1. Trinity College Dublin & University College Dublin
Masters in Development Practice (MDP)
Dissertation
MOVING BEYOND BINARY DATA: A QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE
PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN IN INTENSIVE INFROMAL LABOUR ACTIVITIES,
A RWANDAN CASE STUDY
Student: Nathan McGibney (09685995/13205539)
Supervisor: Professor Anne Holohan
Date: August 31st 2015
Word Count: 10,620
2. 1
Signed Declaration
I hereby confirm that the following dissertation has not been submitted as an exercise for a
degree at Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin or any other University
previously. The entire content of this research report is entirely my own work. I grant my
permission for this document to be shared with the University library for single copies and
common student purposes subject to normal conditions of acknowledgement.
Nathan McGibney
Masters in Development Practice Student
3. 2
Summary
UNICEF estimates that there are currently in excess of 150 million children engaged in forms
of child labour globally (UNICEF, 2014). Critics have argued however that this number might
be a conservative estimate that fails to appreciate highly contextual, non-market and unpaid
household services (UHS) that can hinder children’s development in a number of ways. The
distinction between what may be considered the worst forms of child labour and what is
considered acceptable activities and behaviours for children simply does not exist in a lot of
developing country contexts. Dominant data collection mechanisms employed by multi-
sectorial actors (both national and international) arguably enable this lack of clarity through
methods that are highly reductionist and divorced from the given context (Dayioglu, 2013).
Rwanda offers a truly unique case with regard to the rights of children and their ongoing
protection from harmful and dangerous activities. A 2008 National Institute of Statistics
(NISR) survey found that ‘some 367,8102 children, representing 10.74% of children of the
same age group were found working either in their own households or outside their own
households (both child work3 and child labour)’ (Ministry of Public Service and Labour, 2013:
VI). However, primary research carried out across Rwanda in 2014 may bring into question
the true accuracy of this measurement. Findings from a multi-sectorial qualitative
engagement reveal the active participation of children in intensive, exploitative and
potentially harmful labour activities both inside and outside the family home that evade
national and international regard due to their occurrence in the private sphere and informal
labour sectors. In addition, said research has revealed a form of double-burden placed upon
young and adolescent girls who suffer greater vulnerability as a consequence of traditional
gendered social stratifications. The lack of clarity across government, civil-society,
community-based and international sectors on what is considered child labour and what may
be considered acceptable activities for children, namely light work/household chores; has
enabled this phenomenon to persist in the region. Consequently, efforts by national and
international bodies to enhance the capacity of vulnerable children may fall far short of
advancements that are sustainable and representative of the entire Rwandan population.
4. 3
Acknowledgements
This report would not have been possible without the honesty and eagerness of participants
from Rwanda’s civil society and community-based groups. The willingness to engage with
such a highly sensitive and politicized topic and demonstrated passion to enhance the
capacity of vulnerable children displayed by so many participants is highly commendable in
the face of evident systematic opposition. I would further like to acknowledge Professor
Anne Holohan for her highly valued patience, input and guidance.
7. 6
Abbreviations
CESTRAR : Central des Syndicats des Travailleurs du Rwanda
CL : Child Labour
CLMS : Child Labour Monitoring System
CBO : Community-based Organization
CSO : Civil-Society Organization
DDPs : District Development Plans
DHS : Demographic and Health Survey
EAC : East African Community
EDPRS : Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
GBV : Gender Based Violence
GoR : Government of Rwanda
ILO : International Labour Organization
IMSCCL : Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee on Child Labour
IPEC : International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour
MDG : Millennium Development Goals
MICS : Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys
MIFOTRA : Ministry of Public Service and Labour
MIGEPROF : Ministry of Gender and Family Protection
MINEDUC : Ministry of Education
NCC : National Commission for Children
NISR : National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda
OVC : Orphans and Vulnerable Children
REACH : Rwanda Education Alternatives for Children Project
SDG : Sustainable Development Goal
UHS : Unpaid Household Services
UNICEF : United Nations Children’s Fund
8. 7
Introduction
UNICEF estimates that there are currently in excess of 150 million children engaged in forms
of child labour globally (UNICEF, 2014). Critics have argued however that this number might
be a conservative estimate that fails to appreciate highly contextual, non-market and unpaid
household services (UHS) that can hinder children’s development in a number of ways. The
distinction between what may be considered the worst forms of child labour and what is
considered acceptable activities and behaviours for children simply does not exist in a lot of
developing country contexts. Dominant data collection mechanisms employed by multi-
sectorial actors (both national and international) that pursue quantifiable, binary information
to inform policy and interventions, and enable regional and global comparisons, arguably
enable this lack of clarity through methods that are highly reductionist and divorced from the
given context (Dayioglu). This research report review will seek to highlight the need for
further qualitative engagement and clarification on this complex phenomenon. With
reference to prominent commentators on issues of child protection and primary data
collected across Rwanda in 2014, this report will endeavour to demonstrate the limitations of
dominant data collection tools and framework of analysis with regards to the rights of the
child and their protection from harmful, intensive and exploitative forms of labour both inside
and outside the family home. The consequences of said limitations are numerous and
continue present complex challenges for some of the world’s most vulnerable children.
9. 8
Literature Review
Unpaid Household Services (UHS) and Child Labour (CL)
The treatment of unpaid household services (UHS) in the measurement of child labour
globally, has long been a point of contention among multi-sectorial actors, policy makers and
labour statisticians. Activities involving children that otherwise may be referred to as child
labour outside the family unit often go unobserved. The lack of credible, context specific
distinctions between UHS, household chores, (or in the case of Rwanda) light work, and the
worst forms of child labour, could arguably be presenting fictitious realities and hindering
sustainable development for minors and low-income families. Noticeably absent from
dominant literature is qualitative, context specific engagement to clarify said distinction,
ascertain representative UHS and CL patterns and importantly to offer literary platforms for
low-income communities and minors themselves to voice their opinions on the issue. Labour
activities within the private sphere, across many parts of the developing world remain
obscured in favour of more accustomed, readily observable violations of children’s agency
and autonomy. Consequently, researchers and labour statisticians have repeatedly referred
to the existence of an “invisible child workforce” (Guarcello et al, 2005: 10).
Meltem Dayioglu in her 2013 report (in conjunction with UNICEF) entitled How Sensitive
are Estimates of Working Children and Child Labour to Definitions? notes that one of the
most significant elements greatly underappreciated in the pursuit of children’s rights is the
highly contextual and complex perceptions of work and child (Dayioglu, 2013: 2). Multiple
indicator cluster surveys (MICS) analysed by Dayioglu which among other things questioned
respondents on whether their child was currently employed revealed stark (statistically
significant) differences among states across regions and continents with otherwise similar
economies and human development indexes. Perception in every context is key to the
researcher’s consideration;
“The high capture rate in the three African case studies may be because agricultural work is
common among children, is an important source of livelihood for their families, and is
therefore, more likely to be recognized as work” (Dayioglu, 2013: 2).
As a consequence of poor contextual appreciation and broader pursuits of generalizable
quantitative data, Dayioglu notes how popular data collection mechanisms often fail to reflect
the variety and nature of children’s involvement in activities that are beneficial to the family
unit, both economically and otherwise;
10. 9
“Among the economic activity questions that comprise the first filter, unpaid farm work,
animal husbandry, and help in family business are the common economic activities that are
most often missed by the main employment question” (Dayioglu, 2013: 3).
