X hits on this document

65 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

22 / 26

The major problem with considering only monitoring visits data is that it did not capture the real magnitude of numbers and the complexity of the farmer’s behaviour in employing children. In several farms children were not found in monitoring visits, whereas in follow up visits to the same farms by the same CCP team children were observed.

The complete CCP data (monitoring as well as follow up visits) which Bayer finally shared with CCP state committee members in January 2007 indicate that the total ‘net’ number of children found in AP is significantly higher if one looks at both monitoring and follow up visits in comparison to what Bayer has stated based on only monitoring visits. Comparison of monitoring and follow up visits data for AP indicates that in 16 out of 61 farms child labourers were found only in follow up visits. In all monitoring visits to these 16 farms zero child labour was consistently reported. Table 6 presents two example cases where variations occurred in child labour incidents reported in monitoring and follow up visits. If children are found in follow up visits and zero child labour is reported in monitoring visits, it is difficult to understand how Bayer can consider only monitoring visits for the purpose of understanding the numbers.

23-8-06

25-8-06

8-10-06 six children

9-10-06

10-10-06

five children

three children

four children

three children

Area

Monitoring visits

Follow up

Follow up

Follow up

(acres) 1.25

No child labour found in all the 6 monitoring visits during 9th august to 4th November No child labour found in all the 6 monitoring visits during 30th august to 5th November

visit 1 25-8-06

visit 2 One child

visit 3

1

One child

7-10-06

Table 6: Child labour reported in monitoring and follow up visits

Farmer

K Narashihulu (Jammiched u village

Sankar reddy (Nattampad u village)

Follow up

Follow up

visit 4

visit 5

As already explained the monitoring and follow up visits data for Andhra Pradesh alone indicate the number of children found during all the visits are 68 (no double counting is done here; if children are repeatedly found during several visits only the visit recording the highest number is taken into consideration). The proportion of children to the total work force is11.2% and children per acre is 1.1. Even if we consider only monitoring visits the net number of children is 32 and children per acre is 0.5. The data of 0.08 cases of children per acre and 1.5% of children to total workforce as reported by Bayer was based on cumulative numbers of children found and cumulative acreage monitored in all the monitoring visits. The cumulative figures are not helpful to understand the exact number of children employed on the farms and to prepare an action plan for the

22

Document info
Document views65
Page views65
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 16:32:14 UTC 2016
Pages26
Paragraphs724
Words9957

Comments