Publications

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

IV. CHILD LABOR

Human Rights Watch believes that without reliable government data documenting the scope and scale of child labor in the banana sector, it would be difficult for the government or other institutions to design programs and allocate sufficient resources to remedy violations of child banana workers' human rights. Human Rights Watch, however, was unable to obtain reliable estimates concerning the number of child laborers in Ecuador's banana sector. The Ecuadorian government does not keep such statistics. Although the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC) signed an agreement with the International Labor Organization's (ILO) Statistical Information and Monitoring Programme on Child Labour (SIMPOC) in June 2001 to implement a national child labor survey and began the survey in August 2001, this survey will also not disaggregate data by occupation.44 Other available data, however, provide some guideposts with which to estimate the scope of child labor in the banana sector. In 1994, according to government estimates, approximately 38 percent of all children in Ecuador between the ages of ten and seventeen worked, roughly 808,000 children, approximately 419,000 of whom were between the ages of ten and fourteen.45 In the rural sector, roughly 59 percent of children between ages ten and seventeen worked, approximately 568,000 children.46 In 1998, another government survey indicated that the percentage of children at work between the ages of ten and seventeen in Ecuador had risen to 45 percent.47 There is no breakdown of these figures by industry, however. Based on these statistics assessing the general scope of child labor in Ecuador; Human Rights Watch interviews with seventy current and former child and adult banana workers, most of whom described laboring on plantations alongside other child workers; and the ease with which child banana workers can be found in villages near plantations, Human Rights Watch believes that child labor on banana plantations in Ecuador is widespread.

The forty-five child banana workers-persons under the age of eighteen-with whom Human Rights Watch spoke described the labor conditions under which they worked and the tasks they performed, many of which, under international law, rank their employment among the "worst forms of child labor." They explained that they were exposed to toxic chemicals, handling insecticide-treated plastics, working under fungicide-spraying airplanes in the fields, and directly applying post-harvest pesticides in packing plants. They described using sharp tools, including knives, short curved blades, and machetes, and lacking potable water and sanitation facilities. Four boys explained how they hauled heavy loads of bananas from the fields to the packing plants, and three pre-adolescent girls described experiencing sexual harassment.

When asked why they worked, the vast majority of the children answered that they worked to provide money for their parents to purchase food and clothing for their families. A fourteen-year-old who had worked on plantation Balao Chico in the canton of Balao, approximately seventy miles south of Guayaquil in southern Guayas province, since age twelve succinctly summarized the responses of most children when he explained, "I have to work. There is no money."48

The average age at which these forty-five children began working on banana plantations was eleven. Only four started working at age fourteen or above. The other forty-one became banana workers between the ages of eight and thirteen, without prior juvenile court authorization, in violation of both Ecuadorian law and the ILO Minimum Age Convention. Although two of the children indicated that they worked approximately five-hour days, the vast majority worked between nine and thirteen hours a day, with an average workday of eleven hours, also in violation of Ecuadorian law, as well as the ILO Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention), whose recommendation identifies "work under particularly difficult conditions such as work for long hours" as one of "the worst forms of child labor."49

Child Labor under International Law

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states, "Every child shall have . . . the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State."50 The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that children-all persons under eighteen "unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier"-have a right "to be protected 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 or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development."51 All states parties to the convention are required to "undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in this Convention."52 The Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention expounds on the prohibition of harmful and hazardous work, calling for the elimination of "the worst forms of child labour," defined to include "work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children."53 Under the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, each state party "shall take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency."54

According to the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, states parties shall determine what constitutes hazardous work prohibited by the convention in consultation with workers' and employers' organizations, considering "relevant international standards, in particular . . . the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation."55 The recommendation establishes that, in determining the types of work to be considered hazardous, consideration should be given to:

a) work which exposes children to physical, psychological or sexual abuse;

b) work underground, under water, at dangerous heights, or in confined spaces;

c) work with dangerous machinery, equipment and tools, or which involves the manual handling or transport of heavy loads;

d) 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;

e) 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.56

In addition to establishing a minimum threshold regarding working conditions appropriate for children, the ILO also sets out a minimum age for joining the workforce. The ILO Minimum Age Convention states that the minimum age for admission to employment "shall not be less than the age of completion of compulsory schooling and, in any case, shall not be less than 15 years."57 An exception to the minimum age of fifteen is made only for "a Member whose economy and educational facilities are insufficiently developed," which may "initially specify a minimum age of 14 years."58

Exposure to Hazardous Substances

I went under the packing plant roof until the [fumigation] plane left-less than an hour. I became intoxicated. My eyes were red. I was nauseous. I was dizzy. I had a headache. I vomited.

-Marcos Santos, describing an event that occurred when he was eleven and working on plantation Guabital in the canton of Balao.59

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has recognized that "[c]hildren are at a greater risk for [sic] some pesticides for a number of reasons. Children's internal organs are still developing and maturing and their enzymatic, metabolic, and immune systems may provide less natural protection than those of an adult."60 Similarly, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an international environmental nongovernmental organization (NGO), "a sizable body of evidence has shown that children's health is uniquely threatened by environmental hazards."61 In particular, the NRDC has found that, when in the presence of pesticides, children are proportionately more exposed than adults, due to several factors, including that children's resting breathing rate is significantly higher than resting adults', children have a skin surface area per unit of body weight far greater than adults, and children may be less able than adults to expel toxins from their bodies due to immature kidneys.62

Despite the heightened risks they face when exposed to toxic chemicals, most of the child workers with whom Human Rights Watch spoke came into contact with pesticides at one or more stages in the banana production process. Most were never told by employers of the health hazards and dangers of such exposure nor what measures to take to protect themselves from contamination. And in many cases, these often toxic pesticides had been approved for application by the banana-exporting corporations supplied by the plantations on which the children labored, which Human Rights Watch believes makes these corporations highly complicit in the violation of those children's right to health.

Insecticide-treated plastics

The banana production process involves the use of insecticide-treated plastics, which are placed on banana stalks growing in the fields to protect the developing fruit from harmful insects. Most commonly, these insecticides are applied to plastic bags that cover the entire banana stalks, from top to bottom, and to long and thin plastic strips, which are tied around the stalks at each end of the bags. Children reported being involved in placing these treated plastics on the plants, removing them in the packing plants, gathering them from the packing plant floors, and disposing of them.

From lists of the pesticides approved by Chiquita, Dole, and Noboa for use on their directly owned and supplier plantations in Ecuador, provided to Human Rights Watch by representatives of these corporations in Ecuador, Human Rights Watch learned that two of the most common insecticides used in Ecuador to treat the plastics are diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Both insecticides are classified as "moderately hazardous," category II by the World Health Organization (WHO), which measures pesticides' acute risk to human health-the risk caused by exposures over a short period of time-based on their oral and dermal toxicity to rats.63 According to United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization guidelines, all "moderately hazardous" pesticides should be labeled with a yellow band and the warning, "harmful."64

In May through July 2001, chlorpyrifos was deemed a "restricted use product" by the U.S. EPA, and in May 2001, diazinon also appeared on the "restricted use product" list.65 In June 2000, citing health risks to children, the U.S. EPA reached an agreement with pesticide registrants to phase out certain uses of chlorpyrifos, canceling first "[t]hose uses that pose the most immediate risks to children" and use in schools, parks, and other settings "where children may be exposed."66 In December 2000, the U.S. EPA similarly announced that the agency had reached an agreement to phase out the use of diazinon because the chemical "is among a class of chemicals . . . which attack the nervous system and are believed to pose special threats to children, even at low doses."67

Diazinon and chlorpyrifos are both organophosphates. Originally synthesized in World War II as nerve warfare agents,68 organophosphates interfere with cholinesterase, "the enzyme [in the brain] that breaks down a critical nerve-impulse-transmitting chemical," causing the over-expression of certain nerve impulses and producing "an array of acute toxic symptoms."69 Among the symptoms of poisoning are headache, nausea, dizziness, salivation, sweating, wheezing, coughing, tightness in the chest, blurred vision, and in more severe cases, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and slurred speech. At particularly high toxicity levels, seizures, coma, and death may result.70 Chronic effects may include "impaired memory and concentration, disorientation, severe depressions, irritability, confusion, headache, speech difficulties, delayed reaction times, nightmares, sleepwalking and drowsiness or insomnia."71 There is also:

substantial evidence from animal studies that chronic, low-level exposure to organophosphates affects neurodevelopment and neurobehavioral functioning in developing animals. Given this evidence, it is plausible that chronic, low-level exposure to organophosphates adversely affects children's developing nervous systems, possibly resulting in lower cognitive function, behavior disorders, and other subtle neurological deficits.72

Because organophosphates can be absorbed through the skin, "dermal contact should be avoided."73 Skin contact "may cause localized sweating and involuntary muscle contractions" and may lead to other systemic effects, described above.74

These organophosphates are two of the insecticides most commonly applied in Ecuador to treat the plastics used in the banana production process. Human Rights Watch, however, could not determine whether these organophosphates were used on the twenty-five plantations on which the forty-five children interviewed labored. Nonetheless, because seventeen of these forty-five children described being in contact with insecticide-treated plastics at one of the stages in the banana production cycle, several anecdotally told of experiencing symptoms of pesticide poisoning after such contact, and each of these organophosphates has been approved by at least one of the five banana-exporting corporations discussed in this report, the issue merits further investigation.