If we consider that time and labour intensive activities involving farming, agricultural activities
and animal husbandry can be considered UHS and omitted from measures of economic
activity, one can appreciate the need to question dominant data collection mechanisms.
Language, definitions and terminologies are key within such discussions. Dayioglu (once
again) in conjunction with UNICEF1
in her 2013 report entitled Impact of Unpaid Household
Services on the Measurement of Child Labour, lists the following definitions as widely
recognized internationally:
Child: In line with the 1989 Conventions of the Rights of the Child, a child is defined as an
individual under the age of 18. Since it is assumed that a child under the age of five is too
young to work or to start school, the group at risk of child labour consists of children aged 5
to 17 years only.
Economic activity: Includes all types of establishments or business in which persons are
engaged in the production of goods and services.
Unpaid household services (UHS): Services rendered by and for household members
without pay. They are more commonly referred to as “household chores” and include
activities such as cooking, ironing, housecleaning, shopping, looking after small children,
small repairs and the like.
Child Employment: Children aged 5 to 17 years are defined as employed if they work for at
least one hour during the reference period or if they have a job or business from which they
are temporarily absent. Broadly speaking, all market orientated activities, production of
goods for one’s own consumption and certain services rendered for and by household
members (such as major household repairs) are considered economic activities. Within this
framework water and collecting firewood for household use are also considered economic
activities. Employment may take place in the formal/informal sector or within/outside
household premises.
Child labour: Children who are engaged in work unsuitable for their capacities as children
or in work that may jeopardize their health, education or moral development. Child labour is
defined as:
1
In their 2013 publication entitled Impact of Unpaid Household Services on the Measurement of Child Labour.
11. 10
Children aged 5 to 11 who are employed (in economic activities as defined above),
even if only for one hour during the reference period.
Children aged 12 to 17 who are employed (in economic activities defined above)
under hazardous conditions that include: 14 or more hours per week of employment
for those aged 12 to 14, and 43 or more hours per week for those aged 15 to 17.
Children aged 5 to 7 employed in hazardous UHS.
Hazardous conditions: As defined by the ILO Recommendation NO. 190
Work that 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 that involves the manual
handling or transport of heavy loads.
Work in an unhealthy environment that may expose children to hazardous
substances, agents or processes, to high temperatures and noise levels.
Work under particularly difficult conditions, such as work for long hours or during the
night.
(Dayioglu, 2013: 9-10)
Guiding international conventions on labour laws and the rights of the child including the
International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 1382
, ILO Convention No. 1823
, ILO
Recommendation No. 1904
, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
refer to work or labour as activities that fall within the production boundary as defined by the
UN System of National Accounts (SNA) (Dayioglu, 2013). Consequently activities that fall
outside the production barrier and are not financially incentivized are typically considered to
pose no significant risk to children’s well-being and development (Dayioglu, 2013). Said
activities include the cleaning of the family house, washing dishes, shopping, looking after
siblings, collecting water and firewood, farming and agricultural tasks, and cattle herding.
The 2008 Resolution Concerning Statistics of Child Labour adopted by the 18th
International
Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) did however demonstrate initiative toward more
credible engagement with non-conventional labour activities of minors including UHS.
Significantly this resolution represents:
“a recognition of the fact that in some circumstances the performance of household chores
can impact negatively on children’s welfare, and therefore can fall within the legal definition
2
Refers to the minimum age for admission to employment and work.
3
Convention on the worst forms of child labour.
4
Section II.3.a-e to Convention No.182 offers an interpretation of what constitutes hazardous work.
12. 11
of child labour set of out by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other
international legal standards” (Lyon et al, 2013: 6).
Dominant literature on child labour reveals a significant gap in research on local and
context specific understandings of child labour and light work, often resulting in policy and
legislation written by external actors divorced from relevant context. Local perceptions of
children’s involvement in both market and non-market activities are multi-dimensional and
highly contextual. A 2013 ICF report entitled Child Labour in Agriculture in the Northern
Province of Rwanda offers a valuable insight into community attitudes with regard to UHS, or
light work within the Rwandan context. ‘Nearly three-quarters (71.2%) of adult respondents
associated with working children reported thinking that it is beneficial for children to work in
agriculture’ (ICF, 2013:21). Importantly however, ICF researchers further noted from their
field visits that ‘these activities while not economic in nature, can represent a significant
burden for the child and add to the negative impact of work on children’s welfare
opportunities’ (ICF, 2013:35). Failure to engage local communities on labour activities
involving children both in research and social mobilization initiatives may arguably result in
poor programming and an ill-equipped response to a behavioural phenomenon, the
consequences of which may be equally as impossible to quantify.
A Gendered Burden
Available gender disaggregated data on child labour and UHS overwhelmingly point toward
an excessive burden placed on young and adolescent girls. Lyon et al the authors of Unpaid
Household Services and Child Labour (2013) note that “the involvement of female children in
household chores is generally both more extensive and intensive than that of male children”
(Lyon et al, 2013: 41). Among low-income and subsistence farming groups young girls
typically perform a double shift whereby they are expected to participate in farming activities
for profit and family consumption in addition to household chores. In Contrast boys are
typically only expected to participate in the former. The ILO estimates that domestic work is
the largest employer of girls aged 16 and under in the world (Guarcello, 2005). Such trends
have strong correlations with poorer health outcome, school attendance and performance
(see below), and other harmful behaviours like child marriage (Lyon et al, 2013) for
vulnerable girls and adolescents. Gender disaggregated data with regard to UHS, non-
market activities and domestic employment is severely lacking across many parts of the
developing world consequently hindering adequately informed credible interventions among
low-income families.
13. 12
Child Labour, UHL and Education
The impacts of child labour and intensive non-market activities on educational outcomes is
highly context specific and influenced by many (often unobservable) variables. Efforts to
create generalizable correlations between children’s market and non-market activities and
education should do so with caution afforded. Furthermore the necessity for distinction and
clarification on what can be considered forms of labour (market and non-market) distracting
from children’s development is even greater. Lyon et al in their revision of school attendance
across 65 countries note that “at first glance, children performing household chores do not
generally appear systematically disadvantaged in terms of school attendance” (Lyon et al,
2013: 22). However, simple bivariate comparisons (for Lyon et al) ignore two important
related factors. First, such comparisons do not appreciate the fact that many children in
developing country contexts will combine UHS with work in employment, be it domestic
employment, agricultural or otherwise. This group of minors performing a “double duty”
(Lyon et al, 2013: 25) can have lower grades, be at higher risk of repeating grades or
dropping out of school completely. The 2012 ICF International report notes that children
working in agriculture had greater age-grade delays, notably an average of 1.0 age grade
compared to 0.0 for children not working in agriculture. Second, and of and of great
significance is the omission of the time intensity (Lyon et al, 2013: 25) of children’s UHS or
non-market activities5
.
Dayioglu in her review of MICS (Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys) across 100 countries
found that a total of 84% of children who are engaged in UHS attend school. When broken
down into 4 classifications, the association between work and schooling becomes evident:
1. Children engaged solely in UHS: Children within this category have the second
highest school attendance rate estimated in excess of 90%.
2. Children engaged solely in economic activities: Children within this category have the
lowest school attendance rate at 51%.
3. Children engaged in UHS and economic activities: Children within this category have
the second lowest school attendance rate of 66%.
4. Children engaged in neither UHS nor economic activities: Children within this
classification are found to have the highest school attendance rate estimated just
below 93%.
5
It is necessary to point out that said time intensity may be highly seasonally dependent also with regard to
agricultural UHS and other non-market activities.
