CONSULTATIVE MEETING FOR WORKERS’ AND eMPLOYERS’ DELEGATES ON CRISIS RESPONSE

1. Background

Crises of various kinds - armed conflicts, natural disasters, financial and economic downturns and difficult political and social transitions - constitute a major feature of the world today, affecting almost half of the world’s countries. This makes it obligatory for all actors at the different levels to consider crises seriously in their work to mainstream efforts for their prevention, preparedness, resolution and tackling of their effects. There are many organizations actively involved in the area of crisis response and development. The ILO, from its mandate and its comparative advantage, has an important role to play. This advantage relates, inter alia, to its tripartite structure and emphasis on social dialogue that could play a significant role in preventing as well as tackling the effects of the crisis by helping to promote reconciliation and to build a consensus around economic and other objectives.

From its inception, the Infocus Programme on Crisis Response and Reconstruction (IFP/Crisis) has sought to develop partnerships with ILO constituents - labour ministries, employers’ and workers’ associations - to ensure coherence of views and approaches to the reconstruction process, in particular with respect to ILO concerns in the field of poverty alleviation, employment creation, labour standards, gender equality and social protection. Furthermore, the IFP/Crisis has been developing programmes geared towards building the capacity and enhancing the involvement of ILO’s constituents in crisis monitoring, prevention and tackling of the adverse consequences.

As an integral part of the Programme’s effort to inform and mobilise Employers’ and Workers’ Organizations towards an effective involvement in responding to the different types of crisis, this Consultative Meeting was jointly convened by ACTRAV, ACT/EMP and the IFP/Crisis on 7 June 2000.

2. Objectives

Among the Meeting’s objectives were: to share experiences of different crisis contexts; to gather insights into various initiatives undertaken, and roles played by the social partners in crisis prevention, resolution, post-crisis reconstruction and development efforts; and to assess the role that Employers’ and Workers’ Organizations can play in mobilizing resources for effective crisis response.

 

3. Participants

Invitations for the Meeting were extended by ACTRAV and ACT/EMP to the Workers’ and Employers’ delegates from crisis-affected ILO member States attending the 88th Session of the International Labour Conference. In addition, some Government Delegates, ILO officials and others were in attendance as Observers. The full list of participants is annexed to this report.

4. Summary of the issues discussed and proposed follow-up action

The Consultative Meeting began with a welcome address by the Director of the ILO IFP/Crisis, Ms. Date-Bah, and an overview of the programme by Mr. Krishnamurty (IFP/CRISIS). The latter covered the programme’s genesis, different types of crisis situations to which it aims to respond; its approaches, strategies, and means of action; as well as illustration of Employers’ and Workers’ Organizations’ involvement in crisis prevention and resolution around the world.

In their introductory remarks, Mr. Diallo (ACTRAV) and Mr. Grunewald (ACT/EMP) also added to the above observations by stressing the importance of the social partners’ role and also coordination with others in crisis response.

Main issues and concerns arising from the ensuing discussions can be summarised as follows:

• Most participants welcomed the ILO’s initiative to create a structure for crisis response and reconstruction whose importance was considered as long overdue, while complaining that ILO has been slow to respond to crisis situations affecting its member States.
• They expressed the hope that this would speed up the Organization’s response to crisis situation affecting many of its member States
• They stressed on the necessity to continue with, and intensify, efforts geared towards informing member States about the new programme.
• Furthermore, it was emphasized that the likely impact of ILO’s actions and initiatives in this field would depend on (i) an enhanced role of social partners in crisis prevention and resolution and in sensitizing and mobilising the international community around ILO’s values in crisis response; as well as (ii) on the degree of coherence and coordination between various ILO technical sectors, programmes, Headquarters’ and field structures.
• Some participants called for an enhanced display of crisis sensitivity among ILO’s officials and experts as well as an increased integration and targeting of crisis-affected countries in major ILO activities and programmes. Such a shift should be clearly reflected in the increased inclusion of crisis-related pertinent concerns in the agenda of ILO meetings.
• Several participants insisted on the need to pay close attention to the cumulative impact of various types of crisis. This was illustrated through the situation of countries which, like Burundi, were suffering not only as a result of political conflict alone, but also because of an embargo in international trade and assistance that had halted trade and aid. While the sanctions were meant to hurt politicians, who represented but a small percentage of the population, it was the whole population that had been affected by the failure of businesses and the loss of jobs. Especially hurt were entrepreneurs who were forced to close their businesses, thus leaving many workers unemployed. It was further noted that not only did the international community arrive too late, but also when it did, its actions hurt the people more than they helped them.
• There was a call for ILO to emphasize the implementation of the Global Compact in crisis-related situations and to initiate dialogue with International agencies and NGOs to develop appropriate frameworks for guiding the working relationships with conditions of locally recruited employees in the post-crisis contexts. Some participants suggested that the IFP/CRISIS work should explicitly include the sensitization of various crisis relief bodies and the BrettonWoods institutions in order to enhance the protection and dignity of workers - their staff - in crisis related situations. This concern stemmed from the fact that sometimes the relief activities of international organizations actually planted the seeds for future disparities and inequalities in working conditions. For example, in the former Yugoslavia, a teacher would earn about DM 200 per month, while a translator working for an international organization could make many times more, even DM 1500 per month. This had the effect of taking teachers away from their usual activities because of the enormous disparities caused by international organizations in their relief activities. The end-result was that in many villages there was a school, but no teachers. Language teachers were especially scarce as they tended to be recruited by the agencies as translators.
• There was concern about the tremendous disparities in the working conditions of expatriates and local employees of international organizations when they were conducting field activities in the crisis contexts. It was mentioned that expatriates sent to work in places such as East Timor got many benefits and perks that were not accessible to local personnel. Some problems with collective bargaining, salary and wage practices were also noted. The UNTAET representative denied this claim and drew attention to several positive measures taken to promote better communication and labour codes in East Timor, with the help of the ILO.
• In terms of follow-up action, most participants recommended that the IFP/CRISIS should organise workshops and colloquia, with the involvement of the social partners, to facilitate and promote the sharing of experience on initiatives and best practices pertaining to crisis prevention and resolution, reintegration of the diverse crisis-affected groups and reconstruction of their communities.

GOMES, Aureliano, M., Directeur général du Travail, de la Formation et de la Qualification professionnelle

LOPES DJALO, Agostinho M., Conseiller juridique en matière de Travail et de Sécurité sociale

NZISABIRA, Gaspard, M., Secrétaire exécutif, Association des Employeurs du Burundi

IAMEDI INCADA, Abel, M., Représentant, Chambre de Commerce, Industrie et Agriculture

NTAMBWE-TIKENGE, Maurice, M., Employeur

MUSSANHANE, Egas, Mr., President, Confederation of Economic Associations

NAWATOVU SSENABULYA, Rosemary, Mrs., Executive Director, Federation of Uganda Employers

NIOKA, J.B., Mr., Employeur

MATHESON, Alan, Mr., International Officer, Australian Council of trade Unions (ACTU)

MONYAKE, Monyake S., Mr., Secretary General, Botswana Federation of Trade Unions

NIYONGABO Anicet, M., Président, Confédération de Syndicats du Burundi (COSYBU)

ROSTOM, Mostafa Zaki, Mr., Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions

CAMARA, Sello, M., Secrétaire général, Confédération générale des Syndicats indépendants (CGDI)

MURANGIRA, François, M., Travailleur

SOW, Bayla, M., Secrétaire, Relations Extérieures (CNTS)

NOONAN, Rosslyn, Ms., Education International

KANG, Min Whee, Ms., UNTAET

ILO Staff

ALI IBRAHIM, Mr., Director, ILO Office Dar es Salaam

CORDON Roberto, Mr., IFP/CRISIS

DATE-BAH, Eugenia, Ms., Director, IFP/CRISIS

DIALLO, Abdoulaye, Mr., ACTRAV

GRUNEWALD, Bjorn, Mr., ACT/EMP

KABUNDI, Mpenga, Mr., IFP/CRISIS

KLOTZBUECHER, Karin, Ms., ROAP Bangkok

KRISHNAMURTY, Jaya, Mr., IFP/CRISIS

LAZARTE-HOYLE, Alfredo, Mr., IFP/CRISIS

MONTEIRO Francisco, Mr., ILO/EMAS Dakar