Guillermo Guerrero, a fourteen-year-old boy, stated that since he was thirteen, he had been working on Balao Chico tying insecticide-treated plastic strips around the tops and bottoms of banana stalks.75 He described climbing up a ladder, tying the two strips, climbing down the ladder, and then carrying the ladder to the next plant to repeat the process.76 Similarly, Carlos Ortiz, a thirteen-year-old boy, explained that, since he was twelve, he had worked in the fields of three plantations in the canton of Balao-Santa Carla, Guabital, and Balao Chico-following a similar procedure to place insecticide-treated plastic bags over banana stalks and tie the treated plastic strips at the stalks' ends.77

Several children with whom Human Rights Watch spoke described the effects of handling plastics treated with insecticides. Daniel Ríos, a seventeen-year-old who stated that he had been tying pesticide-treated strips on banana stalks on plantation Balao Chico since he was thirteen, explained, "You can become poisoned from the chemicals. It makes you sick to your stomach and makes you vomit. This happened to me when I was fifteen. . . . My head hurt. I was sick to my stomach."78 Gregorio Bonilla, a fourteen-year-old boy, stated that recently, while working on the plantation Predio Rústico La Rural, C.A., nicknamed "Pileta," in the canton of Balao, "I got sick working in the fields putting a pesticide-treated plastic strip on the banana stalk. . . . I was not using protective equipment. . . . I had a headache. I was dizzy. I went home. . . . I didn't go to the doctor."79 Similarly, Carlos Ortiz stated that when he was eleven and tying insecticide-treated plastic strips on banana stalks on plantation Guabital, "I began to feel bad. . . . My head hurt. . . . I went home."80

Many of the children with whom Human Rights Watch spoke, including Carlos Ortiz, stated that they did not use any protective equipment, not even gloves, while handling the treated plastics. Others explained that although they used gloves, they bought them themselves because employers did not provide them. Marta Mendoza, a twelve-year-old girl who had been working since age eleven on the four plantations of Las Fincas in the canton of Balao-San Alejandro, San Fernando, San Gabriel, and San José-told Human Rights Watch that she wore protective gloves to handle insecticide-treated plastics, but "I bought them with my own money. They don't give you any equipment."81

Applying pesticides in the packing plants

Children had also been exposed to pesticides when they directly applied fungicides to bananas being prepared for shipment in packing plants-holding small, fungicide-filled tanks and spraying the chemicals through hoses onto the bananas. From the lists of pesticides approved by Chiquita, Dole, and Noboa for use on their directly owned and supplier plantations in Ecuador, Human Rights Watch learned that the most commonly applied pesticides at this stage of production are thiabendazole and imazalil. As with organophosphates, imazalil is classified as "moderately hazardous," category II.82 It has been found to cause muscle incoordination, reduced arterial tension, tremors, and vomiting,83 and the International Programme on Chemical Safety, composed of the WHO, the ILO, and the United Nations Environment Programme,84 has noted that "a harmful concentration of airborne particles can . . . be reached quickly on spraying" and long-term or repeated exposure "may have effects on the liver, resulting in impaired functions and tissue lesions."85 The product label for imazalil indicates that the chemical may cause "eye damage" and warns, "Do not get in eyes or on clothing. Wear goggles when handling."86 Thiabendazole, however, is classified by the WHO as "unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use."87 Despite its WHO classification, thiabendazole, according to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, can cause "irritation to the upper respiratory tract" and, if overexposure results, can cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, headache, weakness, drowsiness, and lack of appetite.88 Other symptoms, including itching, rashes, and chills, may occur less frequently.89 According to various product labels in which the active ingredient is thiabendazole, the chemical also causes moderate eye irritation and can be harmful if inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and users should wear rubber gloves and protective clothing when handling.90

Although thiabendazole and imazalil are the two pesticides most commonly applied in Ecuador to post-harvest bananas, Human Rights Watch could not verify that they were used on the plantations on which the forty-five children interviewed by Human Rights Watch worked. Nevertheless, fourteen of these children stated that they applied pesticides in the packing plants. One nine-year-old girl told Human Rights Watch that she began applying pesticides when she was eight, working on San Alejandro and San Gabriel of the plantation group Las Fincas.91

Several of the children also stated that they did not wear any protective equipment-no gloves, no mask, no goggles, no apron-while applying these chemicals. Humberto Rojas, a fourteen-year-old boy who began as a banana worker at age thirteen, explained, "Sometimes I spray pesticides with the tank in the packing plant. It [the tank] has a hose. I don't [wear] protective equipment. No gloves, no mask." He continued, stating that there was "no orientation. They teach you how to use the tank, [but] only how to use the tank. Nothing about protection."92 Similarly, Armando Heredia, an eleven-year-old boy, explained that he applied fungicides in a packing plant on plantation San Miguel in the canton of Naranjal, approximately fifty miles south of Guayaquil in southern Guayas province, and that "they don't give you masks. . . . Later, my gloves were damaged, and I began to apply the pesticides with my hands. My dad [had] bought me my gloves. There they don't give them to you."93

A number of children described feeling ill after direct exposure to the chemicals applied to the bananas in the packing plants. Ricardo Leiva, a twelve-year-old boy, told Human Rights Watch that when he was eleven, working on a plantation he called "Paladines" in the canton of Balao, "I got sick. . . . I had a headache, fever, [and] cough. I was applying pesticides in the packing plant. The liquid got on my face. I didn't say anything to my boss. I kept on working."94 Leiva later added, "I never wear gloves. I don't wear anything. They don't give you equipment."95 Teresa Rivera, a seventeen-year-old girl, stated that for a short time while seventeen she applied fungicides in a packing plant on Balao Chico, wearing an apron, gloves, and mask, but that "when I applied the pesticides, my head hurt. That's why I left there."96 Marcos Santos, a twelve-year-old boy, explained that he became sick simply from working near pesticide application occurring in a packing plant on Guabital. He explained that, when he was eleven, he was working near pesticide application and "twice I got sick. . . . I vomited. I had a headache. Both times, I went home. The first time, I told the boss. . . . He said, `Wash your face. Wash your hands. Go home.' The second time, the boss was not there. I went home."97

Working during aerial crop fumigation

In addition, children working on banana plantations were exposed to toxic pesticides when they continued laboring in the fields or in packing plants while fungicide-spraying airplanes passed overhead. According to the information provided to Human Rights Watch by representatives of Chiquita, Dole, and Noboa, a variety of different fungicides are sprayed aerially on banana plantations in Ecuador. Based on this information, Human Rights Watch has learned that among the most common are tridemorph, propiconazole, benomyl, mancozeb, azoxystrobin, and bitertanol. The first two are classified as "moderately hazardous," category II by the WHO, while the others are labeled by the WHO as "unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use."98 Regardless of their classifications, however, the U.S. EPA has established restricted-entry intervals (REIs)-the time after pesticide application when entry into the treated area is banned or limited-for all aerially applied pesticides, setting a minimum REI of four hours, during which time workers should not be permitted, under any circumstances, to enter treated areas.99

Though deemed "unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use," at least three of the latter four fungicides listed above have been found to cause mild adverse health effects. For example, the U.S. EPA has established a twenty-four-hour REI for mancozeb, identified as "moderately irritating to the skin and respiratory mucous membranes," causing itching, scratchy throat, sneezing, coughing, and nose or throat inflammation.100 The U.S. EPA has also established a twenty-four-hour REI for benomyl and a twelve-hour REI for azoxystrobin,101 both of which have been found to cause skin reactions and irritation.102 Benomyl has also been classified by the U.S. EPA as a possible human carcinogen.103 Furthermore, in the United States, over one hundred lawsuits from across the world have been filed against the U.S. company producing the benomyl product used on Ecuador's banana plantations, alleging, among other claims, that the chemical is responsible for serious birth defects in children whose parents were exposed to the product, including cleft palate and being born with no eyes.104 On April 19, 2001, the company announced that it would cease sales of the product on December 31, 2001, though it stated that it "remains fully confident" that the product "is safe when used as directed."105 Bitertanol is not registered for use in the United States; the U.S. EPA, therefore, has not established an REI for the product, nor have conclusive determinations been made regarding the product's toxicity for humans.106

The two "moderately hazardous" fungicides frequently applied to banana crops through aerial fumigation-tridemorph and propiconazole-can cause a variety of unpleasant symptoms. Both have been classified by Germany's Federal Environment Agency as "potential endocrine disrupter[s],"107 "capable of interfering with the proper functioning of estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormones," which can result in sterility or decreased fertility and metabolic disorders.108 They have also been found to cause both skin and eye irritation,109 and propiconazole has been classified by the U.S. EPA as "a possible human carcinogen."110 The REI established by the U.S. EPA for propiconazole, according to its product label, is twenty-four hours, while tridemorph has not been registered with the U.S. EPA for use in the United States.111

Although these six fungicides are among those most commonly applied aerially to banana plantations in Ecuador, Human Rights Watch cannot verify which, if any, were applied on the plantations on which the forty-five children interviewed by Human Rights Watch labored. However, Human Rights Watch discussed with forty of these children the procedures adopted by their plantations with respect to aerial fumigation. Of the forty, thirty-eight stated that they continued working on the plantations while the airplanes sprayed the banana fields. Diego Rosales, a fourteen-year-old who had worked on plantation Guabital since he was thirteen, explained, "When the plane passes, you keep working. When the water falls on you, you can feel it on your skin. You keep working."112

Fifteen of the children who continued working while pesticide-spraying airplanes flew overhead described to Human Rights Watch various adverse health effects that they had suffered after aerial fumigation, including headaches, fever, dizziness, red eyes, stomachaches, nausea, vomiting, trembling and shaking, itching, burning nostrils, fatigue, and aching bones. Although these symptoms of pesticide poisoning could also be attributed to other illnesses, the link between these ailments and the six commonly applied fungicides described in this section-each approved by at least two of the five banana-exporting corporations discussed in this report-merits further investigation.