14. 13
In concert with Lyon et al6
, Guarcello7
, and other researchers on child labour, Dayioglu found
time thresholds whereby UHS and non-market activities began to have observable impacts
on school attendance (See Table 1). As UHS hours increase, school attendance decreases.
The sharpest decline in education with regard to UHS hours increasing is among girls who
perform at least 28 hours of UHS a week which sees them drop almost 30 percentage points
from the 14 hour threshold. Considering the double shift burden placed upon girls and young
adolescent females discussed above, this is a strong correlation that demands high regard.
Table 1
Activity Status Total Male Female Ages
6-11
Ages
12-14
Ages
15-17
UHS only 90.3 92.6 88.6 93.2 92.4 82.8
UHS only – at least 7 hours 87.3 91.0 85.4 90.3 90.6 79.9
UHS only – at least 14 hours 79.2 88.1 76.6 84.8 84.1 70.7
UHS only – at least 28 hours 50.2 75.8 44.9 59.4 59.6 39.3
UHS only – at least 35 hours 30.8 62.7 24.5 42.9 36.8 20.5
No UHS, not employed 92.9 92.5 93.7 94.8 93.2 84.7
(Dayioglu, 2013: 22)
6
Through their regressions on available data Lyons et al found that “that the negative effect on the probability of
school attendance is small and constant up to about 20 weekly hours of chores and start increasing thereafter”
(Lyon et al, 2013: 41). In contrast the likelihood working children (in recognized market activities) of attending
school drops immediately after the first hour of work (Lyon et al, 2013).
7
Research conducted by Guarcello et al using panel data in the Chinese context found a significant, causal link
between hours spent on non-market work and school attendance. Their regression estimations indicated that
“hours spent on non-market activity negatively affected the likelihood of school attendance, though the effect was
smaller than that of market activity. These results indicate that engagement in non-market work can also interfere
with children’s development and right to education” (Guarcello et al, 2005: 53).
15. 14
Dominant Data Collection Mechanisms
Popular discourse of development policy makers, analysts and civil-society actors is often
centred on the premise of definitions and terminologies that can be readily supported by
quantitative data. Macro-level interventions across the developing world are indoctrinated
with the notion that if it can be counted it can be reformed. In-fact one of the dominant
criticisms of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) project and the current Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) initiative is that it favours mechanisms of quantitative data
collection and enacting policy makers over the intended beneficiaries. Amir Attaran the
author of An Immeasurable Crisis? A Criticism of the Millennium Development Goals and
Why They Cannot be Measured (2005) is a prominent critic not just of the MDG project but
dominant data collection mechanisms and how the realities of some of the world’s most
vulnerable and marginalized populations are presented. The highly reductionist approach
employed by multi-sectorial actors from the CSO (civil-society organization) to the
supranational in pursuit of quantitative data allowing for regional and worldwide comparisons
has the potential to miss, obscure and alter contextual realities highly influenced by culture,
religion, gender, demography and other complex anthropogenic variables (Attaran, 2005).
With regard to calculations of child labour and subsequent policy design, said
reductionist approach does not inspire promise in relation to the many nuanced and subtle
characteristics enabling the phenomenon across the developing world. The omission of non-
market activities and UHS (as we will see) greatly enables influential actors to make
calculated decisions based on dominant perceptions of children exploited in market-based
and income generating activities Guarcello et al the authors of Towards Statistical
Standards for Children’s Non-Economic Work: a Discussion Based on Household Survey
Data (2005) note how in developing country contexts the dominant data collection approach,
notably the household survey approach employed by both national, or international actors
typically offer limited definitions or expansion on non-market activities within the household.
In addition, “it must also be stressed that surveys do not allow, in general, to distinguish
between non-market economic activities (within the production boundary of SNA) and the
rest of household chores” (Guarcello et al, 2005: 9). By focusing on households within the
developing world solely as consumers and not productive units maximizing their own labour
and capital, development data (both economic and otherwise) may be misrepresentative. As
is the case with Rwanda8
, agriculture and subsistence farming represent a corner stone of
national output, income generation and survival for the majority of families. Within this sector
a wealth of intensive production and consumption activities are carried out by all members of
8
According to the World Bank between 2006 and 2010 it accounted for 35 percent of GDP; 45 percent of export
earnings and, according to the latest household survey of 2010/11, for 73 percent of employment.
16. 15
the family unit9
. Development and economic measures that only calculate market output and
omit the value of the goods and services produced directly by the household are failing to
present representative realities for low-income families. Consequently;
“in certain cases this has led to poor development planning, for example programmes which
benefit only the people who are included in the statistics, that is, only economically active
people, such as agricultural extension programmes which do not include subsistence
farmers” (Guarcello et all, 2005: 5).
Depending on whether data collection mechanisms include UHS and non-market
activities in the study of child labour, the outcome can vary drastically across certain regions.
Dayioglu in her investigation into contemporary estimates of child labour notes that when so-
called hazardous UHS are included into estimates of child labour, Senegalese prevalence
rates increase by 102%. For girls in Jordan, the inclusion of hazardous UHS results in a
prevalence rate of 133%10
. Importantly for the purposes of this report, Dayioglu notes that
“we have observed that child labour estimates are quite sensitive to the inclusion of
hazardous UHS. Clearly, more research needs to be done on the household sector to
understand the nature of the work that goes on there, and its impact on key child outcomes”
(Dayioglu, 2013: 6).
The necessary inclusion of non-market economic activities into the global definition of
child labour would require a revision and alteration of current data collection instruments.
Whatever revisions are made with regard to child labour discourse in the coming decades,
Guarcello et al note the importance of “any effort being made to collect information that
allows a distinction between what is currently loosely called “household chores” into non-
market economic activities and housework” (Guarcello et al, 2005: 18). Any advancements
on this issue will require strong political leadership and the participation of robust and
transparent national data collection institutions and international donors and actors.
Considerable questions will be asked of the autonomy and agency of national statistic offices
in developing contexts to endorse such pursuits that will no doubt alter and increase
observable numbers of children involved in hazardous or demanding forms of labour both
9
“The exclusion of non-market economic activity leads to the underestimation of the total extent of child
involvement in economic activity. For example, water and fuel collection are typically considered as housework,
where as they are in fact (non-market) economic activities. Furthermore girls, differently from boys, may have a
tendency to define themselves as performing housework when instead they are engaged in activities that involve
the production and processing of agriculture, dairy and fishery products for household’s consumption, and that
are therefore economic” (Guarcello et all, 2005: 13).
10
Crucially; “the inclusion of hazardous UHS within the definition of child labour has the greatest impact on child
labour estimates for girls” (Dayioglu, 2013: 5)
17. 16
inside and outside the family home. Consequently, interventions employed to enhance the
capacity of vulnerable children may arguably result in a further politicization of data.
A Rwandan Case Study
Rwanda offers a truly unique case with regard to the rights of children and their ongoing
protection from harmful and dangerous activities. For obvious reasons the 1994 genocide
and the connotations of mass population displacement, the destruction of basic
infrastructure and consequential multi-dimensional poverty must be appreciated in the study
of any human development indicator. According to the most recent 2012 census conducted
by the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR), the total population of children below
18 years of age in Rwanda is estimated at 5,366,968 representing some 49.6% of the total
population. Children aged between 6-17 years were estimated at 3,413,374 representing
63.7% of the child population below 18. A 2008 national survey on Child Labour conducted
by the NISR found that “Among this group, some 367,8102 children, representing 10.74% of
children of the same age group were found working either in their own households or outside
their own households (both child work3 and child labour)” (Ministry of Public Service and
Labour, 2013: VI). Furthermore, the agricultural sector remains the largest workplace setting
for children employing some 40.8% of children, followed by 31.9% in domestic services,
8.1% in construction, 2.7% in industry; and 13.7% in other activities such as trade, hotels
and transportation (Ministry of Public Service and Labour, 2013: vi).
