The shrimp industry in Bangladesh is vital to the economy and provides a major source of export earnings. Many children work in the Bangladeshi shrimp industry – how does this work affect them? Is banning child workers, as US legislation proposes, the answer?

In Bangladesh alone there are 21 million child workers and many work in ‘hidden’ occupations in the non-formal sector that is so poorly understood by policy makers. Evidence from research by Save the Children (UK) suggests that a significant number of children are involved in three sectors of Bangladesh's shrimp industry; shrimp fry catching, shrimp farming, and shrimp processing in depots. Much of this work threatens a number of child rights including the right to education, to health, to recreation and the right to freedom from harmful child work.

Very little is known, however, about the nature of children’s shrimp work or how important their income from this industry is to poor households. Children's work in the shrimp industry is threatened by possible US legislation banning the important of goods made by children, and by changes in methods of shrimp production encouraged by EU regulations. Past experience within the garments sector in Bangladesh suggests that the removal of children from one profession will not necessarily improve their lives and may instead push them into more harmful occupations.

A deeper understanding of the dynamics of poverty and children's shrimp work is needed to help prevent well-meaning policy initiatives from having an unintended negative effect on children.

Findings from this study include:

• The nature and effects of children's child work varies greatly in different sections of the shrimp industry, suggesting that it is important to differentiate when discussing child work.
• Some child shrimp workers work long hours, with depot workers working the longest hours in often unhygienic conditions; fry catching work can involve long hours in cold water, which can be detrimental to children's health; shrimp farm work is strenuous.
• Many girls work in processing depots where sexual abuse is prevalent. This can ruin their reputations, destroy marriage prospects and damage vital inter-household networks which are facilitated by marriage, as well as harming girls psychologically.
• Not all children work in the shrimp industry because of poverty, but it does offer employment to girls who have very limited income opportunities in rural areas. The pay, although poor, is comparatively better than in other jobs.
• Child shrimp work does add significantly to household income through cash and kind payments which are often used to buy essential food items and to pay for the schooling of non-working children.
• The relationship between school and shrimp work is by no means straightforward: most child shrimp workers do not have time to go to school. However, the work can often pay for schooling.

A variety of interventions are needed that target children working in different sections of the industry, and that target girls and boys separately. Unless compensation for the loss of benefits is provided, and attempts made to prevent children from being pushed into worse kinds of employment, banning children from shrimp work through trade sanctions is not the answer

Further policy implications include:

• Mitigating the negative consequences of children’s work, for example, by reducing working hours or offering schooling at times that are convenient for child shrimp workers. Programmes should be tailored to meet the needs of different children working in different occupations.
• The need to consider interconnecting factors including poverty and the climate of violence caused by shrimp cultivation, which puts all community members at risk.
• Consulting child workers - children have their own criteria for assessing their work and a failure to do so could lead to poor policy responses that do not truly reflect their needs.
• Considering a range of factors to improve children’s education, including potential income loss to families, direct costs of schooling, working hours, household poverty, and whether the family support and value education.

Source(s):
‘Not Small Fry. Children’s work in Bangladesh’s shrimp industry’, report by E. Delap and R. Lugg, Save The Children (UK) Bangladesh Programme in partnership with Uttaran NGO Bangladesh (1999)

Funded by: Save the Children (UK) Bangladesh Programme

id21 Research Highlight: 4 April 2001

Further Information:
Save the Children (UK)
House 28 - Road 16 (New)
Dhanmondi R/A
GPO Box 55
Dhaka 1209
Bangladesh

Tel: +880 2 817561-3
Fax: +880 2 817278
Contact the contributor: scfukbd@scfbangla.org

Save the Children, UK

Other related links:
One World focuses on child labour

Save the Children also works to end exploitative child labour

ILO aims to eliminate child labour and provides details on international law

Child Rights Information Network works to improve the lives of children

ICLARM focuses on research on living aquatic resources managment

One Fish features fisheries and aquatic research