumers. Fair trade "humanises" the trade process - making the producer-consumer chain as short as possible so that consumers become aware of the culture, identity and conditions in which producers live. All actors are committed to the principle of fair trade, the need for transparency in their working relations and the importance of awareness-raising and advocacy work. The idea of the "invisible hand" has given way to the idea of working "hand in hand", with the market regulated by democratic authorities.

Thus, in a spirit of partnership, certain guiding principles, or criteria, are agreed by both sides. As a minimum, southern producers commit themselves to democratic functioning and decision-making procedures within their organisations

In return, Northern fair trade organisations agree to:

• provide direct access to the European market for producers' products, avoiding to the greatest possible extent middlemen and speculators;
• pay a fair price that covers producers' basic needs and covers costs of production, and leaves a margin for investment;
• pay part of the price (40-50%) in advance so that producers avoid falling into debt;
• establish long-term working relationships and contracts with producers.

In addition to these basic elements of the partnership, several other issues are usually agreed. The activity of the Southern partners must be sustainable (economically, environmentally and socially), must provide acceptable working conditions, and must contribute to the development of the community, creating jobs where possible. In the case of plantations or industrial production units, at least the basic ILO (International Labour Organisation) standards must be respected. Much emphasis is put on the fact that the development of an export product must not jeopardise local food security. Also, producers should seek to establish a balance between accessing a local market and an export market (fair trade or otherwise) for their products. It is also underlined that producers should aim to process the product as far as possible before it is exported, thus obtaining a higher return on sales and gaining additional technical skills.

Alternative trading organisations in the North also take on board additional principles. They agree to provide regular feedback to producers on market trends, fashions, and health and safety regulations so that producers may adapt production. They provide finance and training to build up the management capacity of the producer group; to improve production techniques, and to train producers in new product lines if necessary. They agree to respect the European code of conduct of NGOs on the image of producers presented. It is also a fundamental element of alternative trading organisations' work that they should take part in education and advocacy campaigns to promote fair trade and the creation of an international trade structure that benefits producers.

Special emphasis is put on the role of women in the decision-making process both within the Southern producer groups and within the Northern fair trade organisations. Likewise, a respect for the cultural identity of all partners is expected throughout the movement.

Failure to meet all or most of these standards from the outset does not disqualify a Southern producer group from becoming a fair trade partner. The diversity of the production groups, the products and the economic and social realities in which they operate necessitates that each producer group be treated on a case by case basis. It is more important in the selection procedure that the producer group be attempting to reach these standards and that the Northern partner be willing to assist in this evolution, than that the group has already reached an optimal position. On the other hand, by their very nature, fair trade labelling initiatives must guarantee to the consumer that the agreed criteria have been respected. While some degree of flexibility is possible to reflect the specificity of a product, once the criteria are agreed, the producer must reach all of them without exception.

However, what all these groups have in common is that they are "marginalised". Whether because of economic or geographic factors, lack of experience or available resources, without the help of fair trade organisations, they would not be able to gain direct access to a market, either locally or abroad. Any group which seeks to support sustainable development in its group and community, to provide regular income to its members, to encourage democratic participation and to respect other mutually-agreed criteria such as the empowerment of women, respect for human rights, the environment and indigenous culture, is a potential partner of the fair trade movement. However, in order that the producer group be accepted as a trading partner, it must be able to produce (perhaps after some assistance) a marketable product. It must be able to supply the product at a reasonable price and in sufficient quantities within specific time periods.

Fair Trade Organisations currently import products from approximately 800 trading partners in 45 different countries in the South. This represents 800,000 producer families or approximately five million people.

Producers are guaranteed a fair price and decide themselves how the extra premium paid by fair trade should be distributed in the best interests of their communities. Many invest in product improvement, building up the financial, technical or managerial capacity of their organisations, or improving farms or buildings. Others use it for education, health care, housing, and other social obligations. Sometimes, if the market has been particularly depressed, the fair trade premium makes the difference between whether or not the producer family goes hungry, or whether or not they migrate from the land to the city.

Most producers only sell a small part of their total production to the fair trade market. The rest is sold under the usual conditions to the mainstream market. However, by paying a fair price for even a small part of production, there is often a snowball effect on prices paid for the rest of production. As alternative trade organisations (ATOs) buy up part of production at a higher price, this reduces the availability of products to middlemen who are then forced to offer higher prices to obtain sufficient quantities. This effect has been experienced in the case of honey sales in Chiapas in Mexico, brazil nuts in Peru, cocoa in Bolivia, and tea in Zimbabwe. This means that not only is it possible for producers who are lucky enough to have made contact with fair trade outlets to sell all their product at better prices, but other producers in the region, often equally marginalised, benefit too.