In keeping with other reports that will be discussed throughout (notably ICF, 2013 &
Winrock, 2013) the 2013 national policy identifies some key points of causation:
Poverty: Noted as the primary cause of child labour in Rwanda by the national policy,
NGOs, INGOs and state bodies, multidimensional poverty remains a pressing concern. Low-
income generation, food insecurity, single or no parent headed households and urban
poverty (in particular) represent a complex melting pot that supports current child labour
trends. Tasked with supporting their overall family income and in many cases supporting
themselves and younger siblings children are required to work both inside and outside their
family home. The negative impacts on schooling and educational performance is evident to
see with 22.5%11
of the children researched by the NISR stating they do not attend school
due to work obligations.
11
Other national and international bodies maintain that this figure is much higher.
18. 17
Awareness and limited information on child labour: There remains a distinct information
gap between what are considered the worst forms of child labour in Rwanda. This is
particularly true of remote rural locations where a government presence is limited to small
district offices. Importantly for the purposes of this report the national policy notes that “some
people do not distinguish between acceptable child work and child labour - a child should be
initiated to labour in a bid to ensure his/her formation towards a productive adulthood”
(Ministry of Public Service and Labour, 2013: 3).
Exposure of proximity to economic opportunities: Certain children are more vulnerable
than others based on their location and proximity to work opportunities across Rwanda. As a
consequence the Northern region remains the most prominent region for child labour due to
the expanding tea industry. Other dominant areas of industry for child labour include mining,
agriculture, rice farming and cattle herding.
Lacking from much of the mainstream literature on child labour in the region is
engagement in the private sphere and a credible investigation into local attitudes and
understandings of child labour as distinct from acceptable activities and responsibilities for
children; namely light work/child work. The research carried out of the NISR which remains
highly influential across sectors and actors including supranational bodies and INGOs is
primarily binary and quantitative in nature and offers little in the way of a robust distinction
between the worst forms of child labour and light work/household chores. Consequently, one
may have to consider the possibility that the number of children recorded working by the
NISR (in 2008 and 2012) may be highly conservative and not representative of the realities
faced by many low-income, vulnerable children.
Methodology
Research Design
Initially the research design for this project was to be cross-sectional encompassing a tri-part
data collection tool, namely quantitative surveys, semi-structured interviews and focus
groups. Updated quantitative data from the 2008 NISR survey was at the outset a key
consideration in data collection for the report to be representative of Rwanda in 2014.
Following a pilot phase of binary, quantifiable household surveys, this became a point of
refusal by the NISR (See limitations below). As a consequence of unforeseen limitations and
barriers the research design was adapted to capture multi-sectorial qualitative data from
19. 18
both individual and grouped participants for later comparison and with existing literature on
the topic.
Research Methods
Qualitative data was collected by conducting 8 semi-structured multi-sectorial interviews and
6 focus groups. Each participant of the semi-structured interviews was asked the same
questions with some receiving additional questioning in direct relation to their specific field
and experience with the topic. Focus groups were conducted using an NISR translator on
location in the specific areas of interest across three districts of Rwanda. Quantitative
surveys were designed from baseline data and with reference to existing literature and data
from the 2008 NISR Child Labour Report but did not progress past the pilot phase (See
limitations).
Sampling
Given that the research project had a strong qualitative focus a large sample size was not
achievable in such a short amount of time. 8 Semi-structured multi-sectorial interviews were
conducted and 6 focus groups ranging in participant sizes of 8 to 35. In addition, due to the
investigative nature of the research I employed purposeful sampling as the research
required participants who met any or all of the following criteria:
Employed in the NGO/INGO sector with a focus on Rwandan minors
Employed for a local, Provincial or national government body
Employed within the Rwandan agricultural sector
Employed within the Rwandan educational sector
Subsistence farmer with children
Member of an agricultural cooperative
Research Participants
Rohith Peiris: Director General of Sowarth Ltd Tea Cooperative.
Elisa Radisone: Programme Director of Save the Children (UK) Rwanda.
Katie Reid: Programme Assistant at Save the Children (UK) Rwanda.
Twahrwa Alexander: Ministry of Labour (Child Labour Unit) Kigali.
Lamech Nambajimana: Project Director REACH T Project, Winrock: Rwanda.
20. 19
Paul Bagambe: Education Coordinator, Plan Rwanda.
Nathalie Aziza: Concern Worldwide Rwanda.
Damien Mbetu: Kigali District Labour Inspector, Ministry of Labour Rwanda.
Focus Group 1: Concern Worldwide Parent Teacher Council Members 1 (PTC). Southern
District, Rwanda.
Focus Group 2: Concern Worldwide Parent Teacher Council Members 2 (PTC). Southern
District, Rwanda.
Focus Group 3: Village Members, Eastern District. Rwanda.
Focus Group 4: Village/Community Leaders, Local Government Offices, Eastern District.
Rwanda.
Focus Group 5: Cattle/Dairy Cooperative, Eastern District. Rwanda.
Focus Group 6: Rice Cooperative, Eastern District. Rwanda.
Data Collection
Quantitative surveys were designed to update the data collected by the 2008 NISR report.
After just one initial pilot phase however I was informed that the surveys would not be run at
any point by the NISR as a consequence of the sensitive nature of the questioning.
Qualitative data was collected via 8 semi-structured interviews and 6 focus groups and large
group interviews across governmental, non-governmental, civil society, and community-
based sectors.
Data Analysis
Each semi-structured interview and focus group has gone through a multi-stage coding
process and has analysed according to dominant themes and patterns. The findings of this
research report were compared and contrasted against dominant literature in the fields of
child labour and the rights of the child globally and in Rwanda.
21. 20
Ethical Considerations
Any research conducted on the rights and vulnerabilities of children naturally entails certain
ethical considerations. However, as no children were directly interviewed for this research
report it was not necessary to include complex guidelines required for working with children.
Given the highly sensitive nature of the topic and the complex history of Rwanda, caution
was exercised when interviewing participants with great regard for causing no psychological
or emotional pain.
Limitations
Due to the highly sensitive nature of the topic limitations and restrictions were expected prior
to beginning the research. I was however taken aback by the wealth of opposition and
restriction I was presented with across my entire sample, including the partner organization
charged with aiding my data collection. The findings of this research project while revealing
of a complex and largely ignored issue regarding current child labour trends were greatly
undermined not only by potential participants unwillingness to engage with the topic but also
the systematic restrictions put in place by those who were in positions to aid my research.
Consequently the limitations and restrictions are almost as revealing as the findings
themselves, the most noteworthy include:
A refusal by the NISR to allow for quantitative survey data collection due to the
sensitive nature of the topic and the apparent unwillingness of participants to
respond.
A refusal by the NISR to allow access to previous survey data for specific quantitative
analysis.
Severe restrictions placed on the amount of field work I was allowed to carry out.
Persistent claims by NISR staff that child labour is no longer an issue in Rwanda and
that my research topic is not relevant and subsequently achievable.