Fabiola Cardozo said that twice when she was twelve and working in a packing plant on San Alejandro of the plantation group Las Fincas, she became ill after aerial fumigation. She described that the first time, "I got a fever. . . . I told my boss that I felt sick, and he didn't believe me [but] told me to go home. I went home, and my mother took me to the doctor. . . . [The second time,] I became covered with red things. They itched. I had a cough. My bones hurt. I told my boss. He sent me home. I didn't go to the doctor."113 Similarly, Carolina Chamorro told Human Rights Watch that after aerial fumigation, "I felt sick twice. I was ten years old. . . . I began to shake." She said that she thought she was going to faint and told her boss, who sent her home, and that her mother took her to the doctor.114 Susana Gómez, a sixteen-year-old who had worked in a packing plant on Santa Carla in the canton of Balao since she was fourteen, explained that after aerial spraying, "My nose burns. The liquid gets in my nose because of the wind, and my hands begin to itch."115 Cristóbal Alvarez, a twelve-year-old boy, also explained, "That poison-sometimes it makes one sick. Of course, I keep working. I don't cover myself. Once I got sick. I vomited [and] had a headache . . . after the fumigation. I was eleven years old. . . . I told my bosses. They gave me two days to recover. I went home. The bosses didn't take me to the doctor. My mom took me."116

The children told Human Rights Watch about the various methods that they used to protect themselves from the toxic liquid: hiding under banana leaves, bowing their heads, covering their faces with their shirts, covering their noses and mouths with their hands, and placing banana cartons on their heads. As one boy, Enrique Gallana, a fourteen-year-old working on plantation San Carlos in Balao, explained, "When the planes pass, we cover ourselves with our shirts. . . . We just continue working. . . . We can smell the pesticides."117 Three child packing plant workers and two child field workers also stated that their bosses provided them with masks when the aerial fumigation began but expected them to continue working.118 Eduardo Martínez, a fourteen-year-old who had worked on Balao Chico since he was thirteen, stated, however, that he did not wear the mask provided by his boss and that nobody wore their masks.119

Many of the packing plant workers explained that they were shielded by the packing plant roofs from the toxic liquid sprayed from the airplanes. Nevertheless, the packing plants are open-air structures with concrete or dirt floors, roofs on posts, and no walls. Several children correctly observed that, although they were covered by a roof, the fungicide could, nonetheless, be carried through the air into the packing plant's interior. As Armando Heredia, an eleven-year-old working on plantation San Miguel in the canton of Naranjal, explained, "The airplane only passes over the fields, [but] it [the liquid] comes to us with the wind. We cover ourselves with our shirts when the liquid comes."120 The U.S. EPA has recognized this concept as "spray drift," noting, "When pesticide solutions are sprayed by . . . aircraft, droplets are produced. . . . Many of these droplets can be so small that they stay suspended in air and are carried by air currents."121

Work with Dangerous Tools

You cut the piola with a knife . . . [and] put it in a bag that hangs from a pulley. . . . The pulley is on a cable. . . . The pulley fell on my head. . . . It was loose and fell. I was bleeding and needed five stitches. . . . I was ten.

-Fabiola Cardozo, describing work in 1999 on San Alejandro of the plantation group Las Fincas.122

Children described using sharp knives, machetes, and curvos-short, thick, crescent-shaped blades with wooden handles-for a variety of tasks on the plantations. Fifteen children reported handling curvos, five machetes, and one a sharp knife used to cut yellow leaves off the banana plants. The children enumerated a variety of uses for the curvos, including cutting piola-the thick plastic used to stabilize banana plants by tying them to each other; cutting bananas off their stalks; making banana clusters; cutting plastic color-coded ties, used to indicate bananas' stages of development, off the banana stalks; cutting off plastic bags used to cover the banana stalks; and cutting off the long plastics interwoven among bananas to prevent them from damaging each other. They also explained that with the machetes they weeded the fields, cut piola, and cut yellow leaves off the banana plants.

Twelve of the children told Human Rights Watch that they had cut themselves with these sharp tools at least once. Cristóbal Alvarez said that in 2001, at age twelve, working on Frutos Bellos, C.A., nicknamed "La María," in the canton of Balao, "I cut myself once. I put up with it. I didn't tell anyone. I put syrup from the banana stalk on it, and there was no more blood."123 Leonardo Chamorro, a thirteen-year-old boy, similarly explained, "I have cut myself, twice on San José [of the plantation group Las Fincas]. I was twelve. I told the boss that I cut myself, and he sent me home. There was a lot of blood. My mom healed it."124 Pedro Sandoval also described that when he was thirteen, "I cut myself with a curvo on [plantation] Porvenir. I was helping cut bananas off the stalks." He added, "It stayed like this," and he showed Human Rights Watch how the injury had not properly healed.125 Carla Chamorro, now eleven, also stated, "I cut myself while learning to cut the bananas off the stalk. . . . I was ten years old. . . . I was working on [the plantation group] Las Fincas."126

Transport of Heavy Loads

Four boys told Human Rights Watch that they hauled bananas- approximately twenty full stalks per trip-from the fields to the packing plants. To haul the bananas, a child attaches a harness over his shoulders and around his waist and hooks a wire from his waist to an iron pulley riding on cables, from which the banana stalks are hung on iron wheels. Using this pulley system, a child is able to drag the bananas behind him in the air along the cable as he walks from the field to the packing plant. Carlos Ortiz, a thirteen-year-old, explained that when he was twelve, working on plantation Guabital, he began to haul bananas from the fields using this system. He explained that he pulled twenty banana stalks at once, making about eight trips per day, four days a week. He said, "It weighs a lot."127 Enrique Gallana, now fourteen, also described that when he was ten, working on plantation Santa Carla, he began hauling bananas to the packing plant, also pulling twenty at a time, making five or six trips-two kilometers (1.25 miles) one way-from the field to the plant, each trip taking about one hour.128

When Human Rights Watch asked Guillermo Salgueiro of the Workplace Risks Division of the Ecuadorian Institute for Social Security about the health and safety implications of this practice, Salgueiro replied that the appropriate way to haul bananas from the field to the packing plant is with a mechanized tractor attached to the cables, "not on the ground, because when that person pulls . . . with the body, he suffers problems with the lumbar region."129 Hauling bananas using the technique described by the four boys, therefore, even if the process proceeds smoothly, can cause back injury to the young children dragging the fruit behind them. When the process goes wrong, however, and heavy objects fall from the cables, other severe injuries can occur.

Enrique Gallana told Human Rights Watch that once a stalk of bananas, which can weigh somewhere between fifty and one hundred pounds, fell off the cable and landed on him, knocking him over. Diego Rosales, a fourteen-year-old, explained that three times, "Those things that they use to transport the banana stalks, the iron things they put on the cables, there was one that fell off. It was placed badly, and I didn't realize, and it fell on my head. . . . It breaks the skin and makes you bleed."130 Carlos Ortiz described a similar experience, stating that when he was twelve, one of the wheels from the cable fell on his head, and "my head split open. Blood came out. I went home, [but] I didn't go to the doctor. I told my boss, and he gave me permission to go home."131

Lack of Potable Water and Sanitation

Eighteen children told Human Rights Watch that at least one of the plantations on which they had worked did not have a bathroom for workers to use. Boys explained that, in such situations, if they had to urinate, they went to the banana fields to do so. Three girls, Marta Mendoza, Fabiola Cardozo, and Marta Cárdenas, explained that on San Fernando of the plantation group Las Fincas, there was no bathroom in the packing plant, and "you have to go to the canal to use the bathroom in San Fernando. There is [also] no faucet to wash your hands."132

Although most children stated that in the packing plants where they had worked they had access to water they believed to be potable from wells, tanks with chlorine, sink faucets, or hoses, some told Human Rights Watch that there was no potable water for them to drink when they became thirsty while working on the plantations. Several children explained that when they were thirsty, they went home to get water, and four children told Human Rights Watch that when they wanted water, they had to purchase water from small stores on the plantations. Jorge Arrata, a thirteen-year-old who had worked on plantation San José, owned by Parazul, S.A., in the canton of Balao since he was eleven, explained, "There is not water to drink. You have to buy water if you are thirsty. There is a store in the packing plant. . . . It costs [U.S.] $0.25 for a bottle of water."133

A few children described drinking water from the runoff canals that travel through the plantations. Guillermo Guerrero, a fourteen-year-old working in the fields of Balao Chico, told Human Rights Watch, "You have to bring water from home in a bottle." If that water runs out, he said, "you have to look for water in the canals. . . . The boss won't give you any."134 Similarly, Diego Rosales, age fourteen, explained that in the fields of Guabital, where he was working, there was no potable water, only water running in the canals. He told Human Rights Watch that once he broke his arm when he fell into a canal. He said he was thirsty and, like Guillermo Guerrero, was trying to get some water to drink. The canals drain excess water from the fields and catch plantation runoff, including aerially-sprayed fungicides, nematicides sprinkled around the bases of the plants to kill root-eating worms, herbicides sprayed on the ground, fertilizers, and human and animal waste.135

Two children also described as "dirty" the water provided to them by the plantations to drink with their lunches. Diego Rosales, who stated that he paid U.S. $0.60 for a lunch consisting of broth, rice, and water from the well, told Human Rights Watch, "There are days when it [the water] is clear. There are days when it is dirty."136 Enrique Gallana also explained that at plantation San Carlos in the canton of Balao where he was working at age fourteen, he was provided lunch for free but is given water "from the rivers" to drink.137