But, surprising as it may seem, for many producers the fair price is not the most important part of the fair trading relationship. Fair trade organisations pay part of the price in advance. This is crucial for small-scale producers because it means that they can buy inputs for production and survive the season without having to go to money lenders - a step which usually spells a never-ending spiral of crippling indebtedness. Likewise, the guarantee of payment is of great value whether in advance or promptly on delivery of the goods. Most small-scale producers have experienced middlemen who place orders and never claim the finished product, or who refuse to pay the agreed price. The stability of production and hence of income, and the guarantee of a long-term relationship is a major benefit to producers and allows them to make some provision for the future. The benefit of these additional aspects of fair trade to producers is shown by the fact that, even when prices rise (as they have done recently for coffee), and middlemen offer higher prices than the co-operatives can afford, most producers prefer to stay with the co-operative if at all possible. They know that when next the coffee market slumps the middlemen and speculators will offer no support.

There are also other advantages in being part of the fair trade relationship. For example, many ATOs offer assistance of the following kinds to the producers:

• technical assistance in the form of training by style consultants to keep up with European fashions,
• training in production methods and research to develop organic food products or environmentally-friendly textiles and handicrafts,
• advice on financial and managerial affairs,
• many ATOs also offer loans to producers (rather than grants that may disrupt the trading relationship) to expand their production.

As production expands, increased investment and working capital is necessary. Advance payments often do not provide the required amount, and banks frequently consider marginalised producers to be a "bad risk" and refuse to lend money. This is where ATOs step in. The long-term, personalised relationship reduces the risk of default on a loan and the possibility of repayment with products makes it attractive to both sides.

Perhaps one of the main benefits of the partnership approach of fair trade is the confidence it gives producers to approach a trading system perceived to be too complicated and too distant to understand. The example of the Kagera Co-operative underlines how farmers in villages now speak of the international coffee price and the London commodity exchange with a real understanding of the impact it has on their lives and livelihoods. It also portrays how the co-operative now feels confident enough to enter the coffee auctions and bid against the giant transnational companies (TNCs). Similarly, the following example shows how an understanding and knowledge of information technology such as the internet can change the balance of power still further between small producers and TNCs:

"A small community news service in the Philippines published an article saying that research was needed to find out if a certain pesticide was causing health problems in a local village. They received a threat from a German transnational chemical company. Via the internet they got free advice from a US environmental lawyer and asked a German environmental network to write to the company. The threat was withdrawn within a week".

Another positive result of co-operation within the fair trade system is the contact it creates between Southern producers. For example, in February 1995 the European Fair Trade Association (EFTA) organised a meeting of 24 African producers and 19 people from northern fair trade organisations. This gave Southern producers the chance to learn from each others' experiences. Another example of the potential of South-South contact is demonstrated by an experiment carried out by Oxfam UK regional fair trade organisations. The Philippines office decided to try to sell Philippine crafts in an Oxfam-supported shop in Bangkok - with extremely positive results. As in the North, so in the South "people in many countries prefer the exotic to the familiar and I think there is tremendous potential for South/South trade".

The basic message of the fair trade movement is that mainstream business must take responsibility for the whole production and trade procedure, from producer to consumer. Both the economic effects and the social effects on each participant in the chain must be accounted for, as well as the ecological consequences. Having identified the positive and harmful effects of the production chain, companies must invest in improvements to guarantee a more sustainable process. The essence of the approach is to promote positive action by companies rather than to use boycotts which have sometimes proved to be well-meaning but disastrous for producers. Such a scheme could be voluntary - companies choose whether or not to participate - but "a clean bill of health" granted by an external social auditing company (explained below) could be of immeasurable marketing value. The enthusiasm for this concept is seen through the proliferation of campaigns such as the "Clean Clothes Campaign" and campaigns on sports-shoe production. Both of these encourage companies to sign a code of conduct that would enforce minimum ILO conditions in textile and sports-shoe production. The code should be open to external monitoring by an objective body which should include trade unions, NGOs, and commercial companies. Similarly, several campaigns have been launched against the exploitation of children in rug production in India and Pakistan, in toy production, and in the production of footballs.

The fair trade movement has itself initiated a system of such control over its own operations. The system is called "Social Auditing" and aims to:

• identify social and ethical principles on which evaluation should be based (obligation to improve conditions of producers in South),
• identify the groups and individuals affected (producers, producer families, importing organisations and staff, fair trade shops, solidarity groups, volunteers, and consumers),
• identify performance indicators, defined in co-operation with all those involved (selection of partners, basic fair trade criteria, image in which producers are presented; quality of products; and efficient, ethical relations with sales outlets like shops, solidarity groups and other distribution channels to enlarge the fair trade market),
• measure the performance of the company based on information available (internal reports, comments of producers) in a style similar to financial accounting (with rigour, transparency, and objectivity),
• have the social account ratified by an external body,
• communicate the results and effect necessary improvements.

The concept of responsible trade and social auditing is making significant progress in the mainstream. Several companies, political parties and institutions have asked fair trade organisations for advice on this subject. In the United States ten companies, including NIKE and Reebok, signed a code of conduct in 1997 (though GAP, the fashion company, is - as yet - the only company to agree to external monitoring). The ILO recently proposed awarding a social label to countries which undertake to respect basic workers' rights. The unprecedented success of fair trade "Oké" bananas which reached 10% of the Dutch market share within weeks of being launched at the end of 1996, and 13% of the Swiss market is also a measure of the public's interest and support.

Among the areas requiring action are:

• commodity market stabilisation,