I was informed by a NISR staff member that NGOs and INGOs exaggerate realities
facing children in Rwanda with regard to child labour to secure funding and legitimize
their function.
NISR staff seemed largely unfamiliar with qualitative research, in particular the
implementation and purpose of focus groups.
My positionality as a non-national researcher working with the NISR, a state body
often impacted on the nature and wealth of participant’s disclosure on the research
topic.
22. 21
Often participants would be unwilling to answer direct questions and chose to read
state policy and legislation.
Findings
In concert with much of the literature discussed in Chapter two, the Rwandan case study
reveals a clear lack of distinction between child labour and what can be considered
appropriate and acceptable labour or chore activities for children. Evident from the findings
discussed below is the existence of nuanced complexities surrounding the involvement of
children in labour activities that may arguably be missed without qualitative engagement.
UHL in Rwanda is a complex and multidimensional reality for children that can range from
domestic, agricultural, industrial, and a host family subsistence duties. The clear lack of
distinction between child labour and UHL is evident from the contrasting views across
sectors and populations in both urban and rural settings.
The positionalitiy of the individual or organization assessing acceptable and harmful
activities for children is of great significance, notably whether they are an insider or an
outsider of Rwandan society. INGOs, international, and supranational organizations are
recognized across sectors as (typically) lacking local insight and context specific awareness
to be a credible authority on the rights of Rwandan children: “I think people looking from
outside often do not understand what is going on” (Participant 3: Community Leaders:
Eastern District). A representative from the Ministry of Labour sought to clarify the lack of
existing distinction across sectors:
“Some of the NGOs confuse child labour with family labour and household chores. Here we
have what you can call child labour, and what you can call light work. The light work that
children are allowed to do when he or she is at home, that’s light work. Other work can be
understood as the worst forms of child labour. So there is a definition between the 2”
(Alexander: Ministry of Labour: Kigali).
In light of this confusion the minister suggested that: “Maybe it is a lack of awareness or
different interpretations among NGOs, we can increase the awareness campaign in order for
them to understand” (Alexander: Ministry of Labour: Kigali). The existence of heterogeneous
interpretations and subsequent interventions with regard to the rights of Rwandan children
was for the ministry a result of ill-informed (typically international) organizations who suffer
from a form of outsider complex devoid of local insight.
Across civil-society organizations and community-led groups many participants sought to
distinguish acceptable activities from child labour by reference to labour occurring inside the
23. 22
family home, namely the private sphere; that is not for independent monetary gain. A
member of Concerns Southern District PTC notes that:
“Those young ones do it for their families but if they do it outside their home this can be
considered child labour. These activities though of farming and agriculture as we look at this
boy carrying a large amount of Irish potatoes, if carried out for the family and inside their
home it is not considered child labour” (Participant 4: Concern PTC: Southern District)
Regarding monetary exchange as a determining factor of child labour, another Concern PTC
member mentioned that;
“Sometimes these activities are really heavy for children who are really young. There is
normally a clear difference between that child labour. The difference is that in child labour,
children want to earn some money for themselves, but the heavy activities I mentioned are
for the whole family. I think the difference is there” (Participant 3: Concern PTC: Southern
District).
In contrast, other participants from within the same non-governmental sectors
denounced such distinctions and lines of division based upon public and private sphere and
the exchange of money; “it can certainly exist within the family home and this is an issue we
greatly struggle with. Many including those enforcing the law do not appreciate this fact”
(Participant 2: Concern PTC 2: Southern District). Mr Lamech Nambajimana, a Project
Director from Winrock Rwanda spoke passionately about the need to challenge said
distinctions if genuine progress is to be made with regard to the rights of the child;
“It is about defining clear messages about child labour. Even within the law it says there is
no child labour within family enterprises, which is not true, it’s not true. Meaning that if we
talk about child labour it will be just outside the family? Children who are working or paid
work is what they say. But within the family, even if they say there is no child labour within
the family enterprises it is something which is not correct” (Nambajimana, Winrock: Kigali).
Evident from the literature referenced in Chapter 2 is lack of credible engagement with
UHL or in the Rwandan context light work or household chores. Researchers and policy
makers across sectors remain largely unaware of the types of activities being performed by
minors in the private sphere, the length of time spent by minors on said activities, and the
possible impacts on child development and educational outcomes. This a reality highlighted
by Mr Nambajimana: “the big issue is, even though each district has a labour inspector, the
labour inspector works on the formal sector. Child labour is in the informal sector”
(Nambajimana, Winrock: Kigali). Consequently, the number of children involved in harmful
24. 23
labour activities could be grossly underestimated. Elisa Radisone of Save the Children UK
further highlighted this fact with regard to Rwanda’s prosperous coffee and tea industries:
“There are 2 levels to children working in the tea or even coffee industry, if you just look at
child labour in the tea fields or the tea factory you don’t get the full picture. I mean at that
time we didn't really realise this issue, but definitely you have these 2 levels, so sometimes
maybe at the factory level or the estate you don’t have children working there but then they
are buying some of their tea and coffee from cooperatives that are family owned basically,
and that is where you will find child labour” (Radisone, Save the Children UK: Kigali).
In response to this reality, Mr Nambajimana spoke of need for increased engagement with
the private sphere to fully appreciate harmful realities faced by children from low-income and
subsistence families:
“What is important to see with light work, is how these practices are being performed by
children? Even if it is light work, they can do them for long hour’s maybe. So the issue is not
fetching water and light work it is looking for the worst forms of child labour. You must look at
how long this takes or if the children are attending school, in order to term it as the worst
forms of child labour” (Nambajimana, Winrock: Kigali).
Across all sectors from the governmental to community-led groups and supranational to
INGO’s, poverty is recognized as the main driver for the involvement of children in harmful
labour activities both in the public and private spheres: “You may ask your child to
accompany you to cut wheat, and this is very hard. But many have no choice and must do
this to survive. There is no way to fight against that – Simply no choice” (Participant 6,
Village Leaders: Eastern District). However, in light of the existing literature referenced in
Chapter 2 and owing to the qualitative nature of this research project, it was a priority
throughout field visits to engage local communities on their attitudes and opinions of
children’s participation in labour inside and outside the private sphere beyond the pulls of
monetary gain and subsistence living. This engagement would prove to be highly beneficial
and revealing of factors greatly underappreciated by external actors seeking to empower
vulnerable children.
One community leader from the Eastern District discussed how many parents feel that
involving their children in labour activities (particularly agricultural) can help to develop them
into capable and responsible adults later in life. He noted that “This can be a good way yes
to transfer skills and knowledge. It can make them active, teach them to farm, how to
cultivate and how to be responsible”. (Participant 7: Community Leaders: Eastern District).
Another community leader noted that:
25. 24
“You may educate your children in the classrooms and in schools, but at home you can also
give them some light work like washing dishes, cleaning the house, and helping on the
family land. It is very useful for the children and will help them grow and develop with
responsibility and learning of other kinds” (Participant 3: Community Leaders: Eastern
District).
Many participants premised this transference of knowledge and skills to children via their
direct participation in unpaid labour activities as a direct result of their own up-bringing:
“Children involved in family farming it is beneficial to their growth in their future. Where I am
in my life right now, in this cooperative is because of when I started as a child” (Participant 1:
Cattle and Dairy Cooperative: Eastern District). The benefits of agricultural labour for
children were not reserved for inside the family home: “For me, children’s involvement in
agriculture outside of the family is also beneficial. It is beneficial but not for financial but for
training, training for the future” (Participant 1: Cattle and Dairy Cooperative: Eastern District).