Sexual Harassment

Human Rights Watch interviewed three young girls, ages twelve, twelve, and eleven, who described being sexually harassed by the "boss" of the packing plants on San Fernando and San Alejandro, plantations of the Las Fincas group. Marta Mendoza, a twelve-year-old who began working on Las Fincas at age eleven, explained, "There is a boss at the plant who's very sick. . . . This man is rude. He goes around touching girls' bottoms. . . . He is in charge there and is always there. He told me that he wants to make love to me. Once he touched me. I was taking off plastic banana coverings, and he touched my bottom. He keeps bothering me. He goes around throwing kisses at me. He calls me `my love.'" Mendoza added, "He gave my cousin the nickname `whore.'"138 Miriam Campos, an eleven-year-old who in 2001 began working on San Fernando and San Alejandro, started to tell Human Rights Watch that "that man" had "said something dirty to me" that "was ugly," but she stopped, looked down at her feet, and said she was too embarrassed to continue.139 Fabiola Cardozo, a twelve-year-old who began working on Las Fincas at age ten, similarly commented, "The boss of the packing plants . . . says, `Oh, my love.' When we bend down to pick up plastic bags, he says, `Allí para meterle huevito.' [`There is a good place to stick my balls.']" She added that "he says, `You are going to marry me, and you are going to kiss me.'"140

An adult working in the San Fernando and San Alejandro packing plants corroborated the girls' accounts of sexual harassment. When asked about sexual harassment, she responded, "This happens. The little girls, . . . personnel of the administration, heads of the packing plants, quality inspectors . . . bother them. They begin with bad words, . . . vulgar things. The men in the work teams also invite them out, [saying], `I'll pay you X amount.' . . . There is no respect . . . for them. [They grab] the breasts [and] bottoms of the girls. Some [girls] laugh. Others fight and argue. . . . The boys go around grabbing their breasts and behinds [as well as] people from the company and work colleagues."141

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) requires states parties to "condemn discrimination against women in all its forms" and "agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women."142 Although CEDAW does not specifically address sexual harassment in the workplace, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), which monitors the implementation of CEDAW, has identified sexual harassment as a form of gender-based violence prohibited by the convention. The CEDAW Committee has defined sexual harassment to include:

such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as physical contact and advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable ground to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment . . . or when it creates a hostile working environment.143

The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará), on the other hand, explicitly prohibits sexual harassment, defining violence against women to include violence "that occurs in the community and is perpetrated by any person, including . . . sexual harassment in the workplace."144 The Convention of Belém do Pará requires and the CEDAW Committee recommends that states parties establish effective measures, including legal sanctions, to prevent such violence and protect women against it.145

When the victims of sexual harassment are girls, international law establishes additional protections and prohibits their employment in the hostile work environment created. The Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention requires states to "take account of the special situation of girls,"146 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits child labor that "is likely to be . . . harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development."147 The Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation also includes "work which exposes children to physical, psychological or sexual abuse" as one of the "worst forms of child labour" that must be immediately eliminated.148

Although Ecuador is a state party to CEDAW, Ecuadorian law does not explicitly prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace nor sex discrimination in employment. Instead, the law sets forth broad discrimination prohibitions. For example, the Constitution establishes a general prohibition of "sex discrimination," providing that "[a]ll people will be considered equal and will enjoy the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities, without discrimination based on . . . sex,"149 making no specific reference to employment. The Labor Code also fails even to mention employment discrimination, with the exception of the requirement that women and men receive "equal pay for equal work."150

Similarly, although Ecuador has ratified both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, the Labor Code does not explicitly prohibit employers from placing children in the hostile work environment created by sexual harassment. The Labor Code prohibits employers generally from hiring children to perform jobs that can "be harmful to [the child's] physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development," but the law fails to define the scope of this prohibition. To comply with its obligations under international law, Ecuador should explicitly prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace and explicitly prohibit employment of children in the hostile work environment created by sexual harassment.

Incomplete Schooling

The majority of the children with whom Human Rights Watch spoke had quit school before the age of fifteen. Of the forty-two children who began working under the age of fifteen, thirty-seven discussed their schooling with Human Rights Watch, and only fourteen-approximately 38 percent-were still in school at age fourteen, working primarily during their vacations.151 The mother of a fourteen-year-old boy who left school at age thirteen to begin working on plantation Guabital expressed her frustration with the situation, stating, "All of my children work. Working, they're not able to advance. I wish that my children could study, but they can't because they have to work."152

Of those still in school, several explained that they often missed school to work. Jorge Arrata, a thirteen-year-old working on plantation San José owned by Parazul, S.A., explained, "I miss one day of school each week."153 Arrata's mother added with exasperation, "But the teacher does not want to give him permission to work."154 Three of the children still in school stated that they worked specifically so they could afford to remain in school. A thirteen-year-old who began work at age eleven said, "Almost all the money is for books because there is not enough money for school."155 Another thirteen-year-old who also began work at age eleven similarly explained, "I save [the money] so I can keep studying."156

The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that children have a right "to be protected from performing any work that is likely to . . . interfere with the child's education" and recognizes "the right of the child to education."157 It instructs states parties to "make primary education compulsory and available free to all . . . [and] take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates."158

School is mandatory in Ecuador for all children under fifteen and, according to the Constitution, is free through high school.159 The Minors' Code reiterates that "the State guarantees the right to education . . . [and] basic education is mandatory and free," guaranteeing all children access to basic education.160 Furthermore, in the case of child workers, employers share the obligation to "ensure that [the child] attends an educational establishment and completes . . . secondary instruction,"161 and juvenile courts may only grant work authorizations to children ages twelve and thirteen if the children can demonstrate that they have completed or are completing the mandatory minimum schooling.162

Nonetheless, work authorizations are rarely sought, and according to a juvenile court judge, even when they are, "in practice, it is not a requirement that school be finished. You receive authorization even if you have not completed [school]."163 Furthermore, the constitutionally guaranteed "free" public education is undermined by registration and book fees, which, when added to other costs such as uniforms, on average, can total between U.S. $200 and U.S. $250 per student per year,164 a sum that, according to wage data gathered by Human Rights Watch, would take the average child banana worker roughly between fifty-seven and seventy-one work days to earn. Based on salary information provided by twenty adult banana workers, Human Rights Watch estimates that families in the banana sector, even if both parents work on plantations, are likely to earn less than U.S. $250 per month.165

Child Labor under Domestic Law

Legislation is pending in Ecuador to raise the minimum age of employment to fifteen, the age of completion of mandatory schooling. Currently, however, children between the ages of fourteen and seventeen may work with the express authorization of their parents or other legal representatives.166 The employment of children under fourteen is prohibited by the Minors' Code, with the exception that juvenile courts may authorize children ages twelve and thirteen to work as apprentices if they have finished primary school.167 Before granting authorization, a juvenile court must determine that the tasks the apprentice will perform are "compatible with his condition, do not impede continuation of school, and are not noxious for his health."168

Under Ecuadorian law, children under eighteen and over fifteen may not work more than seven hours daily or thirty-five weekly and those under fifteen more than six hours daily or thirty weekly. 169 No child may work Sundays or holidays.170 In addition, adopting language similar to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the law provides that "the State will protect the minor from economic exploitation and from performing any work . . . that can interfere with [the child's] education or be harmful to [the child's] physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development."171 The law states that such hazardous work includes "handling psychotropic or toxic objects or substances" and "tasks that are considered dangerous or unhealthy."172 Limits are also placed on the maximum weight that can be manually transported by children.173 Demonstrating their compliance with these provisions, employers must maintain special registries with the age, type of work, number of hours worked, salary, and schooling status of each person under eighteen they employ and must send those registries monthly to the Ministry of Labor and Human Resources (Ministry of Labor).174 If a child nonetheless suffers a workplace illness or accident, despite these precautions and protections, as a result of performing tasks or working under conditions prohibited by law, the employer is presumed responsible, and the indemnity to be received by the child cannot be less than double the ordinary indemnity for such an accident or illness.175

The Ministry of Labor, through regional Labor Inspectorates, is responsible for ensuring that employers comply with these and other labor laws.176 Specifically, "[t]he Ministry of Labor will be responsible for monitoring actions and specific regulations for child labor . . . [,and] [t]he Ministry of Labor will designate one or more Labor Inspectors for Minors . . . in each province."177 The inspectors "may inspect, at any moment, . . . the conditions in which the work of minors is carried out."178 Violation of any of the protections and prohibitions regarding child labor can be punished with a fine of up to U.S. $200 if imposed by the regional Labor Directorate-the body overseeing the regional Labor Inspectorate-and up to U.S. $50 if imposed by labor inspectors or labor courts.179 Concurrently, a child or her legal representative can also bring a claim before a juvenile court for violation of the child's labor rights, and the court can sanction the violations with fines from one to three times the monthly minimum wage-U.S. $117 to U.S. $351 in the banana sector.180 Under the Minors' Code, the juvenile courts "will ensure that the rights of the child are integrally respected, preventing exploitation of the minor or violation of [the minor's] rights."181 In addition, like the Labor Inspectorates, the juvenile courts may "inspect, at any moment, . . . the conditions in which the work of minors is carried out."182

Enforcement of Domestic Legal Protections for Child Laborers

If applied, Ecuadorian legislation governing child labor could go a long way to preventing children from laboring in conditions likely to interfere with their right to education or to violate their right to health or development. The legislation could effectively prevent children from performing the worst forms of child labor. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Labor and the juvenile courts fail to fulfill their legally mandated responsibility to enforce the laws governing child labor, and the other governmental entities commissioned to address children's issues fail to include child workers in the banana sector in the scope of their activities.183

The result is an almost complete breakdown of the government bureaucracy responsible for enforcing child labor laws and preventing the worst forms of child labor in the banana sector. Ecuador, therefore, is failing to fulfill its international law obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, and the ILO Minimum Age Convention.