This intergenerational knowledge and skill transference was for others a barrier in the
enhancement of child protection:
“You tell parents that hard work for children is bad for them and will impact on their education
and growth but they will tell you we did this in our past. My child is no different, I will teach
him as I was. This is often the mentality” (Participant 6, PTC: Southern District).
The recognition of children’s involvement in labour activities as positive by parents and
community groups beyond dominant perceptions of economic or subsistence necessity is a
significant factor in the pursuit of enhanced capacity for children. Such a nuanced
complexity contrasts dominant views of intensive labour activities involving minors that are a
result solely of multidimensional poverty and labour market pull factors. Failure to appreciate
such context specific realities may arguably result in misrepresentative data and ineffective
programming.
An analysis of potential gender dichotomies was a key consideration from the outset of
this research project. Given that existing literature revealed a distinct lack of engagement
with child labour activities within the private sphere across many areas of the developing
world, gender disaggregated information was an opportunity not to be missed. While some
participants including government ministers and NISR staff members upheld that there
existed no gender dichotomy within child labour and child work/light work due to legislative
prohibition, many participants at the community level felt strongly otherwise:
“Girls are certainly more vulnerable to exploitation and are much more likely to be involved in
child labour than boys” (Participant 4: Village Members: Eastern District). This increased
26. 25
vulnerability for young girls is an apparent result of traditional gendered social stratifications:
“they are seen to be more capable of doing household chores, if they are required to work
outside their family these are the things they will also do” (Participant 4: Village Members:
Eastern District). Girls who typically begin labour activities within the family home earlier than
boys perform a type of double-shift:
“It is not the same for boys and girls at all. Because girls can go into the farm to help her
mother in cultivating for example, and after planting seed she will return to duties in the
house. For example if a boy has cultivated for him it is ok, it is enough, he has time to go and
play with friends. But for girls after cultivation they are supposed to cook, clean, take care of
the young and have many more extra activities” (Participant 5: Concern PTC Focus Group:
Southern District).
In relation to paid labour activities outside the family home, one PTC member noted how
young girls suffer further economic marginalization as a result of an uneven division of
labour among minors:
“There is a difference, boys may go out and do hard work and they will benefit from money
and being able to take care of themselves. But girls they stay at home at home and work for
the family and yet have no benefit to themselves alone. There is no profit for girls in these
activities but boys they gain money’ activities” (Participant 6: Concern PTC 2 Focus Group:
Southern District).
The inability or unwillingness of bodies and institutions to penetrate Rwanda’s private sphere
to ascertain the realities and vulnerabilities faced by children is particularly concerning for
young and adolescent girls. Engagement across sectors revealed for the most part a strong
and uneven division of labour and subsequent vulnerability for young and adolescent girls
that may not be fully appreciated by dominant methods of data collection, notably binary
household survey questionnaires.
In an effort to discern whether the many forms child labour activities impact negatively on
long-term child development this report sought to engage with children’s education in
Rwanda. Mainstream educational reviews in developing country contexts, both national and
international are often guilty of focusing solely on child attendance as a measurement of
educational development (Dayioglu, 2013). Consequently, this report sought a more holistic
understanding of the relationship between informal child labour activities and education
including attendance, performance, and long-term outcomes. Regarding this relationship Mr
Nambajimana (in concert with other non-governmental participants) upheld that ‘when you
27. 26
look at child labour, you can just categorize them, the source is in 3 categories’
(Nambajimana, Winrock: Kigali). The three types of children are described as follows:
“There is the children have not been at school at all or they don’t have something to do and
they are involved in child labour, school is free but maybe they cannot afford other costs like
uniforms or materials. Another category is children who are combining school and work, like
those children who are up early morning to pick tea and attend school, coming back and
again picking tea, it negatively impacts his or her education. Other children may have a 70%
or 80% attendance but he or she may have less than 30%. When they drop out they go
straight into child labour. Another category is children who just work because they drop out.
First have never been to school, the second they are combining, and the third is those who
have dropped out and work” (Nambajimana, Winrock: Kigali).
The second category of children who are combining education with informal but intensive
labour activities either inside or outside the home, represent a grouping largely under-
researched due to their seclusion from the public sphere. Participants from Concerns Parent
Teacher Councils highlighted the importance of looking beyond school attendance to
understand the impact child labour and forms of UHL can have on children’s educational
outcomes. “Many who are involved in too much work and very tiring work will become
stressed and tired and will not be able to follow in school when they do attend. Many people
just think that such work only impacts on attendance but you have to remember children will
get tired easily and lose concentration” (Participant 7: Concern PTC Focus Group: Southern
District).
One teacher noted: “As a teacher, when you see a child is at home doing those difficult
works you will see them perform badly in school’ student” (Participant 2: Concern PTC
Focus Group 2: Southern District). It was further noted that often “they come to school with
great tiredness, they cannot pay attention and you will often see them sleeping in
classrooms” (Participant 3: Concern PTC Focus Group 2: Southern District). Children
themselves have expressed their concerns to school staff: “When you ask them why they
say it is because of hard work at home, because of demanding work, because of hunger and
things like this” (Participant 3: Concern PTC Focus Group 2: Southern District).
While a number of participants upheld that light work and household activities do not and
cannot have a negative consequences for children’s educational outcome typically due to
state legislation prohibiting labour intensive activities for minors, a large percentage spoke of
the need for engagement on this issue. Teachers in particular who witness first-hand the
fatigue and absence of children as a consequence of labour intensive activities inside and
outside the family home spoke passionately for the need of awareness campaigns for
28. 27
parents, an investment in community-based organizations, and greater state intervention
and allocation of resources for low-income subsistence families to relieve the burden on
minors.
Regarding state engagement with child protection issues in Rwanda, a number of the
participants expressed deep dissatisfaction and frustration. Beyond obvious government
limitations to tackle state-wide multidimensional poverty or the difficulties of enforcing
national legislation prohibiting harmful labour activities which are recognized “just at central
level, at some government in the private institutions, but at the grassroots it’s another rule”
(Nambajimana, Winrock: Kigali); a number of respondents alluded to a lack of political and
institutional will to engage the private sphere beyond formal labour sectors. Regarding
Rwanda’s prosperous tea and coffee industries Mr Nambajimana pointed out that:
“When you talk about children in tea, it is something that is very very sensitive. Because
each year the United States Department of Labour publishes lists of companies using child
labour. Rwandan tea has been put on one of these lists - when we talk about child labour in
tea with the population, or with the government or stakeholders, they say no we don’t have
children in tea, they know that they are” (Nambajimana, Winrock: Kigali).
In reference to an event held in June 2014 to commemorate the international day against
child labour, Mr Nambajimana referenced ongoing points of tension between realities facing
vulnerable children in Rwanda and vested state interests:
“One of the day activities was the project launch. Children were singing and dancing and
they names different forms of child labour they had been involved in in the area. Many said
that parents sent them to pick tea leaves with them. But at the other side were officials who
were saying no, this is, this is not true we don't use any children in tea. So to do an
investigation you have to be very very careful because even discussing it with the officials
they say we came here as politicians, you, you are technicians and we are not looking at
things from the same angle” (Nambajimana, Winrock: Kigali).