Ministry of Labor

When Human Rights Watch asked Berenice Cordero, a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) representative in Ecuador, about government enforcement of Ecuador's child labor laws, she replied, "The Ministry of Labor . . . is focused on other things. . . . It [functions] to resolve conflicts between workers and employers. The ministry . . . is not prepared for this. . . . This whole institutional framework does not function."184 A representative from the National Institute for Children and Families (INNFA), a primarily state-funded organization complementing government activities on children's issues, similarly explained, "The state does not control it [child labor] at all. . . . At this moment there is nothing to oversee compliance [with child labor laws]. . . . If the [labor] inspectors functioned, it would be different. If what little there is in law were applied, it would be different."185 He added, "The inspectorate doesn't do it [enforce child labor laws]. . . . [The inspectorate is] for adults, not children."186

Silvia Cevallos, director of labor inspectors for the coastal and Galápagos regions, Ecuador's banana-producing zone, explained that, despite the Labor Code requirement, "there are no inspectors for child labor. We take care of that ourselves. When there is a complaint . . . [or] if we have data that there are minors, . . . we send an inspector." Cevallos explained, however, that there are only eleven labor inspectors for the Guayas province, one for El Oro province, and one for Los Ríos province-the nation's three main banana-producing provinces.187 Too understaffed to carry out meaningful preventative inspections, the Labor Inspectorate must rely on complaints to drive its enforcement of child labor laws.188 Such a system, however, does not enable the Labor Inspectorate to evaluate, even less to address, the human rights violations suffered by children working on banana plantations, as evidenced by Cevallos' admission to Human Rights Watch-"I have not seen children working in the banana sector."189 As a result, the Ministry of Labor fails to protect children laboring in the banana sector and is virtually unable to prevent underage children from working.

The Labor Inspectorate's insufficient infrastructure violates Ecuador's obligations under article 10 of the ILO Labour Inspection Convention, which states, "The number of labour inspectors shall be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate."190 This violation not only affects the enforcement of child labor provisions but also other protections, such as health and safety norms, whose effective enforcement could go a long way towards eliminating the most egregious violations of child workers' human rights. For example, under Ecuadorian law, all workers, children and adults, must be provided potable water, restrooms, "the equipment necessary to protect them from the risks inherent in the tasks they are performing," and "precise training" on the correct use of that equipment.191 A representative of the Ecuadorian Social Security Institute, however, bluntly told Human Rights Watch, "The inspectors of the Ministry of Labor do not oversee compliance with health and safety laws. They don't do it."192 And Dr. Myriam Pozo, working directly for the Minister of Labor in the area of health and safety, explained:

We don't have a national policy [recognizing] the importance of prevention of risks in work and the obligation to provide healthy and safe conditions. . . . There is no programmed control. . . . To go to a place, perform an inspection, and make recommendations, there are very few teams for this. . . . Labor inspectors do not have the people trained to do these inspections of health and safety. There are two such inspectors . . . in the coastal region. . . . There is no time to perform preventive inspections.193

When asked about enforcement of laws governing pesticide application, Pozo responded:

The use of pesticides is our responsibility . . . [but] no one is demanding that the law be complied with. . . . The inspectorate does not know about pesticides. They are not trained for this. They don't know it. . . . We are very poor at this.194

The director of the Labor Directorate for the Coastal and Galápagos Region, who oversees the region's Labor Inspectorate, similarly stated that, with respect to pesticide use and handling, while he hopes that the laws are applied, "There is no control. There is no control with respect to labor authorities."195

Both producers and workers with whom Human Rights Watch spoke confirmed that government inspectors rarely, if ever, visit banana plantations. One plantation owner, when asked if government inspectors had visited his plantations, said, "No one. No authority. Never. They never visit agricultural properties. . . . The government doesn't demand anything. They have abandoned the worker."196 The president of the Regional Union of Farmworker Organizations of the Coast (UROCAL), an association of small banana producers, similarly noted that government inspectors "do not come. Only if you call them with an invitation. They never come to inspect. . . . A culture of supervision . . . -that doesn't exist."197 The general manager of CONABAN, an association of large producers, agreed, adding, "There is no oversight . . . by the Ministry of Labor. . . . They only function by complaint."198 An official of the Association of Banana Producers Orenses, an association of small and medium-sized banana producers, when asked about enforcement of child labor laws, told Human Rights Watch, "As far as I know, in the agricultural sector, they're not applied."199

Workers made similar observations. One worker noted, "They [government inspectors] never come. That's why there's abuse."200 Several workers explained that the only inspectors they ever saw were from banana-exporting corporations visiting plantations to verify fruit quality and production procedures. One commented that there were no government inspectors, "only inspectors of fruit, quality, but they don't worry about our well-being."201 Of the sixteen adult workers to whom Human Rights Watch posed the question of whether they had ever seen government inspectors enter the banana plantations on which they worked, not one responded in the affirmative.

Juvenile courts

As with the Labor Inspectorate, the juvenile courts lack the institutional capacity to "inspect, at any moment" the conditions in which children are laboring, which they are empowered to do by law, and, therefore, cannot effectively address the human rights violations suffered by child workers.202 According to Judge Arturo Márquez, from a juvenile court in Quito, "Going to observe, control-this is not a practice that is carried out. The tribunals do not inspect." He added that enforcing laws governing child labor "has not been a [national] priority. Society does not demand it; the state does not demand it, and the courts cannot do it." He explained that he has approximately 8,000 cases every year, saying, "I am smothered by cases. . . . An administrative entity, the Ministry of Labor, . . . should perform . . . these preventive inspections. A judge cannot go around doing that. . . . The [juvenile] justice system does not function, and [the state] continues giving it work that does not correspond to it." Without the infrastructure to make preventive site visits, the overburdened juvenile courts, like the understaffed Labor Inspectorate, rely on complaints submitted to enforce child labor laws and protections. Nevertheless, Judge Márquez told Human Rights Watch, "In the seven years I've been here, there has not been one [case in] which labor rights have been at issue."203

In addition, requests for work authorizations, mandatory for children under fourteen, are rarely filed. According to statistics kept by the juvenile courts, there were a total of 121 work authorizations provided in 2000 in the eight juvenile courts located in Ecuador's three main banana-producing provinces-El Oro, Guayas, and Los Ríos.204 In Guayas, the region in which all but one of the forty-five child banana workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch worked, there was a total of sixty-seven authorizations for all labor sectors.

Commenting on the work authorization process, Berenice Cordero, the UNICEF representative, stated that the system of juvenile court work authorization "does not function. . . . The employer has no interest in doing these procedures."205 Judge Márquez added, "Few ask for [work authorization]. Our problem is that there does not exist an authority that demands that employers comply."206

Other governmental bodies

In addition to the labor inspectors and the juvenile courts, several governmental bodies have been commissioned to address children's issues, including the National Council for Children and Adolescents, within the Ministry of Social Welfare; the National Directorate for the Protection of Minors, within the Ministry of Social Welfare; and the National Committee for the Progressive Elimination of Child Labor, within the Ministry of Labor.

The National Council for Children and Adolescents does not address child labor. According to Berenice Cordero of UNICEF, rather, it oversees kindergartens, day cares, and rehabilitation centers.207 Nonetheless, according to the General Regulation for the Minors' Code, the council "is responsible for policies for protection of working minors," in coordination with the National Directorate for Protection of Minors, juvenile courts, and the Ministry of Labor.208 Under the same regulation, the National Directorate for Protection of Minors, along with the juvenile courts and other local organizations, is asked to "establish . . . programs for protection, defense, and promotion of the rights of child workers . . . in the rural sector."209 In practice, the national directorate focuses on abandoned children, and, according to INNFA, has "neither a policy nor action on child labor."210

The National Committee for the Progressive Elimination of Child Labor, for its part, has among its legally mandated functions "[t]o approve the National Plan for the Progressive Elimination of Child Labor;" "[t]o promote, organize, assist, and coordinate policies and programs directed to prohibit, restrict, and regulate child labor;" and "[t]o promote compliance with legislation on child labor."211 When asked about child labor in the banana sector, however, the head of the National Committee for the Progressive Elimination of Child Labor told Human Rights Watch, "In the banana sector, we have not entered very directly. The child labor is hidden. It takes place at the level of the nuclear family. . . . This work has not yet been measured, and we cannot, for now, establish its level." He added that the committee has obtained "results in some sectors, but in the banana sector, we do not have results."212

44 Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Angela Mirtans Oliveira, senior statistician, SIMPOC, Geneva, October 1, 2001.

45 Mauricio García, El trabajo y la educación de los niños y de los adolescents en el Ecuador [Work and education of children and adolescents in Ecuador] (Quito: United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), 1997), pp. 30-31, citing Servicio Ecuatoriano de Capacitación (SECAP), Encuesta de Conidiciones de Vida, 1994 [Ecuadorian Training Service (SECAP), Survey of Living Conditions, 1994].

46 Ibid., pp. 10, 34.

47 Instituto Nacional del Niño y la Familia; Sistema de Indicadores Sociales sobre los Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes; Secretaría de Estado de Desarrollo Humano; Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos; Sistema Integrado de Indicadores Socials del Ecuador, Los Niños y las Niñas del Ecuador [Boys and Girls of Ecuador] (Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala, 1999), p. 41.

48 Human Rights Watch interview, Bobby Flores, Naranjal, May 12, 2001. According to numerous workers, Balao Chico primarily produces for Dole. One child, Guillermo Guerrero, claimed that he, on occasion, saw the Reybanpac label on bananas produced by Balao Chico; three children, Guerrero, Renato Bermúdez, and Teresa Rivera, and one adult, Nora Ramírez, mentioned that they occasionally saw Del Monte stickers; two children, Guerrero and Bermúdez, reported seeing stickers for Noboa's brand name, Bonita; and one child, Rivera, said that she occasionally saw Chiquita stickers on the bananas produced on Balao Chico. Human Rights Watch interview, Julio Gutiérrez, Guayaquil, May 10, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Guillermo Guerrero, Naranjal, May 12, 2000; Human Rights Watch interview, Renato Bermúdez, Naranjal, May 12, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Teresa Rivera, Naranjal, May 20, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Nora Ramírez, Naranjal, May 20, 2001. Chiquita, however, denied that it purchased bananas from Balao Chico between 1995 and the end of June 2001. Letter from Jeffrey Zalla to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2001.

49 ILO Recommendation concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation) (ILO No. R190), June 17, 1999, Article 3(e).

50 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, December 16, 1966, Article 24(1). The ICCPR was ratified by Ecuador on March 6, 1969.

51 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 1, 32(1). Ecuador ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child on March 23, 1990.

52 Ibid., Article 4.

53 ILO Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (ILO No. 182), 38 I.L.M. 1207, June 17, 1999, Article 3(d). Ecuador ratified the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention on September 19, 2000.

54 Ibid., Article 1.

55 Ibid., Article 4(1).

56 Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, Article 3.

57 ILO Minimum Age Convention (ILO No. 138), June 26, 1973, Article 2(3). The Minimum Age Convention was ratified by Ecuador on September 19, 2000.

58 Ibid., Article 2(4).

59 Human Rights Watch interview, Marcos Santos, Naranjal, May 12, 2001.

60 U.S. EPA. (August 1999). Protecting Children from Pesticides. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/kidpesticide.htrm [July 31, 2001].

61 NRDC, Our Children at Risk: The 5 Worst Environmental Threats to Their Health (New York: NRDC, 1997), chapter 2.

62 NRDC, Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities (New York: NRDC, 1998), chapter 2.

63 WHO, The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2000-02 (Geneva: WHO, 2001), WHO/PCS/01.5, pp. 2, 21, 22, 53. Depending on their formulation, however, they may be "slightly toxic." Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Diazinon. [Online]. Available: http://www.pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles [July 31, 2001]; Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Chlorpyrifos. [Online]. Available: http://www.pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles [July 31, 2001]. Extension Toxicology Network publications are produced by the Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis. Significant funding is provided by the USDA/Extension Service/National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.

64 FAO, Guidelines for the management of small quantities of unwanted and obsolete pesticides (Rome: FAO, 1999), chapter 2.

65 U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. (July 11, 2001). Restricted Use Products Report: Six Month Summary List. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppmsd1/ RestProd/rup6mols.htm [July 31, 2001]. The "restricted use" classification "restricts a product, or its uses, to use by a certified pesticide applicator or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator." U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. (July 11, 2001). Restricted Use Products (RUP) Report. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ RestProd/ [September 14, 2001].

66 U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. (June 2000). Chlorpyrifos Revised Risk Assessment and Agreement with Registrants. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ pesticdes [July 31, 2001]. The agreement also sought to "mitigate worker risks" by requiring chlorpyrifos registrants to propose lower application rates, lower frequencies of treatment, and longer periods between applications.

67 CNN. (December 5, 2000). EPA phasing out popular ant and roach poison. [Online]. Available: http://www.cnn.com/200/NATURE/12/05 [August 4, 2001].

68 Helios Health. (June 13, 2000). Government Restricts Use of Popular Pesticide. [Online]. Available: http://www.helioshealth.com/cgi-bin/news [August 4, 2001]; CNN. (December 5, 2000). EPA phasing out popular ant and roach poison. [Online]; Andrew C. Revkin, "E.P.A. Sharply Curtails the Use of a Common Insecticide," New York Times, June 9, 2000.

69 NRDC, Trouble on the Farm . . . , chapter 1, glossary of terms; J. Routt Reigart, M.D. and James R. Roberts, M.D., M.P.H. (1999). Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare [August 4, 2001], p. 34.

70 NRDC, Trouble on the Farm . . . , chapter 1.; Reigart and Roberts, Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings. [Online]. . . . , p. 38; Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Diazinon. [Online].

71 Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Chlorpyrifos. [Online].

72 Center for Children's Health and the Environment. (2000). The Pesticide Chlorpyrifos: A Threat to Children. [Online]. Available: http://www.childenvironment.org/factsheets/ chlorpyrifos.htm [July 17, 2001].

73 Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Chlorpyrifos. [Online].

74 Ibid.

75 Human Rights Watch interview, Guillermo Guerrero.

76 Ibid.

77 Human Rights Watch interview, Carlos Ortiz, Naranjal, May 12, 2000. According to Ortiz, who told Human Rights Watch that he worked on plantation Santa Carla in 2000, Santa Carla sold sporadically to Del Monte, Noboa, and Chiquita. In a letter to Human Rights Watch, however, Chiquita asserted that it only purchased bananas from Santa Carla in 1999, not in 2000. Letter from Jeffrey Zalla to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2001. One child, Nicolas Bordón indicated to Human Rights Watch that Guabital also sold sporadically to Del Monte, Noboa, and Chiquita, while another child, Marcos Santos, remembered seeing Del Monte and Chiquita stickers on the bananas produced on Guabital. Human Rights Watch interview, Nicolas Bordón, Naranjal, May 12, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Marcos Santos. Chiquita denied that it purchased bananas from Guabital between 1995 and the end of June 2001. Letter from Jeffrey Zalla to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2001.

78 Human Rights Watch interview, Daniel Ríos, Naranjal, May 12, 2001.

79 Human Rights Watch interview, Gregorio Bonilla, Naranjal, May 12, 2001. According to Julio Gutiérrez, a retired banana worker, Predio Rústico La Rural, C.A., primarily produces for Dole, though it occasionally sold fruit to Chiquita as well. Human Rights Watch interview, Julio Gutiérrez, Naranjal, May 19, 2001. Chiquita denied that it purchased bananas from Predio Rústico La Rural, C.A., from 1995 through the end of June 2001. Letter from Jeffrey Zalla to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2001.

80 Human Rights Watch interview, Carlos Ortiz.

81 Human Rights Watch interview, Marta Mendoza, Balao, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Marta Mendoza, Balao, May 26, 2001. The large "Dole" sign, with "Las Fincas" written on the sign underneath the Dole logo, posted outside Las Fincas plantation group, that Human Rights Watch observed and photographed, strongly suggests that the four plantations composing Las Fincas all primarily produce for Dole. Five children also reported that, in addition to Dole stickers, they occasionally saw stickers from Del Monte on the bananas. Human Rights Watch interview, Marta Mendoza, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Violeta Chamorro, Balao, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, José Luis Chamorro, Balao, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Carla Chamorro, Balao, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Renato Rodríguez, Balao, May 19, 2001. Three children and an adult also claimed that they occasionally saw Chiquita stickers on the bananas produced by Las Fincas. Human Rights Watch interview, Leonardo Chamorro, Balao, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Renato Rodríguez; Human Rights Watch interview, Violeta Chamorro; Human Rights Watch interview, Rina Castro, Naranjal, May 20, 2001. Chiquita, however, denied that it purchased bananas from any of the Las Fincas plantations between 1995 and the end of June 2001. Letter from Jeffrey Zalla to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2001.

82 WHO, The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides . . . , pp. 20, 55.

83 Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Imazalil. [Online]. Available: http://www.pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles [July 31, 2001].

84 International Programme on Chemical Safety. (1996). Copyright Notice and Disclaimers for IPCS INCHEM on the Web. [Online]. Available: http://www.inchem.org/ disclaim.htm [August 4, 2001].

85 International Programme on Chemical Safety. (1993). Imazalil. [Online]. Available: http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1303.htm [August 4, 2001].

86 Product Label. (June 2, 1986). Fungaflor. [Online]. Available: http://oaspub.epa.gov/ pestlabl [August 9, 2001].

87 WHO, The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides . . . , pp. 36, 58. The Extension Toxicology Network, however, classifies thiabendazole as "slightly toxic," carrying the signal word "caution" on its label. Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Thiabendazole. [Online]. Available: http://www.pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles [July 31, 2001].

88 United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (November 27, 2000). Chemical Sampling Information: Thiabendazole. [Online]. Available: http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_271570.htm [July 31, 2001]; see also Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Thiabendazole. [Online].

89 Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Thiabendazole. [Online].

90 Product Label. (December 30, 1998). Mertect. [Online]. Available: http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl [August 9, 2001]; Product Label. (August 7, 1998). Mertect. [Online]. Available: http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl [August 9, 2001]; Product Label. (October 30, 1998). Mertect. [Online]. Available: http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl [August 9, 2001]; Product Label. (July 27, 1999). Mertect. [Online]. Available: http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl [August 9, 2001].

91 Human Rights Watch interview, Juanita Chamorro, Balao, May 19, 2001.

92 Human Rights Watch interview, Humberto Rojas, Naranjal, May 12, 2001.

93 Human Rights Watch interview, Armando Heredia, Naranjal, May 26, 2001. Four children working on San Miguel told Human Rights Watch that they very commonly saw Del Monte stickers on the bananas produced by the plantation. One added, however, that he also occasionally saw Noboa stickers. Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview, José Santana, Naranjal, May 26, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Simón Crúz, Naranjal, May 26, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Pablo Castillo, Naranjal, May 26, 2001.

94 Human Rights Watch interview, Ricardo Leiva, Balao, May 19, 2001. Leiva told Human Rights Watch that he also applied pesticides in the packing plant of San Gabriel, one of the plantations in the Las Fincas plantation group, and that he was also not given any protective equipment on San Gabriel. Workers told Human Rights Watch that "Paladines" primarily produces for Noboa, and Leiva also reported that Dole stickers were occasionally placed on the bananas. Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview, Timoteo Espinoza, Balao, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Julio Gutiérrez, Naranjal, May 26, 2001. "Paladines" is a nickname that workers have given this plantation, and no one with whom Human Rights Watch spoke knew the plantation's official name.