The existence of tension and points of sensitivity with regard to certain labour market sectors
in Rwanda has arguably led to the politicization of children’s rights. Failure to engage with
the vulnerabilities of children in the private sphere and informal labour sectors, though in
keeping with a number of other developing country contexts; may arguably a result of
complex interests beyond limited resources and capabilities. Consequently, researchers and
policy makers must remain highly vigilant and critical of state-sponsored data collection
29. 28
mechanisms and subsequent publications in the pursuit of the enhanced right of the child.
Discussion
From the outset, distinct different levels of awareness and engagement with children’s rights
legislation became apparent across sectors and urban and rural locations. An observable
information gap between the community and individual family level and local government
and national ministries is greatly in need of address. Children’s participation in UHL and
intensive labour activities both inside and outside the family home remains high in Rwanda.
Consequently, children remain active in dangerous and demanding forms labour that could
inhibit their development, health and educational outcomes. This is a result of many factors
including multidimensional poverty, low-income subsistence living, market pulls in cash crop
markets such as tea and coffee, and the desire of parents to transfer skills, knowledge and
discipline to children through labour activities.
In keeping with Dayioglu’s (2013) findings, the blurring and interchanging of terminology
and language like child labour, child work and light work represented a standout concern of
the research findings. A simple and easily transferrable definition of what may be considered
forms of child labour in Rwanda is both in the interests of the national government, the NGO
and INGO sectors12
as well as for the individual children and communities in which they live.
It remains however greatly lacking. Many respondents across every sector have sought to
clarify this distinction based upon two simple criteria:
1. Child Labour only occurs outside the family home. Work carried out within the family
unit, industry or land cannot be considered a form of child labour.
2. Activities can only be classified as forms of child labour if money changes hands
between the employer and the individual child.
Distinctions drawn upon these 2 conclusions evidently ignore and distract from the complex
and multidimensional nature of children’s participation in UHL and intensive labour activities.
Noted by members of the NGO/INGO and the Ministry of Labour is the reality that activities
classifiable as child labour regularly occur within the family setting where no money
exchanges hands. A continued ignorance to this fact and concentration on the formal labour
market will likely prove detrimental to fight against harmful activities many hundreds of
12
Some participants and even members of the NISR staff believed that many INGOs simply did not understand
the cultural relevance of children’s participation in agricultural activities particularly within the family home. One
NISR staff member went as far to claim that not only to certain INGOs misinterpret activities performed by
children as child labour but many exaggerate recorded data and child labour trends to justify their presence and
function in Rwanda.
30. 29
thousands of children are forced to do. It further hinders an already ineffective legal structure
designed to combat child labour.
An important finding within the data collected (and in keeping with the 2012 ICF report) is
the reality that many parents view their children’s participation in UHL and a host of labour
activities as greatly beneficial to their development and growth. This fact highlights the
complex participation of children in household and non-household labour activities beyond a
simple point of necessity for poor, low-income families. Recognized as an issue by many
respondents across sectors is the absence (particularly in the rural setting) of readily
available information on what is considered nationally and internationally acceptable labour
or household activities for children. In light of this reality, we must consider children’s
participation in UHL and intensive labour activities inside and outside the family home as
almost completely subject to their parents/guardians will and judgement.
Traditional intergenerational transference of knowledge and skills particularly with regard
to subsistence agriculture transcends both logic and reason in a country whereby in excess
of 75% of the population engages in subsistence or for-profit farming. Respondents noted
however points of tension occurring between said intergenerational education of children
and traditional educational attendance, performance and outcomes, and child health both as
a consequence of multidimensional poverty and parental decision making. Interventions
aiming to remove children from intensive and potentially harmful labour activities must
engage local parents and community-based organizations to foster child capacity
enhancement based upon social mobilization and participation.
The gender disaggregated findings of this research report reveal important insights on
the realities faced by young and adolescent girls. In keeping with the discourse referenced in
Chapter 2, namely Lyon et al (2013); a large percentage of respondents noted how girls
remain particularly vulnerable to child labour, demanding UHL and intensive labour activities.
Traditional gendered social stratifications in Rwanda have helped to burden girls with duties
far in excess of their male counterparts both inside and outside the family home. This form of
double-shift reality faced by young and adolescent girls can include domestic duties inside
and outside the home, intensive agricultural duties inside and outside the home and parental
responsibilities placed upon them. Importantly, respondents highlighted how such demands
negatively impact on child development, child health, and educational outcomes, and can
contribute to other harmful behaviours such as child marriage. The failure of national and
international bodies to adequately penetrate the informal labour sectors and private spheres
to enhance the capacity of vulnerable children has arguably the greatest consequences for
young and adolescent girls. This revelation should represent a significant point of
31. 30
consideration for policy makers and intervening bodies seeking to enhance the rights of the
child in Rwanda.
The negative impacts on children’s education remains a dominant measurement of child
labour and demanding UHL activities for children globally. In keeping with Lyon et al (2013)
and the ICF, INGOs operating in Rwanda such as Save the Children, Plan International, and
Concern Worldwide highlighted the importance of not only recording children’s attendance in
said measurement, but to look at the child’s overall performance and participation in class. In
addition to Mr Nambajimana, members of Concern Worldwide’s Parent Teacher Councils
(PTC’s) referenced a tri-part breakdown of children’s relationship with education and
intensive labour activities. These include; children who work and have never attended
school, children who combine intensive labour activities either inside or outside the home,
and children who are at risk of or have already dropped out of school to work. In keeping
with Dayioglu’s findings from Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys across 100 countries, the
second category represented for many participants the most common in Rwanda and a
particularly vulnerable group due the lack of research on this area.
PTC members across two districts made numerous references to the fact that children’s
performance and participation can be greatly interrupted by intensive and demanding UHL.
Fatigue, hunger and disinterest have been regularly observed by school staff who admittedly
struggle to engage vulnerable children and youth. While youth who have never attended
school as a consequence of labour activities or those who have dropped out for similar
needs should remain a top priority for internal and external bodies charged with enhancing
the capacity of vulnerable children, youth who are forced to combine said activities with
formal education appear to have remained in an evasive blind-spot. As is the case across
much of the developing world, this reality inhibits any challenge to universally celebrated
educational enrolment rates that have increased greatly during the MDG period but can offer
little in regard to quality and performance evaluation.
Engagement with UHL and intensive labour activities occurring in the private sphere and
informal labour markets of Rwanda reveal a complex and challenging reality that appears
both politically and ideologically charged with many vested interests. Efforts to discern
whether children remain vulnerable and largely ignored in private informal sectors naturally
presents an offensive challenge to national and international institutions and bodies
operating in this space. As is noted in Chapter 2 by Dayioglu (2013), the inclusion of
intensive forms of UHL both inside and outside the family home will likely enhance real
numbers of vulnerable children considerably. Consequently calling into question dominant
data collection mechanism and available data and information on current child labour trends,
32. 31
such as the 2008 NISR household survey. Respondents revealed contrasting views and
opinions on the inclusion of certain UHL activities under the language of child labour and
exploitation. Government ministries and certain cooperative members typically explained any
confusion on this matter by reference to outsider groups who fail to appreciate local
Rwandan tradition and context. While civil-society and community-based groups spoke
passionately of the need to penetrate the private and informal spheres to address vulnerable
youths. Importantly, what is clear is that there is confusion.
Efforts to gain greater insight into complex and equally controversial realities for
vulnerable children will no doubt be difficult in any setting. Coupled with considerations and
consequences of extreme poverty and insecure subsistence living, a researcher can find
himself/herself in a unique and tentative territory. The level of opposition experienced while
conducting this report (as discussed in Chapter 3 Limitations) was truly eye opening.
Opposition and discouragement came from almost all sectors of stakeholder including the
very body charged with my aiding data collection. The realities for vulnerable children in
Rwanda cannot be hidden however by simple bureaucratic barriers and attitudes of denial
and ignorance. One does not have to dig very deep to appreciate the issues facing
Rwanda’s vulnerable populations. The great challenge remains in designing unique, credibly
informed interventions that appreciate the complex nuances of daily life for vulnerable
children in the region. Said complexities and nuances discussed in this report are arguably
only revealing to in-depth qualitative research. While evidently more time and resource
consuming, it is the opinion of this author that it remains the only credibly way to inform
effective programming and interventions to enhance the rights of the child in some of the
world’s most challenging and unique environments.
33. 32
Conclusion
This research report endeavoured to demonstrate the need for in-depth qualitative
engagement with the complex and challenging realities often faced vulnerable children in
developing country contexts. Using Rwanda as a case study, the research sought to
highlight how dominate methods of data collection with regard to the rights of the child and
their protection from harmful, intensive and exploitative labour activities can be overly-
simplistic and often fail to appreciate complex factors that define and enhance the
phenomenon. Evidently child labour and intensive labour activities in Rwanda represent a
spectrum of severity and intensity and not merely a binary reality of yes or no. The exclusion
of (often) intensive and varied activities both within the household and outside from
measurements of child labour is resulting in fictional realities not enjoyed by millions of
children globally. While one should avoid ignorance in assuming that all children who aid
their parents or guardians in household and farming activities are victims of child labour,
further in-depth questions must to be asked of the role played by minors in the private
sphere and informal labour market in Rwanda. Such a pursuit would not seek solely the
accountability of low-income and multi-dimensionally poor parents and guardians, but rather
government actors and international donors who are charged with the advancement of key
human development indicators. The current structure and operating procedures of national
and international data collection actors appears highly subjective and greatly politicized often
leading to a conflict of interests and ultimately bad programming. The obvious detachment of
current actors from the realities of child labour in certain regions, beyond simple monetary
and quantifiable means, is evidently a consequence of much more than ignorance and an
inability to comprehend the multitude of complex and highly contextual characteristics.
34. 33
Bibliography
Attaran, A. 2005, “An Immeasurable Crisis? A Criticism of the Millennium Development
Goals and Why They Cannot be Measured” in PLoS Medicine. 2(10) 318.
Bryman, A. 2008, Social Research Methods (Third Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dayioglu, M. 2013, How Sensitive are Estimates of Working Children and Child Labour to
Definitions. New York: UNICEF.
Dayioglu, M. 2013, Impact of Unpaid Household Services on the Measurement of Child
Labour. New York: UNICEF.
Guarcello, L et al. 2005, Towards Statistical Standards for Children’s non-Economic Work: a
Discussion Based on Household Survey Data. Rome: UCW.
Gulloy, E. & Wold, B. 2004, Statistics for Development, Policy and Democracy. Oslo:
Statistics Norway.
ICF. 2013, Child Labour in Agriculture in the Northern Province of Rwanda. Washington: ICF
International.
ICF. 2012, Child Labour in Agriculture in the Northern Province of Rwanda. Washington DC:
ICF International.
Lyon, S et al. 2013, Unpaid Household Services and Child Labour. Geneva: ILO.
Ministry of Public Service and Labour. 2013, National Policy on Elimination of Child Labour.
Kigali: MOPSL.
National Institute of Statistics Rwanda. 2013, Seasonal Agricultural Survey Report Rwanda.
Kigali: NISR
National Institute of Statistics Rwanda. 2012, Socio-Economic Status of Children (Thematic
Report). Kigali: NISR.
National Institute of Statistics Rwanda. 2008, Rwanda National Child Labour Survey 2008.
Kigali: NISR.
OECD. 2012, Counting Down Poverty: the Role of Statistics in World Development. Paris:
OECD
OECD. 2012, Counting Down Poverty: the Role of Statistics in World Development. Paris:
OECD.
PLAN Rwanda. 2012, Promoting Child Rights to End Child Poverty in Rwanda. Kigali: PLAN
Rwanda.
Reach. 2013, Winrock Child Labour Community Engagement Toolkit: best Practices and
Resource Materials Drawn from the REACH Project. USA: Winrock International.
35. 34
Sandefur, J. & Glassman, A. 2014, the Political Economy of Bad Data: Evidence from
African Survey and Administrative Statistics. Washington: the Centre for Global
Development.
Save the Children. 2013, Combating Child Labour in Rwanda’s Tea Industry:
Linking Local and National Child Protection Systems (Final Evaluation). Kigali: STC
Save the. Children. 2014, Rwanda Country Office Child Rights Situational Analysis 2014:
Child Labour in Agriculture. Kigali: STC (to date unpublished)
USDLBILA. 2011, 2011 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labour (Rwanda). USA:
USDLBILA.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/rwanda.html
http://www.statistics.gov.rw/
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/where-we-work/africa/rwanda
https://www.concern.net/where-we-work/africa/rwanda
https://plan-international.org/where-we-work/africa/rwanda/
http://www.fawerwa.org/spip.php?article61
36. 35
Appendices
Sample Semi-structured Questionnaire
1. Do you think Child Labour remains a big issue in Rwanda?
2. From your own personal and working experience can you describe for me the current
situation of children working in agriculture?
3. The term “child labour” can carry a lot of negative connotations, do you feel there is
often confusion amongst certain bodies and international groups between what is
actually considered child labour in Rwanda?”
4. Do you think some of this “light work” can be dangerous for children?
5. Have you recorded any regional or district level differences in the level of work and
types of work children are engaged in?
6. Have you noted differing roles for boys and girls in terms of the labour activity?
7. Is there an existing pressure that pushes girls into more what some might call
“traditional household roles”?
8. Is there an age difference between boys and girls regarding their level of participation
in labour?
9. What do you see as the main reason behind children's involvement in agriculture?
10. Do you think there are reasons other than poverty for children's involvement in
agriculture, perhaps parents want the children to learn farming skills and knowledge?
11. Have you come across any cases where parents viewed their children’s involvement
in agriculture as a beneficial learning process whereby knowledge and skills are
transferred?
12. Other than attendance at school do you think participation in agriculture has an
impact on their performance and progression?
13. Do you think there is a tension between formal education attendance and
performance and training of children in agricultural skills by parents/guardians?
14. Is there a significant role for communities to play in combating the worst forms of
child labour?
15. What role does the Rwandan government play in combating negatives activities
which involve children?
16. Moving forward on this issue, what do you think are going to be the main challenges
will be and what approaches will be taken?
37. 36
Sample Focus Group Questionnaire
1. Are you aware of the term “Child Labour” and if so what does it mean to you?
2. Regarding the terms “Child Labour” and “Light Work” (as referenced by the ministry
of labour), is there a distinct and recognizable difference between them both?
3. Are there dangers involved in some of these light work activities or so-called
household chores?
4. Regarding gender, does there exist a disparity, are boys or girls more vulnerable to
forms of child labour?
5. Regarding activities on small-scale subsistence and family farming, are girls or boys
more likely to be involved?
6. What would you consider to be the main reason behind children’s presence and
involvement in the agricultural sector presently?
7. When you were children did you participate in agriculture and farming either inside or
outside you family home?
8. Do you think either (or both) child labour and so-called light work can have a negative
impact on a child’s education, notably on both attendance and performance?
9. What efforts need to be made by the state and stakeholders to combat child labour in
the agricultural sector?