95 Human Rights Watch interview, Ricardo Leiva, Balao, May 26, 2001.

96 Human Rights Watch interview, Teresa Rivera.

97 Human Rights Watch interview, Marcos Santos.

98 WHO, The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides . . . , pp. 24, 31, 34, 52, 56-58.

99 Penn State Pesticide Education Office. (No date). EPA Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. [Online]. Available: http://www.pested.psu.edu/act12.htm [August 4, 2001]; 2002 Midwest Commercial Small Fruit & Grape Spray Guide. [Online]. Available: htttp://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/ext/sfg/default.html [February 4, 2002].

100 Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Mancozeb. [Online]. Available: http://www.pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles [July 31, 2001]; see also Information Ventures, Inc., for the USDA, Forest Service. (November 1995). Mancozeb Fact Sheet. [Online]. Available: http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/mancozeb.htm [August 3, 2001]; Reigart and Roberts, Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings. [Online]. . . . , p. 144; International Programme on Chemical Safety. (1993). Mancozeb. [Online]. Available: http://www.inchem.org/ documents/icsc/icsc/eics0754.htm [August 4, 2001].

101 2002 Midwest Commercial Small Fruit & Grape Spray Guide. [Online]; Product Label. (October 9, 1998). Benlate. [Online]. Available: http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl [August 9, 2001].

102 Pesticide Action Network. (March 2001). Azoxystrobin. [Online]. Available: http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/azoxystr.htm [August 3, 2001]; International Programme on Chemical Safety. (1993). Benomyl. [Online]. Available: http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0382.htm [August 4, 2001].

103 Extension Toxicology Network. (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Benomyl. [Online]. Available: http://www.pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles [August 3, 2001]. The U.S. EPA classification "possible human carcinogen" connotes "limited evidence of carcinogenicity in the absence of human data." Extension Toxicology Network. (August 31, 1992). Benomyl (Benlate) NAPIAP Profile on Benomyl 8/92. [Online]. Available: http://www.pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles [August 4, 2001].

104 Matthew Knowles, "DuPont ditches chemical linked to birth defects," Associated Newspapers Ltd., April 22, 2001; Jan Hollingsworth, "Suits shed light on DuPont's Benlate," Tampa Tribune, February 25, 2001; Lois Watson, "Blake talks up future as court battle looms," Independent Newspapers Ltd., August 16, 2001.

105 DuPont Daily News. (April 19, 2001). DuPont Statement: DuPont to Phase Out Sale of Benlate. [Online]. Available: http://www.dupont.com/corp/news/releases/2001/ nr04_19_01.html [August 4, 2001].

106 Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Linda Arrington, ombudsman for the Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, September 21, 2001.

107 Dr. A. Michael Warhurst, environmental chemist, Friends of the Earth. (July 2000). Pesticides. [Online]. Available: http://website.lineone.net/~mwarhurst/pesticides.htm [August 3, 2001], citing ENDS 1999, "Industry Glimpses New Challenges as Endocrine Science Advances," ENDS Report 290 (1999), pp. 26-30; Pesticide Action Network. (No Date). Tridemorph Fact Sheet. [Online]. Available: http://www.gn.apc.org/ pesticidestrust/aifacts/tridemor.htm [August 3, 2001].

108 Pesticide Action Network Pesticide Database. (May 21, 2001). Endocrine disrupters. [Online]. Available: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/documentation3/ref_toxicity5.htm [August 3, 2001].

109 Information Ventures, Inc., for the USDA, Forest Service. (November 1995). Propiconazole Fact Sheet. [Online]. Available: http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/propicon.htm [August 3, 2001]; Pesticide Action Network. (June 1999). Tridemorph. [Online]. Available: http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/tridemor.htm [August 3, 2001].

110 Information Ventures, Inc., for the USDA, Forest Service. (November 1995). Propiconazole Fact Sheet. [Online]; Extension Toxicology Network (March 1, 2001). Pesticide Information Profile: Propiconazole. [Online]. Available: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles [August 3, 2001].

111 Product Label. (February 28, 2001). Tilt. [Online]. Available: http://oaspub.epa.gov/ pestlabl [August 9, 2001]; Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Linda Arrington, U.S. EPA.

112 Human Rights Watch interview, Diego Rosales, Naranjal, May 12, 2001.

113 Human Rights Watch interview, Fabiola Cardozo, Balao, May 19, 2001.

114 Human Rights Watch interview, Carolina Chamorro, Balao, May 19, 2001.

115 Human Rights Watch interview, Susana Gómez, Naranjal, May 20, 2001.

116 Human Rights Watch interview, Cristóbal Alvarez, Naranjal, May 12, 2001. When he was eleven, Cristóbal Alvarez was working on plantation Guabital.

117 Human Rights Watch interview, Enrique Gallana, Balao, May 12, 2001. According to Julio Gutiérrez, the retired banana worker with whom Human Rights Watch spoke, San Carlos primarily produces for Noboa. Gutiérrez and two other children working on San Carlos also mentioned, however, that the plantation produced occasionally for Dole and Del Monte. Human Rights Watch interview, Julio Gutiérrez, Naranjal, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Leonardo Chamorro; Human Rights Watch interview, Carla Chamorro.

118 Human Rights Watch interview, Fabiola Cardozo; Human Rights Watch interview, Marta Mendoza, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Eduardo Martínez, Naranjal, May 12, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Ana López, Naranjal, May 12, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Lisa Moreno, Balao, May 27, 2001. Fabiola Cardozo and Marta Mendoza were working in packing plants on the four plantations of Las Fincas. Eduardo Martínez and Ana López both were working in the fields of Balao Chico. Lisa Moreno was working in packing plants on Colón and Pachina. Lisa Moreno and another child worker told Human Rights Watch that Pachina primarily produces for Dole, and Lisa Moreno also stated that she occasionally saw stickers for Del Monte and Noboa on the plantation's bananas. The large sign near plantation Pachina with the name Pachina printed under the Dole corporate logo that Human Rights Watch observed and photographed strongly suggests that Pachina primarily supplies Dole. Juan Luis Alfaro, an adult working on Colón for six years, and two children, Mateo Montoya and Lisa Moreno, told Human Rights Watch that Colón primarily produces for Noboa. Alfaro reported also occasionally seeing stickers for Chiquita and Dole, and Lisa Moreno reported seeing stickers for Del Monte and Dole. Human Rights Watch interview, Juan Luis Alfaro, Balao, May 27, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Mateo Montoya, Balao, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Lisa Moreno. Chiquita, however, denied that it purchased bananas from Colón between 1995 and the end of June 2001. Letter from Jeffrey Zalla to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2001.

119 Human Rights Watch interview, Eduardo Martínez.

120 Human Rights Watch interview, Armando Heredia.

121 U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. (February 20, 2001). Spray Drift of Pesticides. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/spraydrift.htm [August 3, 2001].

122 Human Rights Watch interview, Fabiola Cardozo.

123 Human Rights Watch interview, Cristóbal Alvarez. Julio Gutiérrez, the retired banana worker with whom Human Rights Watch spoke, and Cristóbal Alvarez told Human Rights Watch that Frutos Bellos, C.A., primarily produces for Dole. Another little boy agreed but stated that he also, occasionally, saw Noboa stickers. Ibid.; Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Julio Gutiérrez, Guayaquil, July 5, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Roberto Pérez, Naranjal, May 12, 2001.

124 Human Rights Watch interview, Leonardo Chamorro.

125 Human Rights Watch interview, Pedro Sandoval, Balao, May 27, 2001. Sandoval told Human Rights Watch that Porvenir primarily produces for Dole, and Human Rights Watch saw and photographed a sign containing both the Dole corporate logo and the plantation name Porvenir, providing strong evidence corroborating Sandoval's claim.

126 Human Rights Watch interview, Carla Chamorro.

127 Human Rights Watch interview, Carlos Ortiz.

128 Human Rights Watch interview, Enrique Gallana.

129 Human Rights Watch interview, Guillermo Salguero, engineer, Workplace Risks Division, Ecuadorian Institute for Social Security, Guayaquil, May 17, 2001.

130 Human Rights Watch interview, Diego Rosales.

131 Human Rights Watch interview, Carlos Ortiz.

132 Human Rights Watch interview, Marta Mendoza, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Marta Cárdenas, Balao, May 19, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Fabiola Cardozo.

133 Human Rights Watch interview, Jorge Arrata, Balao, May 27, 2001. Arrata told Human Rights Watch that plantation San José, owned by Parazul, S.A., primarily produces for Dole, and Human Rights Watch interviewed the administrator of the plantation, who confirmed this information. Human Rights Watch also saw a sign with the Dole corporate logo and the plantation name San José, Parazul, S.A., printed underneath, strongly suggesting that the plantation primarily supplies Dole.

134 Human Rights Watch interview, Guillermo Guerrero. Carlos Ortiz also explained that he sometimes drank water from the canals when he was working in the fields because the only potable water was in the packing plant. Human Rights Watch interview, Carlos Ortiz.

135 See, e.g., Carrie McCracken. (1998). The Impacts of Banana Plantation Development in Central America. [Online]. Available: http://members.tripod.com/foro_emaus/ BanPlantsCA.htm [September 4, 2001]; Dr. Yamileth Astorga. (1998). The Environmental Impact of the Banana Industry: A Case Study of Costa Rica. [Online]. Available: http://www.bananalink.org.uk/impact/impact.htm [September 4, 2001].

136 Human Rights Watch interview, Diego Rosales.

137 Human Rights Watch interview, Enrique Gallana.

138 Human Rights Watch interview, Marta Mendoza, May 19, 2001.

139 Human Rights Watch interview, Miriam Campos, Balao, May 19, 2001.

140 Human Rights Watch interview, Fabiola Cardozo.

141 Human Rights Watch interview, Sara Portillo, Naranjal, May 20, 2001.

142 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, G.A. Res. 34/180, 34 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 46) at 193, U.N. Doc. A/34/46, December 18, 1979, Article 6. CEDAW was ratified by Ecuador on November 9, 1981.

143 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 19, A/47/38, 1992, paras. 17, 18.

144 The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women, OAS/ser.L/II.2.27, CIM/doc.33/94, June 9, 1994, Article 2(b). Ecuador ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará on September 15, 1995. The convention defines violence against women as "any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or private sphere." Ibid., Article 1.

145 Convention of Belém do Pará, Article 7; CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 19, A/47/38, 1992, para. 24(t).

146 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, Article 7(e).

147 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 32(1).

148 Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, Article 3(a).

149 Constitution, Article 23(3).

150 Labor Code, Article 79. The Labor Code also requires employers in each sector to hire a certain minimum percentage of women workers, a percentage established by Sector Commissions of the Ministry of Labor. Ibid., Article 42(34).

151 The United States Department of State has noted that, in Ecuador, "[i]n rural areas, many children attend school only sporadically after about 10 years of age in order to contribute to household income as farm laborers." United States Department of State. (February 2001). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.state.gov [September 7, 2001].

152 Human Rights Watch interview, Diego Rosales' mother, Naranjal, May 12, 2001.

153 Human Rights Watch interview, Jorge Arrata.

154 Human Rights Watch interview, Jorge Arrata's mother, Balao, May 27, 2001.

155 Human Rights Watch interview, Leonardo Chamorro. Leonardo Chamorro was working on plantation San José of plantation group Las Fincas in Balao, plantation San Carlos in Balao, and plantation Sociedad Predio Rústico Agrícola Italia or "Flor María" in Balao. Workers' reports and signage observed by Human Rights Watch strongly suggest that Sociedad Predio Rústico Agrícola Italia primarily produces for Noboa, though three child workers, Violeta Chamorro, Leonardo Chamorro, and Carla Chamorro, reported seeing Dole stickers occasionally placed on the bananas produced by the plantation, and Violeta Chamorro claimed to have seen Del Monte and Chiquita stickers as well. Human Rights Watch interview, Julio Gutiérrez, Naranjal, May 26, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview, Violeta Chamorro; Human Rights Watch interview, Carla Chamorro; Human Rights Watch interview, Leonardo Chamorro. Chiquita acknowledged that from 1997 through 1999, but not during 2000 nor 2001, it purchased bananas from Sociedad Predio Rústico Agrícola Italia. Letter from Jeffrey Zalla to Human Rights Watch, August 28, 2001. Violeta Chamorro told Human Rights Watch that she worked on Sociedad Predio Rústico Agrícola Italia between 1997 and 2001, Leonardo Chamorro from 1999 through 2001, and Carla Chamorro between 2000 and 2001.

156 Human Rights Watch interview, Jorge Arrata.

157 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 32(1), 28(1)(a), (e).

158 Ibid., Article 28(1)(a), (e).

159 Constitution, Articles 66, 67.

160 Minors' Code, Articles 24, 27.

161 Ibid., Article 156.

162 Ibid., Article 155(1).

163 Human Rights Watch interview, Judge Arturo Márquez, Quito Juvenile Court, Quito, May 9, 2001.

164 Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Lucia Guerra, chief financial administrator, Embassy of Ecuador in the United States, Washington, DC, July 17, 2001.

165 According to Guerra, the Ecuadorian government does not provide financial assistance to children unable to afford the fees associated with school matriculation.

166 Labor Code, Article 35.

167 Minors' Code, Article 155(1). The ILO Minimum Age Convention allows a country that specifies fourteen as a minimum age of employment, pursuant to article 2(4), to permit the employment of persons ages twelve and thirteen in light work "not likely to be harmful to their health or development" and "not such as to prejudice their attendance at school, their participation in vocational orientation or training programmes approved by the competent authority or their capacity to benefit from the instruction received." ILO Minimum Age Convention, Article 7.

168 Minors' Code, Article 157. In contrast, the Ecuadorian Labor Code does not restrict the work of children ages twelve or thirteen to apprenticeships and, instead, allows them to work as domestic workers and in other occupations, so long as juvenile courts verify that that they have completed or are completing the mandatory minimum schooling and have "evident need for work" to provide for themselves, parents, or grandparents living with them and unable to work, or younger siblings. Under the Labor Code, employers are required to obtain juvenile court authorization prior to hiring any child under fourteen. Labor Code, Article 134.

169 Labor Code Article 136.

170 Ibid., Article 150.

171 Minors' Code, Article 154. The Labor Code similarly prohibits children from working in jobs that "constitute a grave danger to the moral or physical development" of children. Labor Code, Article 138.

172 Minors' Code, Article 155(2); Labor Code, Article 138.

173 Labor Code, Article 139. Boys under sixteen are limited to thirty-five pounds, girls under eighteen to twenty pounds, and boys between sixteen and eighteen to fifty pounds. Ibid.

174 Ibid., Article 147. The registry must be sent to the Labor Directorate and the Director of Employment and Human Resources of the Ministry of Labor.

175 Ibid., Article 149.

176 Ibid., Article 553. The Department of Workplace Health and Safety of the Ministry of Labor is assigned to monitor workplaces "to demand compliance with the provisions regarding risk prevention and . . . health and safety." Ibid., Article 563(1); see also Regulation of Worker Health and Safety and Improvement of the Work Environment, Executive Decree 2393, Official Register, November 17, 1986, Article 3(7).

177 General Regulation to the Minors' Code, Executive Decree 2766, June 7, 1995, Article 64.

178 Labor Code, Article 151.f

179 Ibid., Articles 156, 626

180 Minors' Code, Article 161; General Regulation to the Minors' Code, Article 67.

181 Minors' Code, Article 154.

182 Labor Code, Article 151.f

183 The IMF has noted the "weakness of enforcement capabilities" for labor legislation in Ecuador. IMF, "Ecuador: Selected Issues and Statistical Annex" . . . , p. 58. Similarly, the United States Department of State found that, in Ecuador, "[i]n practice, the Ministry of Labor fails to enforce child labor laws, and child labor is prevalent." United States Department of State. (February 2001). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000. [Online].

184 Human Rights Watch interview, Berenice Cordero, UNICEF, Quito, May 7, 2001.

185 Human Rights Watch interview, Andrés Dueñas, director, Program for the Protection and Education of Working Boys and Girls (PNT), INNFA, Quito, May 7, 2001.

186 Ibid.

187 Human Rights Watch interview, Silvia Cevallos, director of labor inspectors for the coastal and Galápagos region, Ministry of Labor, Guayaquil, May 16, 2001.

188 Human Rights Watch interview, Efraín Duque, director, Labor Directorate for the Coastal and Galápagos Region, Ministry of Labor, Guayaquil, May 16, 2001.

189 Human Rights Watch interview, Silvia Cevallos.

190 ILO Labour Inspection Convention (ILO No. 81), July 11, 1947, Article 10. The Labour Inspection Convention was ratified by Ecuador on August 26, 1975.

191 Regulation of Workers' Safety and Health and Improvement of the Work Environment, Articles 39, 41, 175. In addition, the law specifically instructs banana producers to "install in their packing plants systems of chlorination/purification of water for human consumption." Regulation of Banana Plantation Environmental Health, Decree No. 0093, Official Register No. 406, March 24, 1994, Article 33.

192 Human Rights Watch interview, Dr. Luis Vásquez, director, National Subdirectorate of Workplace Risks, Ecuadorian Social Security Institute, Quito, May 9, 2001.

193 Human Rights Watch interview, Dr. Myriam Pozo, area of workplace health and safety, Ministry of Labor, Quito, May 23, 2001.

194 Ibid.

195 Human Rights Watch interview, Efraín Duque.

196 Human Rights Watch interview, Bolívar Moreno, banana plantation owner, Machala, May 14, 2001.

197 Human Rights Watch interview, Joaquín Vásquez, president, UROCAL, Machala, May 15, 2001.

198 Human Rights Watch interview, Andrés Arrata.

199 Human Rights Watch interview, Jorge Topanta, director, publicity and statistics, Association of Banana Producers Orenses, Machala, May 14, 2001.

200 Human Rights Watch interview, Antonio Romero, Balao, May 27, 2001.

201 Human Rights Watch interview, Gema Caranza, Guayaquil, May 10, 2001.

202 Labor Code, Article 151.f

203 Human Rights Watch interview, Judge Arturo Márquez.

204 "Estadísticas Realizadas en los Diferentes Tribunales de Menores del País, Enero a Diciembre del 2000" ["Statistics Kept in the Different Juvenile Courts in the Country, January to December 2000"].

205 Human Rights Watch interview, Berenice Cordero.

206 Human Rights Watch interview, Judge Arturo Márquez.

207 Human Rights Watch interview, Berenice Cordero.

208 General Regulation to the Minors' Code, Article 64.

209 Ibid., Article 65.

210 Human Rights Watch interview, Amparo Armas, national technical coordinator, Institutionality Project, INNFA, Quito, May 7, 2001.

211 Creation of the National Committee for the Progressive Elimination of Child Labor, Decree No. 792.

212 Human Rights Watch interview, Dr. Jorge Ortega, director, National Committee for the Progressive Elimination of Child Labor, Ministry of Labor, Quito, May 9, 2001. As mentioned above, none of the forty-five child workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch was working on a plantation owned by his or her family.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page